At the end of April 1993, the Financial Times printed an article entitled “Morality? Leave God out of it.” And it began, “Europe, judging by the newspapers, is plunged in a morai crisis. Sometimes it is Bosnia, but mostly it is the swamp of crime and corruption that promotes editorial hand-wringing.”

In Bosnia, of course, profound moral questions are being asked there as regards ethnic cleansing and violation of fundamental human rights, which sadly reflect the deep-seated feeling of racism, religious intolerance and the preponderant manifestation of nationalism that had been latent for generations.

Bosnia, let me hasten to add, is not unique in this area. In the Community itself, there is no ethnic cleansing per se, as far as I know. However, signs of racism, xenophobia, re-emerging anti-semitism and neo-nazism are all too apparent, and the trend can only be seen as alarming. The crime, of course, that stems from these prejudices is manifested in problems of law and order, unlawful arrests, unprovoked attacks and excessive violence and application of force and authority. These, admittedly, undermine the social fabric based on universally-accepted pronouncements of equality, equity, ethnic integration and religious tolerance.

In the European Parliament this month, discussions on these deep-seated prejudices were indeed prominent. These discussions were on the basis of a report by Italian MEP Cesare de Piccoli. European Parliamentarians expressed concerns about the ‘resurgence of right-wing extremism in Europe’, ‘about growing expressions of xenophobia’, ‘acts of violence of all kinds (which) have risen to a worrying level’, and ‘daily institutional discrimination against blacks, muslims, and refugees in their search for employment, training, health and so on’. Those that spoke denounced ‘the “structural” racism which is to be seen in several Member States, and ‘condemned all forms of racism’. One MEP even went as far as saying that ‘past hatred directed mainly against Israelite communities is now directed towards non-EC members, refugees or people legally residing in the Community’.

MEPs were collectively united in their condemnation of all racist acts, and reaffirmed a European Commission’s statement in deploring a recent attack on a member of the EC Migrants Forum, a body which was set up to give a political voice to the 8 million and more third country migrants legally resident in Community territory. They also called for a Community directive on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism, and asked the Commission to draw up a 4-year plan/programme for Member States to grant national citizenship to children of immigrants and refugees born within the EC.

As a result of all these deliberations, MEPs agreed that the year 1995 is going to be the European Year of Racial Harmony.

When it comes to corruption, the events that brought the Italian government and many in the top echelon of the Italian society to their knees, provide fresh evidence of the ubiquity of this phenomenon. The aftermath of these events were still unfolding during this month in Rome. The Anti-Mafia Commission, an initiative of the Italian Parliament, did recognise as certain the links between Salvo Lima (a former MEP who was killed last year) and men from the Cosa Nostra. Lima was a member of the political party whose leader was Giulio Andreotti, the former Prime Minister. Later, the same Parliament refused to lift the immunity on the former, and thus Andreotti’s links with the Mafia still remain as a matter of speculation.

Given this moral crisis, the question to be addressed, of course, is whether the Community should be a moral watchdog to the rest of the world. It certainly plays this role when it comes to ACP countries, and it does so with great potency. The conditionality with respect to human rights and democratic processes for EC assistance under Lome IV has been somewhat controversial in the eyes of the ACP countries, it has been so because its imposition is unilateral, based on the EC’s own interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention; and secondly, this conditionality and its imposition seems to be a case of double standards.

The ACP States believe that the EC should not get on its high horse and preach morality and even democracy, for its pronouncements only give a hollow ring, in the context of the human rights violation prevalent in the Community, and especially in the context of the ‘moral crisis’ that seems to be on the increase, notwithstanding all the fine statements and the policies that have been formulated and applied. Furthermore, such imposition of a unilateral conditionality is essentially interventionist.

The Community, on the other hand, believes that, being the donor, it has the inviolable right to set conditions for its package of assistance. It also believes that the conditions it sets simply reflect public opinion which has been hardening towards the ACP countries. It further believes that the ACP countries have brought this conditionality upon themselves, for they were responsible for the high profile given to the concept of human rights in the new Convention.

There will, of course, be pros and cons to these various arguments. From the perspective of the writer, however, I believe that since equality and partnership are two fundamental principles of the Lome Convention, then it is incumbent on the parties concerned to create conditions that will enhance these principles, and not those which will engender inequality and undermine partnership. Secondly, reflecting public opinion is fine. However, if it will bring to question the very basis of one’s policy standards, then one really has to apply great caution in reflecting that opinion. And, finally, the argument that the ACP have brought the conditionality upon themselves just doesn’t hold water. The ACP, for instance, argued for many things in the negotiations for Lome IV, but were not able, and still have not been able, to convince the Community to provide these things for which substantial manpower and effort were directed.

The Financial Times columnist had suggested that God should be left out of any discussion on morality, since God and religion essentially deal with the truth, whereas morality does not. That, admittedly, has its time and place. However, a little ecclesiastical truthfulness cannot be too out-of-place here. And that is no one should be casting any stone at anybody since we are all tarred with the same brush!