Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - Strasbourg

6. EU – Africa Summit (Cairo, 3 and 4 April 2000)

  President. – The next item is the Council statement on the EU-Africa Summit held in Cairo on 3 and 4 April 2000.

  Gama, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Cairo Summit represents the result of four years of diplomatic work which has enabled the countries of the European Union and Africa to come together for this initiative, the first under this framework, overcoming many problems throughout the process, both of substance and of form. The Cairo Summit instituted a mechanism for global dialogue at the highest political level which will enable us to add a new dimension to EU-Africa relations which have, until now, been limited either to bilateral frameworks or to regional platforms for dialogue, be they the ACP mechanism or the Barcelona Process. The summit represents a turning point in relations between the two continents and will enable the European Union to make its strategic partnership with Africa as strong as its partnerships with Asia, the Gulf States or with Latin America.

The first sure indication of its success and of its historic importance was the level of representation of European and African countries: 58 countries – 45 from Africa and 13 from Europe – were represented at Head of State or Government level. This ensured that all issues of common interest to the European Union and Africa were addressed, and on an equal footing, since both sides had the opportunity to express their concerns and also their common objectives. In this context, all issues covered by these concerns and objectives – economic, political and development issues – were discussed in a frank and straightforward way.

I would like to highlight some significant measures adopted by the summit. In economic terms, understanding was reached on the need to define policies which will enable African countries to gain maximum benefit from the liberalisation of trade throughout the world, thus reversing the current trend of consistently and progressively marginalising Africa in world trade. The commitment to reduce world poverty to half its present levels by 2015 was reiterated. On the important issue of African debt, and despite the fact that at the summit a huge range of countries stated their national policies on this issue, it was stipulated that the bi-regional group of senior officials, which will in the first instance ensure that the summit’s decisions are implemented, will prepare a report on the debt situation in African countries. This report will then be studied at ministerial level, under the summit’s monitoring mechanism. On the other hand, the African countries committed themselves to promote and respect human rights, to eliminate patterns of discrimination against women, to fully support the establishment of the International Criminal Court and to combat discrimination and intolerance. In the area of good governance and the rule of law, both parties demonstrated their commitment to adopting specific measures to prevent and combat bribery, corruption and nepotism. In this context, they expressed their willingness to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee that illegally obtained public funds deposited in foreign banks should be subject to investigation and returned to their rightful owners in the countries of origin. Concern was also expressed about the harmful effect on development of military expenditure, which is constantly increasing.

Other important issues such as education, AIDS and the environment were addressed under the theme of development, with the understanding that these are essential elements of the challenge of sustainable development in Africa and of eradicating poverty. One fundamental area of dispute between Europe and Africa is returning stolen or illegally exported cultural goods. Some progress was made on this issue too. The bi-regional group of senior officials will prepare a report for assessment at ministerial level of the viability of taking further action in this area.

The last part of the action plan concerns the monitoring mechanisms. These mechanisms will guarantee the continuity of this overall dialogue between Europe and Africa at the highest political level, at ministerial and senior official level, and it has already been established that the second summit will be held in Europe in 2003, thus ensuring continuity with this process that has now begun with the first EU-Africa Summit – the Cairo Summit.

  Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, the holding of the summit was in itself a success achieved after considerable difficulties. These difficulties – mostly of a political character – remain and need to be tackled by Africa and Europe, both separately and jointly. The summit was the first encounter at the highest political level between Africa and the countries of the EU. It will add a new strategic and global dimension to the existing relationship between Africa and Europe and will bring that relationship to the same level as that we already have with Asia and Latin America.

The EU already has a deep and broad relationship with Africa, notably in the field of development, where that relationship is unique and backed up by substantial finance. We are spending development assistance money at the level of EUR 2.5 bn per year. For our part, we have done what we should do and more if we look at the HIPC initiative to help the highly-indebted poor countries. Here the EU is still waiting for a number of G7 countries to play their part.

We want to see the African countries as equal partners in the 21st century – the first century they are entering as independent states. The EU has a comparative advantage in regional integration that Africa can benefit from, and we will ensure it benefits from it in the coming years, when the organisation of regional economic cooperation will dominate the agenda in Africa.

The summit provided an opportunity for useful discussions on debt and other bilateral problems. It also provided an opportunity to underline the need for Africans to participate actively in the WTO process and to seek support for the Community's approach. It was possible for the EU to tackle politically sensitive issues, such as good governance and human rights, with African leaders at the summit. Other difficult questions, such as the question of the return of cultural goods, were also discussed.

The declaration and plan of action adopted at the summit take account of the sensitivities on both sides. Internationally recognised principles, in particular human rights, are respected and clearly reflected in the declaration. This is important to note in view also of the very few statements made during the summit that deviated somewhat from this general consensus about the basic principles that we and others take for granted.

It is regrettable that the civil society forum could not take place in Cairo but representatives of the forum were received in Cairo in the margins of the summit. The text adopted in Lisbon by the forum was widely distributed by the Algerian and Portuguese presidencies.

The follow-up to the summit should enable the EU to round off its existing relationship with Africa with a high-level relationship covering, in particular, a continental approach to political and security questions as well as economic issues.

The Commission will endeavour to make a success of the meetings of the bi-regional group to be held at senior official level. The ministerial-level meeting to be held between summits should concentrate on questions which concern the entire continent, meaning a continental approach must be taken to political and security questions and questions which are not covered by the mechanisms set up under the existing ACP-EU, Mediterranean and South Africa agreements. Our view is that the follow-up to the summit should wherever possible be pursued through existing mechanisms.

The background is that we already have a credible working relationship. With the new EU-ACP Convention being successfully concluded a few months ago and with the EU-South Africa cooperation agreement now being implemented as planned, we have two very important additions to the MEDA cooperation and the Barcelona process. This means that we have not only the perspective of this Cairo summit but also a well-established basis to continue, widen and improve our daily work.

  Corrie (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome the fact that the Cairo EU-African summit took place, but I must stress my disappointment that no one from this democratically elected Parliament had the opportunity to address the summit, nor did NGOs have any input. At the very least, the two Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly could have made statements and this would have given an EU-African balance.

