Adds & Comments

(June 2011)

European Cooperation is on the wrong way … time to dare another policy


  version française

Warning : I thank you to kindly suffer this sometimes French style English. I Hope nevertheless, it will not prevent the reader from understanding the essence of it ! 


Since the present Commission took office, I informed you about two Open Letters (February 2010 and January 2011) published on the site “”.

I want to thank President Barroso for his nice response to my 2011 Letter. I note however with some impatience, that Europeaid  on his behalf,  pulls me down to its specific studies and “participatory” reports which contents frankly seem very far from an adequate response to the urgency and dimension of our cooperation issues. The Green Paper dealing with the EU development policy is certainly rich with laudable intentions and a lot of attractive words in relation to its objectives and contents (“inclusive” growth, “durable” development,  “governance”, “coordination”, “efficiency”, …). It is however true that it stays within the limits of despairing routine and wishful thinking when dealing with partner countries political approach, field strategies and aid management framework. Some of these points are timidly said that they should be “reexaminated” but it is never clearly said that they should be made the very core of the reform (re: the observations about the Green Paper in “remarks about the background and world change” hereafter).

Such documents therefore, will allow to justify for some time more, that we do not really want to change our habits nor hustle a bit more our developing partners. This is certainly not the best way to gain their respect nor the adequate manner to further report an optimal  aid  efficiency to the European tax-payer. On the opposite, the mere continuation of the present laisser-faire routine, is the best way to fail in the search of a smooth solution of the geostrategic, competitiveness and migratory flows issues which pressure Europe suffers more  and more heavily  every day !


Ladies and Gentlemen Commissioners and General Directors, let us make it clear !


The  Commission is not required to bear the burden of all European issues nor to re-build Europe. It is not entitled nor has the capacity if not the  ambition, to do  so ! About Europe re-building, it seems that the Member-states governments are progressively setting up, with the cooperation of the Commission in some cases, a more operational inter-governmental coordination and action scheme. The franco-german initiatives in the field of finance and economy, the franco-british defense and military initiatives, and the franco-italo-spanish ones with regards to the Mediterranean policy, open the way in that direction since 2007/2008.

The Commission is merely required to efficiently fulfill the statutory tasks of management coordination it has been entrusted,  through prioritizing Europe’s and European people interests with preference to some principles or ideals exaggerately adulated by said Commission, for instance in the fields of trade and competition, immigration and people’s movements, cooperation and development aid, etc…


With regards to development aid, the Green Paper is not “the revolution” direly needed as far as countries political approach, field development strategies and aid management are concerned, although the Commission clearly enjoys in such fields, all necessary authority and the means to launch the reform, i-e :

·         First“review” (as expressed in the Livre Vert) the politically correct and however, totally irrealistic utopias of the Déclaration de Paris, European Consensus, Accra agreements, etc…  with a view to a tougher (or less angelistic)  approach to the partner countries’ governing elites. A strict “co-decision/co-direction” management system should be established at each level of the financing process as well as at execution and control stages of the actions and projects financed. This requires that we let aside the very sympathetic and very naïve idea that the partners’ elites will suddenly feel responsible and strictly abide by the principle of public interest while efficiency would naturally stem from the alignment of the European aid on partners’ policies and procedures not to say on their whims, errors and fantasies.

·         Second, and opposite to the first point discussed above,  it is necessary to re-orient the field strategies creating a strong incentive to responsibilisation/autonomisation when dealing with the final “beneficiaries” of European financial aid, programs or projects (base communities, local entities, enterprises, field institutions, etc…). The goal is to help said “beneficiaries” evolving into “responsible protagonist” and shall we dare say, help them “getting rich thanks to their own labor and savings” . With this in mind, we have therefore to get rid of our present practices of fake participation and actual assistantialism. The latter indeed, merely strengthen the vicious circle of laxity, irresponsibility and dependence on aid thus justifying an everlasting renewal of the aid, opposite to what is needed !

·         Third, the Commission should re-build its management and control system which kafkaïan canvas of inadequate rules and procedures blocks the decision process and cripples field action. For this, it has to drop its  search for an illusory funds management security that in fact, privilegiates the European managers’ comfort at the expense of the flexibility and efficiency  of the projects and expected field results, while the latter ought to be the only acceptable measure of the adequate and efficient use of the European funds !

Thinking about these last three points, we could legitimately assume that the rapid world evolution and the resulting tense cooperation background should strongly encourage the European Authorities and especially the Commission, in taking some risks in that respect. A wait-and-see, laisser-faire and non-decision making attitude is suicidal when facing Europe’s arising challenges.

