Belgium took over the presidency of the European Community for six months from the beginning of July 1993. As part of the build-up that all prospective presidents of the various EC councils have to go through, the relevant ministers in the Belgian government, prior to the first of July, had been doing their own lobbying, visiting those who needed to be brought to the fold, talking to the people that mattered, and generally making the right kind of noise that would facilitate their role and which was aimed at making them better understood when they finally got to the chair.

Mr E Derycke, the Belgian Secretary of State for Development Cooperation, whose portfolio includes the Lomé  Convention, is certainly no exception. He had had discussions, for instance, with the ACP-EC Council of Ministers, with the members of the Organization for African Unity, and with the ACP Committee of Ambassadors.

In those discussions, he highlighted his chosen principle topics, which he intended to focus on for the mid-term review of the Fourth Lomé Convention. These are: Rationalizing the Procedures, Reviewing the Implementation of ACP/EC Partnership, Human Rights and Democracy, and Trade Cooperation.

The first, Rationalizing the Procedures, will certainly receive wide support from both parties. Despite the intentions of Lomé IV to streamline and simplify the procedures for the implementation of the Convention, it has been realized that most of the uttering that generated a lot of sleepless nights and paperwork during the negotiations for the current Convention has been simply rhetorical. Great frustration in the implementation of National and Regional Indicative Programmes, and other non-programmable projects, is still the order of the day. This frustration has led to the convening of the “Fiji Study” which looked at the various reasons that have contributed to the slow implementation of the projects of the Convention.

Both parties obviously are to be blamed. Vice-President Marin himself said recently that he was a victim of this frustration. He needed 17 signatures just for one project alone to be approved! He didn’t specify, however, where or from whom these signatures are required.

The question still has to be asked however: if the Convention already has principles to simplify and streamline its own procedures, why is it that the bureaucracy is still so convoluted as to look like a maze which ties up all good intentions with red tape at every turn?

The second topic, Reviewing the Implementation of our Partnership, has an encouraging ring about it. However, on closer scrutiny of the minister’s intention, it is sadly revealed that it only has to do with the practical implementation of projects again. It does not present a philosophical debate on the concept of partnership and how this can be rejuvenated and reinforced to recapture its high ideals of trust, equality and mutuality. These fundamental virtues need to be brought to the ACP/EC agenda again for they seem to be sliding away to partial oblivion.

In fact, this second topic is essentially the same as the first. This means therefore that the minister only has three topics up his sleeve rather than four. Credit however could be given to the minister. He introduced the idea of a contract – a loose form of it anyway – between the two parties to ensure that aid agreements are clearly defined and are implemented properly. Creditable it may be, I believe that it represents an ignominious testimony of this day and age, when groups of nations can no longer base their relations on trust and statements of noble principles and intent, but to have them specified legalistically on a contractual basis in the hope that they be realized.

Human rights and Democracy, the minister’s third topic, is currently the Community’s fixation. The minister proposes to re-phrase Article 5 of Lomé IV, and to use the European Development Fund (EDF) for democratization initiatives and processes. He was sensible enough to acknowledge the fact that the Community cannot export models of democracy to prospective aspirants in the ACP Group of States. Furthermore, he was equally sensible to suggest that “it is important to underline also that it is difficult to consolidate a democratic system without improving the economic situation. This means that the international community undertakes to ensure the developing countries a place in a world market economy.”

Well said! But herein lies the crux of the ACP paradox!

The developing countries are only at the fringe of international trade. It is doubtful that the yet-to-be-concluded Uruguay Round will ever rectify this situation. The prices of their primary commodities are totally out of their hands, for they are determined in futures markets in London, New York, Paris and in other capital cities in developed countries. And despite their global state of poverty and general lack of investible capital, they are still a net contributor to the capital of the developed countries through their debt servicing.

Can the international community ever work in concert to achieve this fine ideal?

Minister Derycke’s final topic for the mid-term review is Trade Cooperation – an issue that is critical for the ACP Group of States. Whilst the minister correctly analysed the problems of the gradual erosion of ACP trade preferences, and the fact that ACP States have not benefitted from the preferential access contained under the Convention, he was not very forthright and clear in his solutions for these problems.

Admittedly, he did come up with a concrete proposal for the promotion of Intra-ACP trade, as if that was the essential missing link to resolve all trade problems between the Community and the ACP Group. The rest of his prescription, however, was unfortunately short on substance and long on non-specificity.

The minister did achieve his aim in educating his audience in the nature and thrust of his dialectics which he would adopt from the presidential chair. For the ACP countries, however, their anxiety as to what gem the mid-term review of Lomé IV would bring, and as to what likely direction the negotiations would take was only beginning.