Looking for a serious partnership: Europe and Africa

Europe and Africa: a very complex relationship

Victor Ângelo

 

The sixth summit between the European Union and the African Union started yesterday and continues today in Brussels. I take the opportunity to share some personal thoughts on the relationship between Europe and a continent that has absorbed more than three decades of my professional life, including as Director for Africa of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) operations.

A chessboard that covers 82 countries and around 1.7 billion people can only be quite complex. This complexity is compounded by the imbalances that history has caused and the disparities in development that exist between the two continents. Therefore, establishing partnerships of equals must be the absolute priority for both parties. This is an extremely sensitive issue. European leaders have not always shown sufficient political tact. There is still a logic that sees donors on one side and needy on the other. Or, worse still, that sees Africa as an area of instability, which, combined with unparalleled demographic pressure, will eventually lead to mass migrations to the EU. For those who think like this, Africa appears as a money drain and a threat.

The summit, scheduled for 2020, has been repeatedly postponed because of the pandemic. Now it is being held under the co-presidency of France and Senegal, because they are currently in charge of their respective regions. It is not the best coincidence. There is now an anti-French feeling in West and Central Africa. And the Senegalese president, Macky Sall, and even Dakar and its elite, are seen as the Parisians of sub-Saharan Africa. This has given rise to talk that this is yet another Elysée-inspired summit. Moreover, the impression has been given that not enough attention has been paid during the preparatory work to the concerns of the Anglophone and Lusophone countries.

The truth is that the African continent is very diverse. Each sub-region has specific characteristics and even deep-rooted prejudices towards the others. It is enough to listen, as I have often heard, to what a Southern African politician says about the situation in certain West or Central African states to understand that the façade hides many cracks.

Stability and prosperity sum up the aspirations of the participants.

Stability requires competent governance, in tune with the wishes of the people and capable of protecting their security and rights. This is an area which requires a frank dialogue between the partners to define everyone's responsibilities. Drawing up plans in Brussels and then landing to implement them in the Sahel, or elsewhere, ends up leading to the rejection of these initiatives and leaves room for slippage, as is happening in Mali and the Central African Republic. Nor can one accept a military junta in Chad and say no to another in Burkina Faso, for example. Such ambiguities only serve to discredit cooperation from Europe. Moreover, in the fight against terrorism it is imperative to obtain visible results without delay. The continuing deterioration of the security situation in the Sahel and beyond calls for an analysis of the reasons for failure and, on the basis of lessons learned, a different approach.

Prosperity must rest on five pillars. First, the fight against corruption. Second, the electrification of the continent. Brussels tells us that 50% of Africa's population has no access to electricity. That figure is obviously underestimated. We all know that electricity grids only work when they work, meaning that the cuts are longer than the supply. Third, in a green revolution, which modernises agriculture and livestock. Fourth, industrialisation, local processing of raw materials and agricultural products. Fifth, in the effective abolition of customs barriers between African countries. Trade between these countries represents no more than 15% of the continent's foreign trade. This is far too little.

So let us wait for the results of the summit. And to battle on with optimism.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 February 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

China prefers Donald Trump

It is now clear that the Chinese leadership would prefer Donald Trump. The messages we are getting from Beijing are that they believe that Joe Biden would be tougher on China than Trump. They now know the current President relatively well and they think that if there is an agreement on trade everything else will be manageable. They see Donald Trump as a transactional leader. He is aware of the Chinese geopolitical ambitions and must refer to them in his public speeches. But he can be satisfied with a trade agreement if he thinks the agreement is good for his electoral basis. And it is true he has a good personal rapport with President Xi Jinping. On the other side, the Chinese leadership see Biden as more ideological. He will be raising issues that are particularly unpleasant to the ears of the Chinese Communist bosses. Issues such as human rights, the special status and freedom in Hong Kong, the re-education camps in Xinjiang Province, the relations with Taiwan, and so on. These are extremely sensitive matters for Beijing. Trade is a small business when compared with any of these challenges. Therefore, they will try to do anything they can to make sure that Donald Trump gets re-elected.

