The Courier

A. M. R. – As a Member of the European Parliament you have been involved in Europe- Africa relations since the end of the 1960s. What can you tell us about the origins of the Lomé Treaty?

G. B. – I can let you in on the origins of the name. During meetings in Mauritius in October 1974, an agreement was signed on new institutional structures in a new Convention to replace Yaoundé II. Under it, a new Assembly of European and ACP representatives was agreed upon, with bigger powers than before and including the wider participation of African countries, from 18 to 46 nations. But the problem was finding a name for the new Treaty! Lagos and Nairobi were both in the frame, but there was opposition from francophone countries. I invited some of the main players of the Mauritius meetings back for discussions in Bologna Italy, together with the Togolese Ambassador Dagadou. At our closing lunch, I casually came up with the suggestion of the ‘Lomé Convention’, in honour of Dagadou. At that time, Dagadou was the moderator and the chair of the Committee of ACP Ambassadors. The choice of a big country threatened the unity of the ACP group, but a small country like Togo was not so much of a threat. At the beginning this proposal seemed like a bit of a joke but then the idea got back to Brussels and gathered support.

A. M. R. – Since the 1990s there has been criticism of the Lomé Convention for its failure to solve the problems of poverty and under-development. What’s your view?

G. B. – We first have to take into account that the challenge was an extremely difficult one. In 1957, 50 out of 53 African countries were colonies or controlled territories. The independence and the liberation movements brought non-democratic regimes to power. Between 1962 and 1989, only Botswana, Senegal and Mauritius had democratic governments, and this characteristic has been fundamental to their prosperity and economic growth in comparison to the other countries where the single-party systems, backed by one foreign power, have prevailed. We mustn’t forget that during those times, in Africa, the Third World War was being fought between the two blocs into which the world was then divided. The nuclear threat meant that it couldn’t be battled out in the North. It was fought out in Africa.
 
For the past 30 years, we have promoted the creation of parliaments in all ACP countries, and improvements to agricultural production have been achieved in many, notably in those where hunger and poverty previously resulted in many deaths. We fought against apartheid, until its abolition. From a dreadful colonial heritage, 45 years on, the African Union (AU) has its own constitution, a central government, regional governments and a Parliament. We have to consider where we started. I want to stress here that EU policy has taken a very different course from that of the US because it is not based on military intervention, but on using moral values and principles, on constant mediation which is often not visible but has been decisive in many situations.

A. M. R. – So, it’s a success story for the “export of democracy”. But the violation of human rights is still a problem in many of these countries. Perhaps the EU sometimes turns a blind eye to such issues?

G. B. We recognised the principle under Lomé III, but the problem was to decide who was to be responsible for looking into possible violations and subsequently deciding on sanctions. Neither the Council of Ministers nor the Commission could take on the task. In 1984, the Presidency of the Assembly decided to assume the role and presented specific cases of human rights violations to the Parliamentary Assembly.

In 1986, there was a difficult approval of the regulation. From that moment human rights issues have always topped the agenda of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly.

I remember the time when I called Siad Barre, the Somali President, during a meeting of the Assembly. He had pronounced death warrants for three opposition leaders. I requested respective pardons based on the Assembly’s principles. The following day as the Assembly met, he called me to say that the death penalties had been commuted to a decision to exile the leaders.

Another difficult negotiation was one with President Menghistu of Ethiopia, who was at the time holding the ninety year old sister of Hailé Selassié prisoner. In this case, the intervention of the Ethiopian co-President of the Assembly was very important. The lady was allowed exile in London.

A.M.R. – How have the 50 years of the Treaty of Rome been celebrated?

G. B. – There have been many celebrations but discussions have been sparse on the fact that the Treaty of Rome contained the essence of cooperation with third countries. It was an integral aspect of the text, Part IV. It was one of the most difficult and debated issues: France and Belgium wanted to transfer to the then newly founded European Economic Community the burden of colonial and post-colonial management. The Germans were opposed considering it “a poisoned chalice”. The solution was a model of “equal partnership” with colonial countries, involving lengthy discussions where nothing could be taken for granted and everything had to be negotiated! Back then the idea of creating a “Fund for the development of overseas countries and territories” had already surfaced. The problem is that the level of funding has never sufficed.

A.M.R. – You are familiar with the former ACP-EU Courier... What do you think about the new edition?

G. B. – Considering the media’s disregard for cooperation issues, The Courier has the possibility and duty of spreading innovative and different information to enhance mutual understanding between EU and ACP countries. I wish you all the best and I urge you not to stop in front of “the rocks that you may face during navigation” and to aim at courageous information which goes beyond the purely technical to reach readers’ hearts.