EU aid masks big bully tactics in developing world
By Florent Sebban
When rich nations impose an agenda tailor-made for their own interests on poorer ones, there is only one word that aptly describes their tactics: bullying.

One of the topics addressed at this year's World Social Forum in Nairobi (20-25 January) will be how the European Commission resorts to bullying in its relations with developing countries.

In public relations exercises, the EU institutions like to portray themselves as best friends of the poor. On a superficial level, this looks like an accurate depiction. At €46 billion per year - €6 billion of which is channeled through the Commission – the EU is the world's biggest donor of official development assistance (ODA). Thanks to decisions taken in 2005, the Union is scheduled to provide 66% of all ODA by 2010, with the Commission handling twice as much aid as the World Bank.

But if you delve beneath the spin, the reality is that the Commission can be the kind of friend who twists the arms and pulls the ears of developing countries until they accept exactly what the Brussels bureaucracy wants. This is despite how Louis Michel and Benita Ferrero Waldner, the commissioners for development and external relations, repeatedly refer to recipients of EU aid as their "partners" and insist that they have "ownership" of EU-financed projects.

Earlier this month, the European Parliament began examining a series of country strategy papers drawn up by the Commission for spending aid in its "partners" over the 2007-13 period.

In theory, these were drafted following extensive consultations with governments, parliaments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in recipient countries.

What about health and education?
However, there are several examples to illustrate how the Commission ignored the views of those consulted. Perhaps worst of all, it has been known to overrule calls for health and education to be prioritised in the expenditure of EU aid, even though these are of fundamental importance for attaining the UN's Millennium Development Goals of dramatically reducing extreme poverty by 2015.

In November, Jamaica's then Ambassador to the EU Evadne Coye gave a detailed account of the consultation which occurred when the strategy paper for her country was being prepared.

Coye said that one issue that was raised by the Jamaican participants in all consultations was that education had to be a top priority, with the emphasis placed particularly on primary schooling, the training of the teachers and addressing children with special needs.

Yet Coye said that the Commission then told her government that education must only be a component in one of two central themes for the strategy paper. As a result, education would be subsumed as part of a general area called 'governance'; the second focal area would be known as competitiveness, and would be geared towards supporting Jamaica adapt to the Economic Partnership Agreements which the Commission is negotiating with countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc.

While the Commission is correct to demand that there should be good governance and a crackdown on corruption in developing countries, it is taking a narrow view of what 'governance' entails. Surely, meeting the basic health and literacy needs of a population is a prerequisite for good governance and should be central to the EU's development aid activities.

Promoting Western firms' interests
In Nairobi, Eurostep, a network of European NGOs, will be presenting a series of case studies on EU aid to Africa. These illustrate how the Commission has promoted the narrow interests of Western firms, rather than those of Africa's poorest citizens. A strategy paper for Burundi, for example, overlooks a national pledge of guaranteeing free primary schooling to all children. Meanwhile, in Cameroon, the Commission has decided to make a totally inappropriate use of development assistance by diverting part of it to promoting trade.

Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, unveiled an "external competitiveness" strategy for Europe in October. "European companies must be enabled to gain access to, and to operate securely, in world markets," he said. "That is our agenda."

During recent contacts with the Pacific region, high-ranking Commission officials made it clear that the region's governments will only receive additional aid if they sign Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the Union.

These accords would severely limit the ability of ACP countries to choose the development model they deem necessary for their own people and economies. Last month, a grouping of anti-poverty activists known as the Africa Trade Network said that the conduct of the EPA talks so far reinforced concerns that their aim is to deregulate developing countries in favour of European investors and that the Commission has rejected all studies on the potential effects of the accords "whose outcomes it does not like".

Before they next trumpet their commitment to ending poverty, the European Commission and EU governments should examine the criticisms directed towards them in Nairobi. If they analyses these seriously, they might just realise that friends to the poor should not behave as bullies.

Florent Sebban, a policy adviser with Eurostep, a network of organisations specialising in EU-financed development cooperation, is currently participating in the World Social Forum.