The big match for the month was scheduled for 17-18 May 1993 in Brussels, when sixty-nine ministers (or those who could make it) from the ACP States were meeting their counterparts from the twelve EC Member States, at the level of the joint Council of Ministers, for the eighteenth time since Lome I was signed. Whilst there were opening volleys in the preliminary rounds, the big punches were really being held back for the final “C” Items in the Council Agenda, when all hell was going to break loose, and those chosen few who bravely volunteered were to articulate their views on pre-selected issues of mutual interest to both sides.

However, well before the agreed dates of the ministerial match, there were curtain-raisers and side shows between the Ambassadors, who had to pre-select the various issues to be debated. The ACP Ambassadors wrong-footed their opposition right from the start, and came up with their own selection first. They came up with four issues.

The first was “Future of ACP/EC Relations”. The ACP felt that this was a subject that they could discuss with authority, and that they could easily resort to the argument of global responsibility and historical links to convince the EC that there was indeed a future in their relations. The second issue was “Commodities”. Well, this was a piece of cake, really! For everyone knew that it was the depressed commodity prices that were responsible for problems in debt servicing in developing countries, and for the excessive use of the STABEX fund under Lome. Furthermore, it has been the EC Member States who have been pussy-footing about placing economic clauses in the various International Commodity Agreements. With “Debt” as their third chosen subject, the ACP felt that they had a set of issues for which they could claim moral and strategic superiority.

And just to make sure that they could really take the EC to the cleaners, the ACP threw in “Aid Conditionality” to boot.

The EC side, on the other hand, is not one to shirk its duty easily. Its twelve Ambassadors, who are also known as Permanent Representatives to the EC, supplemented by some heavyweights from DGVIII, were not going to be cowered by the onslaught, and they took the fight immediately back to the ACP camp. They proposed, not four, but five subjects to be added to the ACP list. These were: “Good Governance”, “Decentralized Cooperation”, “Poverty Orientation”, “The Private Sector and Investments”, and “Increasing Efficiency in the ACP-EC Cooperation and the need to Modernize the Cooperation”.

The choice of their subjects was also made in order to claim the upper hand in the debate. They believed that claiming moral superiority in any subject is not necessarily the ACP’s moral right or prerogative. What the ACP could do, the EC could do better!

To counteract “Aid Conditionality” which really refers to the EC making human rights as a precondition for aid under Lome, the EC brought in “Good Governance” which entailed discussions on Human Rights and Democratization. The EC believed that they could win any debate on this hands down, just on the basis of the record of contemporary history of human rights in the various governments on both sides. On the subjects of “Decentralized Cooperation” and “Poverty Orientation”, the EC believed that they could fire a broadside at the ACP for their tendencies to construct convoluted and centralized bureaucracies, which invariably topple over for being top-heavy, and for being selectively and consistently blind to the needs of the very poor in the community.

For the remaining two subjects, the EC felt that they could derive great satisfaction from reminding the ACP States, again, that the ball was firmly in the latter’s court. For if only the ACP could clean up their backyard first, provide for the protection and guarantee for overseas investments, and improve their overall efficiency in the utilization of the benefits of Lome, then they would certainly open up the gate for a great surge of investment capital from the Community. In addition, the European Development Fund that has been locked away, collecting dust in the EC lockers, would be speedily disbursed.

This curtain-raiser seesawed for a while, smarting from the broadsides from either camp. It certainly dawned quickly, however, that there was not going to be a winner if this sort of thing continued. Diplomacy, another game that is played so well here, was soon to prevail. A tie was subsequently arranged. Each side had to contribute three issues only, for both camps agreed that the ministers can slog it out themselves when the time came for the big match, anyway.

The agreed list that went to the ministers, therefore, comprised the following: Future of ACP/EC Relations, Commodities, Debt, Good Governance (Human Rights and Democracy), Private Sector and Investments, and Increased Efficiency.

Day 1 of the Council breezed by with unbelievable speed. By the end of that day, all the “A” and “B” agenda items were completed. It was agreed that the meeting be adjourned until the next day when the “C” items would be addressed. Clearly, a night of restful sleep would be the tonic required for a thrilling spectacular the next day.

The conference room was abuzzing with expectation the next morning. But it soon fizzled out!

The two Co-Presidents had obviously consulted with each other, perhaps pressed upon by other collaborators, and agreed to cut short the meeting that day to only half a day, and that all the interventions on the “C” items were to be concluded by 1300hr. Furthermore, each intervention was to be limited to only 5 minutes. Clearly, things were going so well in the meeting, and why should the water be muddied by outpouring of emotion and rhetoric, when the debate could easily be shortened, and all could go home earlier than expected!

As it turned out, ministers with prepared speeches had to quickly rewrite their scripts and read them out with incredible speed, some just threw their texts away and battled on unaided, whilst some were totally bypassed in the haste to bring the meeting to a close.

For some, however, they had to return home believing that the Council had not done proper justice to the issues that were selected for debate, that another opportunity had been squandered and that they had not derived the benefit that was intended from placing “C” items in the agenda of Council. They must have wondered whether their effort to get to the meeting, and all the preliminary sparring, and the to-ing and fro-ing that had gone on, had all been worthwhile!