Members of this Parliament, through the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly, have laid the foundation for many of the policies in the developing countries: the Martens report in 1997 pointing to the benefits of the Lomé Agreement; the Rocard report in 1998 strengthening the objectives for the future; my own report in 1999 on regional cooperation and integration which is top of the Cairo plan of action agenda; lastly, Mrs Kinnock's excellent report in 2000 on the future ACP-EU partnership agreement that sets the scene for the next 20 years. The final Cairo plan of action is an excellent document if we can now turn words and good intentions into concrete actions.

I know debt relief was at the top of the African agenda and everything must be done to alleviate poverty, but we must have some evidence that funds saved go towards better health care, better education and an improved standard of living for people and not into arms and war materials.

For these ideas to come to fruition, African countries themselves have to make the effort towards good governance. We have already seen some good election results. Let us hope that we can see the same happening in Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast and Togo in the forthcoming elections.

The top priority of regional cooperation and integration should have strong political benefits as well as trade ones. With only 6% of African trade being carried out in Africa there is huge potential for an increase in trade if tariff barriers and trade barriers are removed.

Many of these countries will need both time and financial help to compete in the world market, but these countries must understand there is no other option in this new era of globalisation. This is all unattainable without peace and peace-building; conflict prevention, management and resolution must be top of the African agenda.

The OAU must be given international support to continue its work and the peace initiatives must come from the African countries themselves. Where peace is achieved, help must be given for demobilisation and reintegration, and the use of child soldiers below the age of 18 must be banned.

Ethnic cleansing has been the horror of the last 25 years, and religious wars destroy the very fabric of a country. Peace can bring prosperity. The main thrust of our aim therefore must be better education leading to better health care. Through AIDS and malaria, Africa is losing the very generation it needs to build its future.

This summit was a start but much has to be done to turn words into reality, and we, Members of this House, must be part of that new world.

  Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, I appreciate that wide-ranging coverage of the issues by Mr Corrie. I would like to concentrate on my view that poverty eradication in Africa must begin with children and the realisation of children’s rights.

The Cairo summit will be followed up by another forum in Dakar on basic education. The need for basic education is the single most important cause of global poverty. Therefore, we need to ensure that girls in particular have equal access at least to educational advantage. We can see that education will deliver, it will stimulate the economy, it will offer opportunities to control population and increase health awareness. Dakar is an opportunity to deliver on internationally agreed targets.

The EU should put its political will behind universal primary education by the year 2015. Clearly commitments made a decade ago have not materialised. Africa is falling deeper into mass illiteracy and poverty and being further marginalised from mainstream developments in the economic and democratic fields. In sub-Saharan Africa more children are out of school now than a decade ago. 40 million African children today are not attending school. One third of the classrooms in Africa do not even have a blackboard. They have no toilets. 70% of their schools do not have any clean water. Teachers are under-qualified, often unqualified, and they struggle without pencils, exercise books or blackboards, often trying to teach children who are simply too hungry to listen or concentrate.

Julius Nyrere, one of Africa’s most famous teachers, in those post-independence, optimistic days, said education is not a way of escaping poverty, it is a way of fighting it. Some of you may be aware that Julius Nyrere spent his spare time translating Shakespeare into Swahili. But that man’s wonderful dreams were lost. He lived to see one third of African men illiterate and two thirds of African women.

I urge the Commission and the Council to make the link between poverty eradication and basic education. The benefits for us all will be seen in increased child life expectancy, cuts in population growth and improvements in farm production. We have the blueprints and I urge all of those with the political will to take action, to deliver for the children of Africa.

  Dybkjær (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council for their reports on the Cairo summit and say how really surprising I think it is that there has never been a summit of this kind before. When, however, one learns that it took four years to arrange it, then this is not perhaps so extraordinary. Will anything come out of a meeting of this kind? Well, that probably depends upon how you look at it. If you start by considering the disasters, famine, conflicts and problems with AIDS which Africa faces, then, as Mr Prodi says, it is certainly a long way from Lisbon to Cairo, in which case not a lot will come out of the summit. But nor do I think that one could have expected it to. That was not, of course, the purpose of the summit. The purpose of the summit was to open a dialogue between the EU and African countries. That dialogue was in fact initiated, and it is safe to say that, at times, it was fairly unrestrained with its demonstrations and its wrangles or, in any case, point-scoring. I believe, moreover, that both Africa and the EU can learn from dialogues of this kind which, I believe, are also a prerequisite of our avoiding the risk of African countries’ displaying bitterness about the history they partly share with countries in Europe. I believe that the final document will prove to be an important reference point in connection with further cooperation between the EU and Africa. This is due firstly to the fact that the document in itself constitutes an important signal about increased cooperation between the EU and Africa and about the fact that we have not forgotten Africa, and secondly to the document’s emphasis upon the interrelatedness of democracy, politics and economics and upon the fact that Africa’s integration and development should not, therefore, be seen in divided and piecemeal terms but as integral parts of a single whole. Whether or not concrete results will be achieved in this way will depend, of course, upon the political will we show in the future.

  Rod (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cairo Summit gave rise to great expectation among African countries, particularly among those which hoped to see their debt cancelled. Europe’s response to this was to say that it was too great a call upon its own resources to move towards the complete cancellation of the debt.

On the contrary, we affirm the political need to restore balance in the relations between African and the European Union. After having plundered the natural resources of Africa very widely, and in fact continuing to do so, we must cancel our historical debt to them by cancelling their current debt to our banks. This would enable us to pursue relations on a sounder basis. And the Members of the European Union must stop lying.

We are asking African countries to respect democratic principles, but we are perpetuating antidemocratic practices in order to guarantee our own financial interests, in the style of Elf or Total, in a number of countries. We order African countries to guarantee the plurality of political parties and allow the NGOs freedom of expression, but we negotiate only with Heads of States, the majority of whom represent only themselves, forgetting to invite the NGOs to the Cairo Summit.

We are asking African countries to accord women a larger place in society, but we ought to begin by establishing parity in our own countries. Need I remind you that some European Union countries have less than 10% of women members in their national parliaments?

We expect the African countries to observe cease-fires, but we are fanning the flames of conflict with our arms exports to belligerents.

