|
|
| |
| |
Editorial
11/2004 |
|
Potential heavyweight
Early this year, a rumour was doing the rounds that a lightweight would take over the development portfolio once the new European Commission was appointed. Apparently, this would “only” be the representative of a small acceding country, whose influence on EU policy would remain minimal. The outlook seemed gloomy given that Poul Nielson from Denmark had, as Development Commissioner, already disappointed most people active in the field.
The rumour, however, has proved false. Louis Michel, internationally respected as Belgium’s former foreign minister, was chosen to become the Commissioner for development and humanitarian aid. He comes from a rich country and, more importantly, even one of the EU’s founding members. Belgian politicians are well versed in influencing European decision-making. Their capital city serves as the seat of the Commission. Michel has also shown a lively interest in Africa. All summed up, it seems that the right person will serve as Development Commissioner this time.
At first glance, the starting conditions for Michel’s work also look promising. The draft of the EU Constitution and the Common Foreign and Security Policy both emphasize the importance of global development for a peaceful future – not only in Europe. It has been recognised that misery on a massive scale, state failure and ecological disasters threaten prosperity and stability in Europe, even when occurring elsewhere. Today, crisis situations often take on global dimensions. Consequently, prevention makes sense in the EU’s own interest.
Admittedly, action does not reflect commitment to this approach so far. In his struggle for influence, Commissioner Michel will need the support of national governments as well as of civil society organisations and academia (Jörg Faust und Dirk Messner, p. 408). Despite impressive-sounding policy claims, there is an undeniable risk of the military and diplomats drafting the EU’s foreign affairs standpoints. That would mean business as usual – without fulfilling the EU’s promises or living up to its immense potential.
In some places, there are complaints that Michel does not have all the competencies he needs. While this criticism does have a base, it is nonetheless misleading. Development is a cross-sectional topic. It touches on all fields of policy. In this sense, it is similar to ecological sustainability or gender equality. None of these make sense without greater political coherence.
Obviously, makers of development policy have to tackle other departments. In many ways, it is more important to insist on a coherent approach for the entire EU than to handle a wide portfolio of detailed support programmes for various countries. Particularly in the case of the EU, the complex departments of agriculture and trade are strategically relevant for poor countries’ fortunes. The fact that the EU has been less accommodating in these respects than its development-friendly rhetoric would suggest, has damaged the Union’s reputation in poor countries (interview with Assia Bensalah Alaoui, p. 415).
Like trade and agriculture, the issue of migration again and again triggers complaints about the “fortress Europe”. People from Africa and other poverty-stricken areas are constantly trying to enter the affluent EU countries. They do so by legal and illegal means (Karl Kopp, p. 418). Obviously, the EU cannot count on long-lasting stability as a pampered enclave of affluence amidst a world of mass misery. It must, therefore, contribute to making life worth living elsewhere.
Regrettably, Europe has not yet focused convincingly on fighting global poverty (Mirjam van Reisen, p. 412). This implies that opportunities are missed. After all, more than 50 percent of international development aid comes from the EU and its member states. It is clear that the EU could have a much greater influence on the process and the outcomes of globalisation.
Europe needs a coherent foreign policy conducive for development. It would give the Union stretching from Ireland to Cyprus more international clout. The EU is known as a giant market, but hardly seems to be more than a dwarf in politics. This affects the relationship with the sole superpower USA. Of course, Washington has shown little interest in multilateral coordination – and this was the case even before President George W. Bush took office. But it is equally true that coordination with Europe has been difficult for successive US administrations. The large number of European voices – too often even expressing opposing views – remains confusing (Carol Lancaster, p. 420).
A huge task awaits Commissioner Michel. If he does well, he will make a valuable contribution to help Europe become a political heavyweight, that can live up to its global responsibilities by forging ahead with development and cooperation.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief D+C
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
|
|