My take on the US-China trade deal

The trade deal the US and China signed today is above all a pause in their trade dispute. That’s what makes it relevant. At a time when the trend has been to aggravate the commercial competition and the political rivalry between both giants, a lull is important. It is also an opportunity for both sides to implement some corrections and try a more constructive and balanced approach.

Therefore, I see the event with a positive eye. But I am also very much aware, like many observers, that there is deep antagonism and absolute mistrust on both sides of the deal. The Chinese do not think President Trump is constant in his political line. They are very much convinced that he can change his mind a thousand times. But for now, they bet on this deal. On the American side, they still believe the Chinese are very much determined to overtake the US economy and that they will do whatever it takes to achieve it. However, for the US leaders the deal comes at the right time. Actually, they have the advantage of controlling the agenda, a fact that is always good.

We have a little deal, that’s not bad, but we have not moved much when it comes to cooperation and trust building. In any case, a step forward is a step in the right direction. And that’s what matters.

President Trump and the EU

A few of my readers have expressed some degree of surprise after reading what I wrote in my last blog about President Trump’s policy towards the EU. I basically said the President is not in favour of a strong EU. And that is a radical change of approach, because for decades his predecessors have encouraged the European countries to cooperate and strengthen the EU. Even in the case of the UK, the message coming from Washington has always been in the sense of advising London to be closer to Continental Europe.

 With President Trump, we have a new situation. First, he sees the EU as economic competition and a market that is huge but has too many barriers when it comes to some critical American exports, such as cars and farm products. But there is more to it, beyond the economic and trade issues. He thinks that the key EU leaders have an international agenda that contradicts his own and weakens it. That is the case on climate, on Iran, on Russia, on Cuba and Venezuela, on multilateralism, even on China. Not to mention the new idea of a European common defence, an idea that Emmanuel Macron personalises. On defence, President Trump follows a line that has been present in Washington for long now: the Europeans must spend more on their armies but keep them under the overall control and command of the US military. He senses that in this area the European response is becoming more independent and he does not like it at all.

August is not a good time to discuss these matters. People on both sides of the Atlantic are above all concerned with the weather and their holidays. It is however a debate that must be reopened after the rentrée in September.

The dangerous game between the US and China

The ongoing conflict between the US and China is reaching new levels of danger. It would be a mistake to see it as just a trade dispute. This is about rivalry on all fronts. The US President and his circle have a clear objective: make sure China does not become a menacing strategic challenger. Their strategy is based on two premises. First, if they manage to slow down the economic power of China that will have an impact on the country’s internal stability, making it more difficult for the Chinese to be a major world power. Second, they are convinced that the Beijing leaders will blink first and yield to the American interests. In the famous game of chicken President Trump seems to be playing, the one who gives up first loses.

In my opinion, both American premises have shaky foundations. China is on course to be a be a global power and they will keep that ambition on a steady road. The economic growth is strong enough – over 6% per annum – to ensure it will happen. They will be able to fully challenge any other country, including the US, by 2030, at the latest. Secondly, the game of chicken is always a disaster. It will certainly be a disaster if the other player is China. Its leaders cannot yield to the Americans. They will play with prudence, but the end game, on their side, is to respond to confrontation with their own type of confrontations. That is disaster in the making. That is the reason we should not take the current crisis lightly. And that is why I think we need a third-party mediation as soon as possible. The only problem is that I can’t see any actor or institution being able to play such role.

G20 official picture: the messages

Some people will spend a bit of their time reading the official picture of the 2019 G20 Meeting just held in Osaka. These types of pictures contain many hints. They cannot be taken lightly. The protocol and the political seniors of the host country – in this case, the Japanese who are masters in matters of meaning and symbology – invest a lot of working days deciding the positioning of everyone in the picture. Their final choice has a deep political import.