But none of this is the key issue. As long as the European Union does not provide itself with the resources to ensure that the agreements for the granting of mandatory licences for the production of medicines to combat the AIDS pandemic are applied, expecting any progress in the African economy will remain in the realms of the pious hope. For how can one expect a country in which a quarter of its young people are dying from AIDS every year to have a booming economy?

Once again, as we have already said, the European Union and the Member States must make their actions consistent with their statements. For, while we are hesitating, while we are shilly-shallying, while we are discussing, Africa is dying.

  Miranda (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, first of all I would like to emphasise that I consider the fact that this summit has been held to be extremely positive. It has always been our opinion that every effort should be made to achieve this objective, as we have always felt that it would be a good opportunity to launch a genuine partnership that would be of mutual benefit to both continents. But we also feel that the results of the summit fell considerably short of what was possible and indeed desirable. I even think that it was the difficulties along the way that led to the idea that the event should be held in the first place, orthe formal meeting and the group photo, and not what could and should result from it, with a view to establishing a strategy for this partnership on a new footing.

Indeed, the conclusions do not strike me as being adequate to address current needs and opportunities. It is obvious that economic issues are shaping a genuine rapprochement between the two continents, a fact which cannot be hidden by the individual positions of some Member States, which have a limited but positive influence. I am referring in particular to external debt relief for the LDCs. This is occurring because the European Union, which has been consistently and mistakenly withdrawing its cooperation, is being affected or guided in its cooperation with Africa by two fundamental ideas. On the one hand, by the prospect of transferring traditional, preferential relations to the rigid framework of the WTO, a fact that became obvious in negotiations on the post-Lomé agreement. On the other hand, by the priority being given to relations with Eastern Europe, which was clearly demonstrated by the cuts in expenditure on cooperation in the current budget year.

It is obvious that with this kind of outlook and in the light of the enormous problems and shortfalls facing most African countries in terms of the economy, the environment, health, infrastructure, conflict resolution and poverty, amongst others, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cement a genuine partnership which is effective and lasting. This is the route we must follow in the future. I say “must” because, contrary to what has just happened, I hope that in future the European Parliament and the NGOs will be part of this process. I also say this because I hope that this summit will at least contribute to a greater awareness of the real problems that exist in the field of cooperation with Africa, and that it will represent a warning call for the need to change tack in this area.

  Martinez (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the 1960s people used to say Africa was not on the right track, and now, in 2000, Africa has still not arrived. And why not? Because no destination was established. Where do you expect to get if you do not know where exactly you are heading? Africa’s initial objective was to achieve independence, with nation states instead of ethnic tribes, and the result was Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis, Nigeria, the Ibos, and Biafra. The next objective was Socialism, the fair-haired comrades. Black Africa was supposed to turn red. The result was famine in Ethiopia, Algeria’s agriculture destroyed, not to mention Guinea under Sékou Touré. The white man, Mitterand, then offered Africa parliamentary democracy, parties instead of tribes. The result was a permanent situation of coup d’état, even in the Ivory Coast.

The present objective appears to be liberalism, the market, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation. The result is rebellion by the poor people of Tunis and the poor people of Casablanca at the rise in prices, European meat destroying the Fulani’s livestock farming in Africa, the Latin American banana destroying the Cameroon or Ivory Coast banana, and fats extracted from GMOs are about to destroy the Ivory Coast’s cocoa. All in all, from Socialist Africa to ultraliberal Africa, from the European Development Fund to the World Bank, from the summits in Bujumbura, Addis-Ababa, Nairobi, Casablanca, and now, on 3 April, Cairo, it is always the same assessment, the same threesome of poverty, epidemic and massacre.

Even so, on 4 January, the UN found the final solution, or the miracle cure: a proportion of the 800 million Africans would have to emigrate. They even set a figure: 159 million Africans were to be unloaded on Europe by 2025. In the same way that the problems of the inner city are not solved by building towns in the countryside, Africa’s problems will not be solved by shifting part of Africa to Europe.

The logical thing to do today is to apply to Africa what has worked elsewhere, what has worked wonders in our countries, in the United States, in Europe, the solution which in our countries created heavy industry, agriculture, the textile industry, the solution which in our countries created growth and sustainable development. There is one word for this solution – protectionism, and there is one instrument for this solution – customs barriers. This solution has been worked out in theoretical terms, and called ‘self-centred development’. And, what is more, the new Senegalese President is inspired by this, telling the young people that they should get involved rather than waiting for the billions to arrive from Europe.

In practical terms, Africa will achieve the first stage in growth according to the Rostow model if it protects its agriculture, its livestock farming, its self-employed craft industry, and its emergent economy. Opening up to the world market, on the other hand, will expose it to the law of the jungle and to the plundering of the natural resources of Africa, wood, oil, minerals, the flora and even the fauna, by multinationals. This is, moreover, what we have seen, ladies and gentlemen, with the privatisation of specific key sectors in Africa. For the Africans it was a negative outcome.

Africa does not therefore need either the cut-throat world economy or the economy of world charity, with the Holy Father and the Blessed Jacques Chirac, or the cancellation of a government debt of EUR 300 billion. The watchword of the solution is customs protection on the African side and, on the European side, intelligent intergovernmental cooperation, of which the Lomé Convention was a prime example. In this respect, the Mediterranean could serve as a test bench for a Euro-African policy which respects identities.

We in the Front National proposed a practical working method which involved dealing with the individual issues – water resources, soil erosion, desertification, the management of fisheries resources, livestock farming, pollution, control of migration flows – in a Marshall plan for the Mediterranean and Africa which would be funded from customs duties, reimbursable to African states in the form of open credit accounts in European banks. We have proposed an international organisation, with an intergovernmental high-secretariat of the Mediterranean. This would have its headquarters in Cairo, Tangiers or Tunis. An interparliamentary assembly, like that of the ACP. I feel that Athens would be the ideal site, or perhaps even a university in Valencia, Montpellier, Nice or Barcelona. And there perhaps the words of Raymond Loulle would hold sway. The practical implementation of these Euro-Mediterranean projects, respecting the identities of both shores, north and south, and involving around twenty Euro-Mediterranean states, would open the way to greater ambitions. It could then be extended to relations between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a great project, Mr President, on the scale of humanity as a whole, and humanity needs both Africans and Europeans. All the more reason not to flood Africa with the unregulated world economy and not to flood Europe with an influx of people. Humanity needs Africa where, it is said for the first time, in Kenya, man first stood upright, and humanity needs Europe where, for the first time, in Greece, thought first stood upright.

  Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, when Mr Solana came to visit our group last week and was questioned about the outcome of the Cairo Summit, his answer was that the atmosphere had been good, which is more important than an outcome. I disagree with him on this. Commissioner Nielson also said something to that effect. I think that the atmosphere is important, but as a basis for reaching sound agreements. If the agreements are not forthcoming, then a good atmosphere is neither here nor there. Nonetheless, an EU-Africa Summit is to be welcomed. I also feel positive about the Portuguese Presidency’s initiative. This huge continent is still beset with a lack of democracy, war, human rights violations, drought, flooding and chronic poverty affecting large parts of its population. There are most certainly a number of countries which are better off, which boast sound growth figures and where the first signs of prosperity are visible, but there are also countries where the situation has dramatically changed for the worse.

Mr President, the European Union has over the past 25 years invested a great deal of time and effort in development and cooperation. It is disappointing to have to state that this aid has not always had the required effect. In our opinion, we need a new Africa policy, a policy in which democracy and sound management are prerequisites for aid and cooperation. The Union can then also be expected to adapt its agricultural and trade policy in such a way that it is of more benefit to Africa and not, as is now often the case, a source of further disadvantage. In return, we can expect African countries to cooperate better at regional level, open up their markets and give their economies a fair chance. At the same time, Africa needs sound budget management combined with effective social policy, good education policy and sound health care. Excessive spending on defence or futile projects should be avoided.

Mr President, the African countries have asked us to clear their debts. This is vital for the poorest countries, especially if these enjoy good leadership and a balanced budget. But more than anything – as underlined by Commissioner Nielson –we need to treat Africa in an adult manner. We need to support what works but we also need to dare to speak up if certain things are unsuitable. We need to support good leaders and good governments, but offer no support to dictators, bad leadership or countries riddled with corruption. If the Africa Summit in Cairo has led to this kind of realism, then we have created more than just a good atmosphere and we are probably on the right track.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVAN
Vice-President

  Martínez Martínez (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, the recent Euro-African Summit has given rise to concern, even vexation, but at the same time, it has also given rise to satisfaction and hope. There was concern about the way the Summit was being managed – it did not even appear in the programme for the current six-month period – with moments of confusion, suspense and abundant rumour-mongering, which were incompatible with the seriousness and rigour which should be expected from the European Union given the importance of this historic meeting, the first to be held at the highest level between European and African leaders.

There was concern and vexation as a result of the way in which the European Parliament remained in the margins of the Summit process, partly due to our indifference. This marginalisation, and that of the African parliaments, demonstrated a considerable incoherence on the part of the organisers. It is incoherent to go around preaching good government, democracy and the rule of law while, in practice, ignoring the parliamentary institution which is essential for the realisation of those principles.

There was vexation on discovering that certain NGO meetings – the fora of civil society – which should have taken place in Cairo, sponsored by the European Commission itself, could not take place because of communication problems or the veto, still unclarified, of some part or other of the organisation of the Summit.

However, I said at the beginning that there were also positive aspects to this Cairo Summit which were cause for satisfaction and hope. There was satisfaction at the fact that the conference was able to take place at all – which in itself is a great thing – and we should therefore congratulate the Portuguese Presidency and Commissioner Nielson, whose efforts helped to overcome the difficulties, intrigues and lazy defeatism of many people who assumed that this summit would be suspended, although it was going to fill an unjustifiable vacuum in the external relations of the European Union.

There was also satisfaction with regard to some of the tangible results of the conference in areas such as the cancellation of debt, the elimination of anti-personnel mines and the return of cultural goods pillaged by colonial powers. Europe must now also commit itself to the prevention and resolution of armed conflicts, the provision of humanitarian aid for famines and the treatment of illnesses such as Aids or malaria which decimate the African population.

However, a Summit of this type should be an important source of hope, especially if it is not an isolated event but a first step in a process which we must set to work on immediately, in the expectation, furthermore, that relations between the European Union and Africa are going to change shape. I am not impressed by the current pattern of African partners requesting aid in order to resolve their problems, as a result of which the European partners merely grant a part of that aid and little more. We must go much further, much further than mere cooperation with development, which, by definition, is an unfair form of cooperation. We must create platforms for dialogue and cooperation in which Europeans and Africans can discuss common problems and put together joint strategies in order to act in a coordinated fashion within the world order, in which we must all play a principal role, in equality, dignity and responsibility. Thus, that world order will have to be more egalitarian, shared, cohesive, democratic and compatible with the values which we in the European Union proclaim as our distinguishing marks.

Mr President, taking this approach, we will vote in favour of the good resolution with which this debate will conclude.

  Van den Bos (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, except for photographs and fine words, the Africa Summit has yielded very little. Africa asked Europe for more market access and debt repayment, and got vague pledges in return. Europe asked Africa to respect human rights more, fight corruption and cease violent conflicts, and got vague pledges in return too.

The solemn declaration of Cairo was signed by governments which are anything but generous regarding clearing debts and opening up their own markets. The document is also signed by countries where human rights are being violated on a massive scale, where women are discriminated against, where the little funding that is available is used to massacre other population groups and where corruption has taken on almost ineradicable proportions.

Wealthy Europe must grant generous aid to Africa in support of democratic institutions, primary education and health care and must substantially lighten the debt burden. The African countries need to understand that, without proper government, none of their developments will come to fruition, and both continents need to realise that strict population policy is absolutely indispensable. On the photographs from Cairo, the African and European leaders may be rubbing shoulders with each other but, in reality, there is a yawning chasm separating the two continents.

  Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the first EU-Africa summit was an important event and had a great deal of potential for taking meaningful steps to reduce the marginalisation of African countries. So it is a pity that a number of things prevented that potential from being fully realised. Firstly, neither the European Parliament nor the EU-ACP Joint Assembly was invited to participate in the summit. Secondly, it is very sad that civil society was not able to have a greater input into the meeting. The NGOs from the EU and African countries took this summit very seriously and it was a missed opportunity not to engage in more meaningful dialogue with them. Civil society has a key role to play in Africa’s development process.

