The Courier

The other frequently asked question is whether or not aid can be an obstacle to development. The answer is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It is ‘no’ in the case of relations linking the two blocs that concern us. While EU aid has not developed Africa, in many countries it has contributed greatly to preventing the collapse of vital sectors such as education and health. At the same time, through the construction of major infrastructure, it has made local development initiatives possible.

This cooperation is unique in more than one sense. Firstly, its use is defined by the recipient and not by the donor. The European Union sets the amount of aid granted to each ACP country or region over a period of time, usually five years. The aid is the subject of a long-term contract with both sides given the possibility of modifying it. It puts into place specific joint institutions within which all the EU and ACP countries are represented. These institutions bring together ministers (Council), members of parliament (Joint Parliamentary Assembly), and ambassadors (Council of Ambassadors), etc. What is more, these relations do not only extend to officials, but also between members of civil society and other non-state bodies (such as the EU Economic and Social Committee and representatives of similar organisations from all the ACP regions).

This is multilateral cooperation and as such, reduces the risks of fraud or quid pro quo arrangements, for example between a former colonising country and the country that was colonised. Therefore, it is aid with fewer strings attached rather than aid agreed in bi-lateral negotiations between a single country and a set of powerful donors, as is the case with international financial institutions.
Compared with bilateral agreements between rich and poor countries, it is aid of a more transparent nature. The companies involved in implementing it are selected on the basis of a call for tenders issued to potential contractors in all European Union, ACP countries, and even third countries. But there is a slight preference – given parity of quality – for consortia that include the ACP. The aid is also supposed to be free of the politics of national agendas.

The cooperation is the subject of continuous negotiations about the content of aid. It has evolved since the 1st Yaoundé Convention (1963), six years after the Treaty of Rome and amid the wave of independence that swept across African countries. We have moved from aid projects to aid programmes and recently towards budgetary aid, especially in countries with acknowledged good governance. This has made it possible to channel resources directly into a national budget drawn up completely independently.
Initially centred on rural development and infrastructure, cooperation has spread to a growing number of economic, political, cultural and security fields. No subject is taboo any longer. The fight against drugs, weapons of mass destruction, illegal immigration and security are now not only components of political dialogue, but also the subject of concrete projects.

There has been development, too, on the European side. Whereas the Commission was traditionally the most involved party, the Council is now more involved, as in the elections in the DRC, for example. Members of Parliament also have more say when it comes to the budget and the implementation of cooperation.

The most remarkable development in the field of cooperation is the ongoing trade negotiations for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) that, in principle, from 2008 will bind the EU Member States to the various ACP regions. These agreements are intended to use trade as a development instrument while at the same time strengthening trade between ACP countries, ACP regions and the rest of the world. Although opinions have often been divided about their practicality, more recently, the views of the ACP and EU countries have converged and there is reason to believe that the agreements will be signed – the principal reservations now being limited to final deadlines. Within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU and the ACP – while sometimes at odds with each other – project an image of a strong alliance that is unique between rich and poor nations in such bodies.

Over the years, cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries has also been unique in another way: the evolving identity of countries and their people. Born of the Europe of six Member States and former French African colonies, ACP-EU cooperation has embraced former colonial powers such as the United Kingdom and Spain as well as their former African, Caribbean and Pacific colonies. It has also expanded to include countries with no colonial past with the ACP. The Lomé-Cotonou process was an opportunity to smooth relations between former colonisers and the colonised within a more balanced and friendly relationship. A parallel can be drawn here with the current revolution in the European Union today, where old enmities have been converted into opportunities for mutual cooperation and understanding.