This year’s photo gives special attention to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He stands at the centre, between the host, Prime Minister Shinto Abe, and the US President. We could think that such placing might be related to the fact that Abe is just back from a visit to Iran and he wanted to show that he also pays special attention to the diplomacy towards Saudi Arabia. Maybe he would love it to be interpreted that way. But it is just a happy coincidence for the Japanese. Abe is close to the Crown Prince because Saudi Arabia will be organising the next G20 Meeting, in November next year.

That’s the reason why the President of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, is also on the front row. The last meeting took place in his country (2018). That’s protocol.

Then, the rest of the front row brings together some of usual suspects: the leaders of China, Russia, Germany and France. But also, some special friends of Japan. First, two close neighbours, South Korea and Indonesia. And three other countries representing other regions of the world: Brazil, Turkey and South Africa. Surprising is to see Prime Minister Modi emerging in the second row. That’s not where India should be.

On the last row, a bit lost as he looks in the wrong direction, we can find the UN Secretary-General. This is not new. It has nothing to do with António Guterres. To place the UN boss in the background has been the tradition. I always thought such positioning sends a very inappropriate signal. The UN must be better recognised by the world leaders, particularly in a meeting that deals with global issues. It is important to battle for that.

In the end, my overall assessment of the meeting is positive. Many people might say these summits have no real purpose and are not useful. That’s a respectable way of looking at them. I want to take the opposite view, particularly in respect of this one. We are living in a period of tensions and great complexities. These leaders have the power to make it go in the right direction. They represent most of the world’s population and 85% of the global economy. When they meet and send some positive messages, the world feels a little bit more hopeful.

Europe and China: let's be constructive

The EU and China have their annual summit in Brussels today. The preparatory work has shown that Europe is now prepared to have a firmer position in matters of trade, investment and protection of industrial patents and copyrights. That is the right approach for the economic relations between both sides. Beijing might not like it, but they understand the rationale behind the European position. They fight for their interests, and we should fight for ours. That is the only basis for a sound relationship between two major international players.

When dealing with China, the EU must remain united around the principles of reciprocity, fair competition, and respect for the natural environment.

The Europeans have also to consider that we are dealing with State capitalism at its strongest form. Behind each big corporation, there is the Communist leadership of China and their concern with their own survival as a regime. For that, they need to expand the Chinese economic interests abroad, control new sources of wealth in foreign lands, and bring back prosperity to the people of China. Europe is a special land of business opportunities, an attractive economic space for big investments. That’s fine, if the basic international rules are respected and the link between each side is open to accept traffic on both directions.

Above all, the Europeans must keep in mind issues of national security. As far as we are concerned, China is a partner with greater potential for business but is also a first-grade geostrategic player. We must be able to keep our strategic sectors under our own control. That will contribute in no small manner to balance the geopolitical power of our Chinese neighbours. The world needs our contribution to the balance. Europe’s big challenge, in this area, is to remain a strong pillar of international wisdom.

My reading of the G20 summit (2017)

On the recent G20, the negative issues on the table, either openly or coated in diplomatic words, could be summarised as follows:

- The risks linked to international uncontrolled massive migrations;

- The US withdrawal from the Paris accord on Climate Change

- New trends towards trade protectionism

- The attempts to side-line key international organisations, including the UN, the WTO and the Human Rights Council.

The positives, as I see them:

- Establishment of a new fund, to be administered by the WB, to promote the entrepreneurship of African women; USD 325 million.

- The review of steel overcapacity issue and the recommendation that a plan of action should be prepared by Nov. 2017 to address this most divisive economic and trade issue.

- More coordination on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

- The leaders have shown they want to find a common ground on a number of issues.

The EU and the US

When it comes to the difficult response to the current US Administration, the EU leaders have decided to follow two lines.