Finally, this meeting could have resulted in a far-reaching action plan of concrete actions. What we have is a plan full of warm words and good intentions but short on firm commitments, in particular on trade issues. While it is nice to recall the EU’s important decision to grant duty-free access for essentially all products, it would have been even more significant to have gone beyond the famous "essentially all" to include those products of real importance to the poorest countries, such as agricultural goods.

Finally – sadly – commodity prices were conspicuous by their absence from this agenda. A majority of African countries are overwhelmingly dependent on just one or two commodities for the bulk of their foreign exchange earnings. Until action is taken to reverse the fall of commodity prices, poverty in Africa will not be properly addressed.

  Sylla (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, wanting to achieve relations on the basis of partnership between the old continent and Africa means first of all putting a halt to the present system which operates to benefit the great powers and the corrupt elite of the south.

The continent of Africa is ravaged by epidemics such as the AIDS epidemic and by wars that are conspicuous, or sometimes forgotten. Antipersonnel mines continue to kill innocent people, arms of all kinds proliferate and fall into the hands of child-soldiers. The number of undernourished people in black Africa rose from 90 million in 1970 to 180 million in 1995. The figures speak for themselves. Time seems to have stood still between the Biafra famine thirty years ago and the one which is once again devastating Ethiopia. Illiteracy and unemployment affect the vast majority of young people on the African continent.

So it would be a mistake to think, today, that three quarters of the planet, three quarters of the human race, are going to carry on living in this sort of poverty without causing some serious instability at world level. We must also do away with aid policies, which are equivalent to giving fish to people living on the bank of the river, as the saying goes, instead of helping them to make fishing rods. The result is there is never enough fish and there are increasing numbers of people fighting over the leftovers.

Moreover, the IMF ordered ultraliberal policies, supposedly for structural adjustment. These are policies that have never worked anywhere. Quite the opposite. I do not know of a single example of a country which made any progress by applying their directives. In all its negotiations, the European Union should also demand fighting against corruption, certainly, and for democracy but, in return, African countries can also demand that the friends of Le Pen, Haider and Martinez should stop making regular racist attacks on their populations resident in Europe.

We agree that we cannot carry on supporting dictators in the name of Realpolitik. We must support democrats unreservedly. From this point of view, what has taken place in Senegal sends out a strong message, proving that Africa is not automatically condemned to conflict, coups d’état or tribal warfare.

There is an imperative need for a new policy, based on codevelopment, conflict prevention, and the rejection of the dictates of the financial markets. Obviously, this necessitates cancelling the 350 billion dollars of debt which is strangling any development in these States.

Finally, Mr President, Europe too made its wealth from colonialism and slavery. Europe thus has a moral debt towards Africa. Part of our wealth came from the colonial plundering inflicted on Africa. Acknowledging that slavery was a crime against humanity would be an important gesture.

  Van Hecke, Johan (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, after months of endless squabbling about agendas and participants, the Cairo Summit did take place eventually. Only to establish what all of us have known for a long time, namely that the majority of the African population still live in abject poverty and are weighed down by a heavy burden of debt. There is no doubt that the many informal contacts which the Summit created have been useful. But I do wonder in all honesty if there can be talk of a Euro-African Summit if civil society is banished to Lisbon and neither the European Parliament nor the ACP-EU Assembly are in any way involved in the Summit.

The European Council gave in to the demand of African dictators not to admit any parliaments to the Summit. But how much more credible would words such as democracy and the interest of the people have been if those people had actually been represented. In that sense, Cairo was not a Euro-African Summit but more like a summit of élites. With his statement that Africa does not need democracy but water pumps, Colonel Gaddafi has undoubtedly put into words what many of his fellow dictators think.

It is evident that our political models cannot simply be transplanted. Africa has to find meaning for the notion of democracy itself. But fundamental principles, sound leadership, separation of powers, free and fair elections and respect for human rights are not negotiable. The European Union’s reaction to violations of these principles is sometimes feeble and often divided. Take Zimbabwe, for example, where political opponents are being attacked in the run-up to the elections and white farmers are being threatened and illegally evicted from their own land and where Mugabe provokes violence. What other messages does the Commission need in order to suspend development aid?

In an interview with The Sunday Times last Saturday, Kofi Annan reproached the African leaders with greed, megalomania and failure to create better living conditions in their countries. Against the background of Kofi Annan’s words, the question arises as to whether the people do not consider the organising of solemn rituals such as those in Cairo as a conspiracy among élites. The international community should not be tricked into feelings of guilt by the African leaders who do not carry any democratic legitimacy. It is high time that the European Union told the African dictators where their responsibility lies.

  Junker (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all too often, Africa is seen by Europe as a lost continent, which is why this EU-Africa summit was long overdue. This event must not be used as an alibi; it must mark the beginning of a real partnership. If we are honest, then we must examine our own motives because, the truth is that a sort of Africa summit would also suit the European Parliament, because dealing with this subject usually means extremely topical and highly dramatic incidents, with conceptional discussions and efforts to find the right perspective generally getting the thin edge of the wedge, if you disregard the fact that Africa is a predominant subject at the ACP assembly. But who notices that here in Europe?

Africa is the continent most seriously affected by the injustices of the international economic and financial system and the consequences of globalisation. The promise by the German government and by other European countries to write off the debts of the poorest countries in the world will help considerably, because the high level of debt is an obstacle to investments in all forms of infrastructure in the countries in question and is hence one of the biggest obstacles in the fight against poverty. Governments which have not yet decided to join this move should copy those who have already done so.

Success will only be achieved in the long term by finding points which unite rather than separate us and by endeavouring to reach a mutual understanding and to integrate Africa into the international community of nations. Nonetheless, it is clear that something may, indeed must be demanded of the governments of Africa when it comes to safeguarding human rights, basic democratic order and the rule of law. There can be no question of allowing dictatorial rule on the African continent which, as in Zimbabwe now, fosters racism, dispossession and forcible suppression and ousts an operational legal system. The Lomé Convention offers a suitable framework for consultation, political dialogue and, if necessary, the suspension of cooperation.

Still less can there be any question of allowing financial aid and food aid from the European Union to be misused in order to buy weapons. Newsreels showing wretched people starving are currently flickering across our television screens from Ethiopia, while the government is siphoning millions into new arms and has even turned down Eritrea’s offer to allow its ports and transport routes to be used for aid for Ethiopia, despite the continuing state of war. That is immoral and an important chance to make a move towards reconciliation may have been wasted.

Banning the NGO meeting from Cairo was a most unpleasant side effect. The countries of Africa will have to get used to the fact that non-governmental organisations have an important status as part of the civil society and can act as mediators in the development of an autonomous civil society in these vulnerable countries on the path towards stability and peace.

  Marset Campos (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, the Cairo Summit has been genuinely significant, an historic milestone. It has been significant in terms of its meaning but also in terms of its lack of achievement. It is historically significant because it is the first time that Europe, which was the colonising power and is responsible for the under-development and poverty of Africa, has met with the countries which are the consequence of that, the African countries which are seriously under-developed. It is also significant insofar as its conclusions could not have been more feeble.

It has been noted that it had been prepared hurriedly, as a cosmetic exercise, without taking responsibility for the past and without preparing comprehensive and solid programmes on the future of relations between the European Union and Africa.

It is truly illogical to lament the constant instability and warfare, when there is a real battle for power and control of resources in Africa which, in turn, increases the cycle of poverty and sends waves of immigrants towards Europe. It is also contradictory for us to lament the problem of Aids when it has been caused by the instability and precariousness created in those countries by the structural adjustment plans imposed by us, the IMF and the World Bank.

Therefore, Europe owes an enormous historical debt, centuries old, to Africa, and should repay it, not only by means of asking forgiveness, but also by forging social, economic, political and cultural links in order to show an indispensable form of solidarity.

  Zimmerling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the EU/Africa summit was reported in the press under the headline: Kiss and make up! Unfortunately a unique opportunity to reconcile different ways of looking at current problems and find a solution was wasted. First, it is astonishing and highly unsatisfactory that the European Parliament was not included in this allegedly forward-looking conference. The members of the European Council appear to have overlooked the fact here that the people of Europe are represented first and foremost by this Parliament. Obviously no one was particularly interested in apprising the African states of this fact.

So it was certainly not a mobilisation summit, as the press described it. As far as the content was concerned, it is perfectly understandable that the developing countries are interested in seeing their debt burden wiped out, but there can be no question of complete remission with no conditions attached. We found out at the last meeting of our ACP/EU assembly in Abuja that in Nigeria, for example, which has restored democracy, one of the last dictators diverted several billion euros to private accounts. One can only emphatically advise the developing countries to prosecute these offences, which are also punishable in Africa, and confiscate the money.

Then some, and it is a great deal, of the money would again be available to repay debts. We would be able to recognise the good intentions of the developing countries and could then negotiate writing off and ignoring the rest of their debts. In my view, this is all part and parcel of the good governance to which the countries of Africa have committed themselves if they are to receive more development aid.

On the other hand, I totally fail to understand why the German chancellor, for example, is treading a path which goes in the opposite direction of the other EU countries, by saying that the poorest of the poor countries should have all their debts written off first. This rather flashy and, in fact insubstantial gesture contradicts the resolutions of the G8 summit last year and is in keeping with his departure from the conference. It does not help matters if, instead of attending working meetings, one prefers to talk to Gadaffi for 10 minutes. What the topic of conversation was, one may only speculate.

The chancellor of the media, as he is called at home, made his entrance and what came out of the final declaration adopted hours later was obviously a matter of indifference to him. This is not the way, in my view, to formulate development policy nor is it the way to bring about the urgently needed reconciliation of national development policies. I think that we, the European Parliament, must continue to denounce these national solo efforts and increase the responsibility of Member States’ governments.

(Applause)

  Van den Berg (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, it appears that some MEPs here are trying to attribute the problems in Africa mainly to the Africans, while others seem to attribute the blame mainly to Europe and the former colonists. This seems to be the pattern for the Summit in Cairo too. Some think it is a missed opportunity. They are extremely disappointed and can think of all sorts of reasons to support this view, while others deem it a unique and historic event.

The fact that, for the first time in history, such a meeting has taken place between the African and European leaders is, of course, an historic event. The fact that contact has been maintained mainly with Latin America and Asia is indicative of the fact that, evidently, there is something wrong with the normal relations between Africa and Europe. This is true, of course, because very often it is not the Ministers for Foreign Affairs who travel to Africa but rather the Ministers responsible for emergency aid who then pursue their policy from there. In connection with the African continent, policy has always been biased towards all kinds of funding for trade, agriculture, foreign affairs and, of course, development cooperation and there has been insufficient room for normal policy. This is undoubtedly down to our dual approach of pity on the one hand and misericordia on the other, in other words the inability to snap out of the old colonial relations between Europe and Africa. This is as much our fault as it is Africa’s. In the light of this, I consider the Summit more as a good opportunity and a new moment to create a new beginning, despite all the attendant misery – inevitably, there are dictators and there is some European policy which is inappropriate. I would like to praise the Portuguese Presidency, because they could have quite easily opted out, or it could have quite easily dragged on for a while longer, but they took the bull by the horns. No, I am certainly not expecting tangible, huge successes, but what matters is what happened at a deeper level.

Parliament received a letter from Mr Prodi in which he says, on behalf of the Commission, that he has ordered proposals to be made for granting countless African products access to the European market at a zero rate. Such a step is significant. It has been stated that we want to make a large contribution and take part in a much more far-reaching debt burden initiative, provided we can link this in with social development. Mr Nielson is in favour of a complete overhaul of the development policy in which attention will focus much more on social development and poverty, both within the ACP-EU Treaty and within the EU. You cannot develop the African people from within Europe. The African people have their own plans and want to develop themselves, but want help in order to achieve this. A new framework such as this really creates opportunities. Within this framework, room must be made for conflict prevention. Ordinary, regular contacts cannot work miracles. They will not bring about marvellous new results, but they are necessary. I am pleased to hear from the Portuguese Presidency that it intends to ensure that a Summit like this will take place again in the foreseeable future. They should become the norm. In a normal relationship, we can be tough and businesslike with each other and we can adopt a result-orientated policy.