First, to keep the political dialogue open. This policy dialogue should be centred on the key issues, particularly on respect for the international institutions, defence, trade and climate change. It should be based on clarity: the EU's positions should be stated without any unnecessary ambiguity.

Second, to emphasise the long term nature of the mutual relationship. Both sides have a long history of cooperation and share a number of fundamental values. That should be the basis to identify the common interests and to work together to achieve them. 

The suggestion made by some in Europe that today´s US leadership should be, as much as possible, ignored was not adopted. The EU political masters believe that a reasonable level of engagement should be cultivated.

The EC, Ireland and Apple: time to be reasonable

The European Commission´s decision regarding Apple is the new subject in the priority list of EU concerns. Two days ago, after a two-year probe, Brussels announced that the tax favours Ireland had offered Apple during many years had been judged illegal. It ordered the US multinational to pay tax arrears – just €13 billion plus interest, which adds another €1.4 billion to the bill.

Now, the government of Ireland says they do not approve of the EC ruling. They don’t want the money and consequently they have decided to seize the European Court of Justice for it to annul the decision taken by Brussels.

This matter raises a number of issues.

On the political front, there are several: it complicates the economic and trade relations with the US, taking into account that the US Administration itself has in the recent past imposed very heavy fines on EU companies; it questions the role of the EC on matters of national taxes, particularly when the country in question is at the periphery of the European economic space, has very limited resources and needs to attract investment to generate jobs; and there is the impact of all this on public opinion, at a time when the European citizens are drowning in deep tax waters, being taxed beyond the reasonable and seeing, at the same time, that the big corporations can do smart tax planning and pay amounts as low as 0,005% on gains, as Apple did in Ireland in 2014.

On the legal front, we can expect a long process. It will be a field day for lawyers and lovers intricate disputes.  It will particularly be interesting to study the arguments of each side. There will a new doctrine on multinationals, on national taxes, on investment advantages and benefits. It will be fascinating, if one is patient enough to follow the matter.

However, the best solution would be an arbitration. That´s what we have to recommend. There is a case, no doubt, but there is also an excellent opportunity to be realistic and even-handed.

TTIP should be the object of an honest debate

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a potential free trade between the EU and the US – is the new rallying flag of all those in Europe who seriously dislike the Americans. As such, it is difficult to find objective assessments on the possible impact – positive and negative – of such an accord.

People attack the likely agreement from a blind position, and in many cases because that´s what they think their intellectual bedfellows expect from a leftist approach.

That´s a pity, as the TTIP is a matter that is too serious to be treated just based on anti-Americanism and on deceitful assumptions about what it means to be on the political Left.  

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should move ahead

There was a great deal of confusion today in the European Parliament. The Members (MEPs) were supposed to take a vote on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the trade agreement between the EU and the US. The move would clear the EU´s negotiating position and give the European negotiators additional discussion authority.

The vote ended up by being postponed because more than 200 amendments were tabled by the MEPs. The main challenges came from the Socialist group and are related to the choice of mechanisms to resolve potential trade disputes between US firms and EU institutions.

This is a complex matter and needs to be carefully carried out.

But we should be clear that the TTIP is important for the Europeans, both in terms of jobs – greater access to the US market will have an impact on our industries and agriculture-related activities – and access to a larger choice of goods. It will certainly have a multiplier effect on the modernisation of our productive and commercial systems as well.

We should also underline that the sooner the agreement is reached the better. Amendments and other tactical moves cannot aim at delaying the process. If they are intended to improve the final accord, that´s very much appreciated. If they are based on genuine concerns, that can also be discussed.

Opposition to TTIP is no problem. That is the normal currency of democracy. But obstruction through parliamentary procedures is just not acceptable. It´s lack of political clarity and courage.

EU is meeting the Latin American States

As I am about to witness another summit meeting in Brussels, this time with Latin American leaders, I also realise that Latin America does not feature high in terms of the EU priorities. As such, I wonder what will come out of such meeting. Is it more than a mere diplomatic move?