I would like to add one more point. I hope that our budget for 2001 – and the Commissioner is only too aware how heavy this weighs on me, because I am the budget rapporteur for that component – will also accommodate some of these promises. If 45 million children in Africa have never seen a schoolroom before and if we managed to double the education budget next year – not the budget as a whole but if we simply shifted some figures around – then this would be a welcome bonus. Apart from in this final note, I made my contribution on behalf of the entire Group of the Party of European Socialists.

  Mantovani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Thank you very much, Mr President, for allowing me to speak. This is my maiden speech in this Chamber.

I, too, welcome the initiative of a first EU-Africa summit. The need for it has been felt and discussed for nigh on 50 years. However, as a member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I must express my reservations at the lack of support from the European Parliament. I also condemn the fact that Agenda 2000 did not tackle the issue of the future responsibilities of the European Union towards developing countries. There are two sides to the issue: the request from Europe for African countries to respect human rights, good governance and democratic institutions, and the appeal, loud and clear, from the African countries for the cancellation of their debt, which is seen as responsible for stifling the development, economic growth and welfare of the communities.

A balance has to be found, and some common ground. Parliament has tried to tackle this issue several times in the past, apparently without ever achieving tangible results. We need a powerful, sincere, widespread initiative; there are calls from several different quarters, including the Holy See during this Jubilee year, for a substantial reduction, if not the total cancellation of the third world debt, by such means as to facilitate the inclusion of the most heavily indebted countries in the world production and trade circuit. In my view, we need to set up a structure to analyse the situations of the various different countries and assess their political situations, in order to establish by how much to reduce their debts or whether to cancel them. This would take into consideration the extent to which past financial aid has been put to good use, and therefore involve the governments, civil society, local churches and non-governmental organisations.

  Khanbhai (PPE-DE). – Mr President, ordinary people in most African countries are poorer today than when their countries became independent. Poverty, therefore, is a disease inflicted upon innocent populations by evil dictators, greedy and corrupt politicians. Natural disasters, including climate change, have aggravated the problem. The Touareg in the desert in northern Niger, the Makonde in Tanzania or Mozambique take their families and put their meagre possessions in a little basket if they wish to move. They are poor, insecure and exposed to the elements. They have no water, sanitation, energy, medicine, education or reliable shelter. Such desperate people cannot think of democracy and human rights in the way we do from our houses and leafy suburbs in the West. They have no stake in their village, regional or national economies. Such rootless people, desperate people, are easy prey to evil political manipulation, and that is why we see so much conflict and civil unrest in those countries.

We here in this Assembly offer these people open and free access to our EU markets. We invite them to be part of the global economy, so that they can come and sit at the tables in Seattle for the WTO discussions. What does this mean to these poor people, the majority of whom live in the bush, who have no knowledge, no means of efficient cultivation, harvesting, processing, packaging even what little they grow? They cannot even market it in their own countries let alone sell it abroad.

So I suggest, let us teach them to be self-reliant and independent, by teaching them the means to grow and harvest what there is in those countries. Let us give them the technology transfer that makes sense, before we say our markets are open to them.

  Gama, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your speeches, which will encourage us to pursue this European Union policy on Africa. I would like to clarify a few points. Firstly, the question of linking parliamentary bodies, such as the ACP-EU Joint Assembly and the European Parliament. As you will be aware, this summit was negotiated with another party: it was not imposed on them, nor could it be. It was not a summit involving the European Union alone. We had a partner that had to be respected, because the consequence of not respecting our partner would have been to have had neither a dialogue nor a summit. Well, let it be said that there were even problems in including references to the ACP group in the final conclusions. Why was this the case? Firstly, because this was seen as the first major rapprochement between Africa and Europe and not all Africa’s countries are ACP countries. Secondly, the ACP group is not a purely African group. It also covers the Caribbean and Asia. Therefore, you will understand that incorporating the ACP group into the summit, particularly at Joint Assembly level, would not have been at all easy, especially as the ACP group was not involved at any other level.

Secondly, with regard to the European Parliament, we understand how necessary and important it is for the European Parliament to take part in these initiatives and that is why we, the Presidency, have been involved in extensive dialogue with the European Parliament through the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and here today, in plenary sitting. My only regret is that attendance is low, but it is nevertheless of an extremely high calibre. We have held lengthy discussions on this summit and on the fact that its effectiveness rested on two pillars: one is the European Union, and the other is the OAU. And the OAU, for its part, does not have a parliament. There was therefore a problem in accommodating within one summit, which I repeat was a summit of equals, not a summit of parties of a different status, an institution which the other co-sponsoring organisation did not have. When we prepare the next summit, the 2003 summit, we will certainly look at ways of strengthening the European Parliament’s participation in a framework that must take account of the other party, given that the other party exists. And nobody can understand anything about relations with Africa unless they grasp the fundamental point that Africa is out there and has its own opinions and ideas on issues. Let us not try to insist that all our ideas should be automatically accepted and included in the negotiations just because they are ours.

Another important point is debt. I would not be as sceptical as some of you have been in your speeches and I even think that the reaction of the Africans at the summit and afterwards to the way in which the problem of debt was addressed showed a degree of confidence. We must not forget that there is a qualitative difference. I would remind you of the commitment given by Member States in relation to the world’s highly indebted poor countries to reduce and even cancel their debt, not forgetting the Union’s EUR 1 000 million contribution to this programme. I would also draw your attention to the fact that in 2000, the European Union will clearly commit itself to establishing, by 2005, a programme of access to its economy, free of customs duties, for products from less developed countries. This will make a major contribution to stimulating their economies in the context of uneven trade liberalisation. This is unprecedented and has never been done by any other group of countries. It is extremely innovative and is greatly welcomed by these countries. Confirmation of these principles at the summit was generally well received by the African countries. The summit is not an international financial organisation. The problem of reducing or cancelling debt could not be solved at the summit. The summit has helped to confirm values and commitment, and it was also extremely significant that many European Union countries took this opportunity to announce publicly that they were reducing or cancelling the debts of the poorest highly indebted countries. This had an important effect in terms of synergy and precedent.

The most important aspect of what took place was in fact consistently highlighted by the Africans: for the first time the European Union has agreed to address the issue of the indebtedness of African countries with the whole of the African continent through the follow-up mechanisms of a summit. The high-level bi-regional group was charged with preparing a report on African indebtedness which will then be discussed at ministerial level. This represents a complete U-turn in this area. It is the first time that the European Union has agreed to discuss the problem of their indebtedness with all the African countries, in an institutional framework outside the international financial organisations. The African countries considered this to be one of the most important milestones of this summit.

I should tell you that the aim of the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union was to do something for Africa, not just because we had done something for other continents or regions, such as Latin America and Asia, but also because other countries or groups of countries, such as the United States, Japan and even China had begun to do so before us. It was time to put right this delay. And therefore, with the cooperation of Commissioner Nielson, the Development Council held in Lisbon in January was, for the first time in history, devoted to EU-Africa relations. It had never been done before. It was the first time. It was an excellent piece of work, which furthermore was reflected, and rightly so, in the results of the summit.

We also finalised negotiation of the ACP agreements for the second Lomé Convention and we finalised the free trade agreement with South Africa. We are also working very rapidly on the Barcelona Process and on African participation in the framework of association agreements seeking to create a free trade area by 2010. We are working to review the Mediterranean strategy, to produce a rigorous draft of the Euro-Mediterranean Charter for Peace and Stability and also to review the MEDA II regulation. We held the Mediterranean Forum in Funchal and we will be holding an informal ministerial meeting in Lisbon on the Barcelona Process, specifically to determine its good and bad points, on what needs to be improved and to prepare the summit which will be held under the French Presidency. With regard to the Cairo Summit, it was not included in our initial programme, because when we took over the Presidency, it had not been finalised, but we always said that if the problems could be resolved, we would be prepared to hold the summit. Later, we proposed the summit, we resolved the diplomatic problems and held a summit whose results were greatly welcomed by the African countries. Of course, we did not resolve all the problems of the African continent overnight, but a step needed to be taken, a step towards including Africa in the European agenda. It was necessary to hold a summit with this scope, on this scale and which would target these goals. We took that step. We must now continue, but I am sure that with the African agenda more rigorously defined in European policies, we are in a position to continue in a sustained and successful way, because the African continent requires it to be so. The situation of conflict, poverty and disease requires the European Union to boldly accept its responsibility. It is also essential for the European Union to have an African agenda. We, that is, Parliament, the Commission and the Council, are all working towards this.

  Nielson, Commission. – Let me refer to some of the specific points made in the debate. Mrs Kinnock mentioned the forthcoming meeting in Dakar on basic education. As part of our preparations for that meeting I have gone through the bulk of what we are doing on primary education in Africa and I am happy to say that I am in a position to express something positive about what I have seen in the Commission. We are doing much more than I had expected and I would be happy to inform Parliament about the portfolio of primary education activities in which we are involved in Africa. This is not to say that we could not do more but it is much better than the picture in general.

Secondly, with reference to Mr Rod, who said that the longer we discuss more people will die of AIDS in Africa, I only have five minutes. I have discussed AIDS in Africa with President Mugabe. It was quite interesting that he openly admitted to me that they are now pursuing a policy of open, honest information on AIDS and HIV, pretty much parallel to what Uganda has been doing with some success. This is not to say that the problem is over but I consider it real progress that one of the statesmen in Africa who, in this discussion, was seen for some time as part of the problem rather than the solution, is now openly saying that he knows he has to change his policy. I am not claiming to portray the whole situation in Zimbabwe but this is an important point.

Mr Miranda reminded us of the indirect effects on the budget for Africa of the concentration on eastern European Balkan problems. In absolute terms, our focusing on Kosovo and other activities has not meant a reduction in what we actually do in Africa. In relative terms this is the case, but we have been able to shield Africa from direct reductions in the volume of what we are doing. I appreciate the support from Parliament to that effect.

Mrs Maij-Weggen mentioned that development aid has progressed over the years. I wish that were true. If we look at total official development assistance, globally it has in fact decreased. We are now down to 0.23% and many governments should and could do more. Against that background it is a privilege to represent the European Union internationally in this field because we have not been part of that downward trend. In total numerical terms, it is foreseeable that we will be increasing what we do in the coming years. This Parliament, our budget, and our activities stand out as a sort of corrective measure to the global trend. We should be proud of that and we should make the most of it in political relations also.

Mr van den Bos and others talked about debt relief and these problems certainly need a lot of attention. I will remind you though that most of the EUR 1 billion, which is the EU’s contribution to the HIPC II initiative, will be directed towards Africa. The EUR 680 million, which is our contribution as a donor, not as a creditor, will all be directed to the African Development Bank earmarked in the special trust fund in the HIPC initiative in order to bail out Africa and make it possible for the African Development Bank to continue servicing the poor countries in Africa. We are doing quite a lot and the problem now is to what extent the G7 countries – who started up the HIPC II initiative in Cologne last year – will deliver, not just as donors but in their more narrowly defined role as creditors.

We welcome the cancellation of bilateral debt, which is relatively easy to decide politically, the difficult part is multilateral debt. This is where the EU, as a donor – not directly involved as a creditor – has been able to lend a strong hand. This is something that should not be forgotten in the on-going discussions. It may not be enough but it is certainly more than any other group of donors has done so far.

Mr Zimmerling mentioned the problem of Nigeria and getting money back. We made some last minute changes to the text in Cairo which strengthened the views expressed and I hope that Europe will be able to give a helping hand in identifying some of this money and getting it back where it belongs. This should be part of international economic governance. Money should not be able to disappear as has been the case.

It was of real importance that the Heads of State and Governments spent two days together. They got along quite well. It was very nice to witness this, which is of considerable importance, not only for the mood between Europe and Africa, but also for the kind of partnership we want to create, which also needs these personal relations. They certainly developed quite well in those two days.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the very good cooperation established with the Portuguese presidency during this substantial effort. It was very successful and it has been a pleasure working with the presidency.

  President. – That concludes the debate.

I have received seven motions for resolutions tabled pursuant to Rule 37 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.⁽¹⁾

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.

(1) See Minutes.