In the meantime, I take note that the EU-Latin America consultation will be immediately followed by a summit with Mexico. And again, I am curious about the possible outcome of that conference.

In any case, enhanced relations with Latin America will give leverage to Spain´s position with the EU. Somehow, Portugal will gain a bit as well. That’s not a bad thing as it contributes to a greater balance between the different nations in Europe. 

The interest for EU matters is growing in China

I just started my weekly commentary on Radio Macao. This is a new page, to be broadcast every Tuesday, on European affairs. Rui Flores, who has worked for the UN as a Political Officer and is a professional journalist, besides being an academic at the University of Macao, is the anchor – a very creative one for that matter – and I am the programme´s resident commentator. My role is to share my views on the week´s key European events.

The programme responds to a growing interest on the EU in China, Macao and Hong Kong.

China is about to celebrate 40 years of cooperation with the EU. Its leaders want it to expand and are ready to negotiate new political and trade agreements with the EU. They are giving a special attention to the new Silk Road project that should better link their country with Central Asia and Europe. Their ambition is as vast as their country and the needs of their very large population: 1,355 billion people. There is still a long way to go before the two parties sign a Free Trade Agreement. But, in the meantime, trade and investment are moving ahead, mainly for the benefit of the Chinese.

The fact of the matter is there are many common interests. Distance is big enough to keep rivalries at bay, but not too far for the ships and trains that bring goods in both directions. Actually, the train link is the future. And, as a future, it is already around the corner, as the first trains have started to move since the end of last year.

EU and Russia: every summit meeting counts

The next EU-Russia Summit is taking place on Tuesday, 28 January, in Brussels. It will be a very short meeting. Initially thought to last for two days, it is now planned for three hours. That says a lot about the state of mind of the leaders, on both sides of the table. But it is also related to the fact that the current EU bosses are at the end of their mandates. Later in the year all the key European institutions will be headed by new people.

It would be however a mistake to take this summit as a mere formality. There are important issues on the table, from trade to visa requirements, from Ukraine to the Transnistria break-away region of Moldova. The Europeans should find a balance between pushing forward what is positive and can strengthen the relationship and stating the key principles they believe are important to ensure the full respect for international law and human rights. 

Eastern Europe's commerce

During my recent road trips in the Benelux, I have seen a very visible increase of Baltic, mainly from Latvia, and other Eastern European trucks, ferrying all kinds of goods left and right. This is certainly good news. The greater the economic inter-dependency the better it is for Europe.  

The "reactionary French"

The comments made by the EU Commission President about the “reactionary” French protectionism” are very brave but extremely undiplomatic. Barroso in his interview to the International Herald Tribune said: “Some say they belong to the left, but in fact they are culturally extremely reactionary”. This is a very direct reference to the French President and his position that the trade agreement discussions between the EU and the US should not include “cultural goods”.  France wants to protect its film and music industries from the American might.

Why did Barroso, who is generally very prudent, go that far? He might know something about his future as head of the Commission that we do not know yet. 

South Korea in the EU

Yesterday I could notice how strong the group that represents South Korea’s interests is in Brussels. They are very well connected with the European External Action Service and with the Universities of Brussels and Leuven as well as with other think tanks. It is true that South Korea is considered a strategic partner of the EU. It is also true that Europe is a bit confused sometimes and calls a number of countries “strategic partners”, which makes the concept weak. EU cannot have a strategic partner in every street of the world, it makes no sense. Strategic for what?

Trade is a major area of focus for the partnership between the EU and Korea. A Free Trade Agreement has been under implementation since July 2011. That has seriously boosted the exchanges between the two sides. But, as expected, on the European side it has been Germany the main winner of the new opportunities.

On the political front, South Korea would certainly like to see the EU playing a more vigorous role towards North Korea. The fact of the matter, however, is that Pyongyang is far away from Brussels’ limited outreach in East Asia. EU is no real power player in that part of the world.