Europe therefore, has to get rid urgently of the ready-made ideas forged by correct-thinking that weakens characters and kills up to the very idea of a responsible democracy !   

Don’t be afraid ! Dare it !




P.S. Remarks about the background in a rapidly changing world .

Intellectuals, politicians, journalists, entrepreneurs, working rich and poor, protagonists of the so-called “civil society” and citizens of our countries ! …. Get rid of the ready-made ideas and correct thinking that spoil your intelligence and discourage action !


Green paper on "EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development ": will it be the trigger for the drastic change all cooperation partners are waiting for ?

The ambiguousness of this document brings some confusion :

·         It is basically immersed in the correct thinking utopias of the declaration de Paris, European Consensus and Accra agreements …. while stating in its Conclusion that “the Commission will propose a scheme for a modernized EU policy that will among other things, push forward “the opportunity of a reexamination of the European Consensus for Development” …. And in § 2.7, it mentions “a complete reexamination of the budgetary support instrument” … 

Is this the revolutionary change we are longing for ? Having witnessed the history of the “reforms” during the past twenty years and considering the institutional and administrative sluggishness that prevails in the Commission, we tend to think that such statements aim at showing that everything moves (or might move !) in order that nothing changes ! (re : the famous Prince Salina’s mockery in Lampedusa’s  novel about Italian revolution).


·         The document in addition, abstains from drawing the constantly verified lessons of the non-reliability of the partner countries’ elites  nor of the weaknesses and corruption of the decision, action and control structures  of the local and national institutions. The Green Paper in its § 2.3 and  the  document “Supporting democratic governance through the governance initiative” are pure wishful thinking . Their GAPs (Governance Action Plans) and their “tranches payments” modalities for instance are already said to be largely “non-operational” lack of adequate measurement instruments, lack of confidence between protagonists and also due to our excessive tolerance and laisser-faire with regards to our partners. Further on, we can read about the GAPs (re : conclusions and lessons learned) that “the credibility of the plans may be increased by associating all democratic actors in the countries concerned” : this would be a frantic programme where a necessarily artificial and practically unfeasible planning, programming and control process would take more importance, energy, time and money than action itself supposing in addition, that it would not block it. It is indeed, a whimsical theory elaborated in some office far from the field realities that is comforted by the strange statement of § 2.1 of the Green Paper : “we have to show positive results of the EU development cooperation in a convincing manner (sic !) and for this, we have to strive to strengthen the follow-up/evaluation and reporting systems in the EU  as well as in its partner countries …”….. while everybody perfectly knows that such systems are not able to make a correct evaluation of field results and are mostly centered around budgetary engagements and expenses !

One can dream : that is the exact image of bureaucratic spirit on duty !


·         It is possible  however, that some suggestions of the field operators, institutions, NGOs or “think tanks” who will have sent their observations about the Green Paper, may be accepted in the coming years through some modifications of the present procedures and practices. When reading the already available contributions, we can note that each one deals normally with its specific field of technical competency as it could be expected and that there is no real vision of the global issue of development cooperation. This is absolutely regular when thinking of the operators but doubt arises about the real consciousness of the Commission in relation to its exclusive and “sovereign” role  in the elaboration of this global vision of development cooperation (and this notwithstanding its wish to please everybody practicing a so called participatory analysis of issues and solutions !).

As a conclusion, the “great fundamental reform” needed might be pulled down at the level of a few methodological, technical  or administrative issues, that are effectively to be considered with the field operators and at their level. That is indeed the most comfortable manner to avoid taking too many risks venturing in the much more difficult terrain of the regional, national and local development strategies and in the even more complicated field of the political approaches to be adopted in front of the deciders of the partner countries for what the Commission has the exclusive and total responsibility.


Social cohesion, solidarity, identity, “society issues”, etc … despised realities quickly turn explosive

Stating what follows, is not an infamy. It is salutary especially when it opposes the politically and socially correct thinking that floods the developed world :

·         Regulating the nature and volume of immigration flows is nothing immoral nor infamous. It is necessary and just when aiming at helping the complete integration of those immigrants who are already in and strive to melt into the European pot. Maintaining European identity and social cohesion is vital with a view to make possible a smooth evolution in front of massive or disorderly flows that would not fit its short and long term needs.

We are indeed, facing great risks in the difficult economic transition phase the world will have to cope with during this first half of the 21st century : populations imbalances, discrepancies of poverty/development levels, availability of natural and non-renewable resources not mentioning political ambitions and subsequent conflicts.

Europe in fact, except punctually, does not need immigrated labor force nor specific competencies despite the funny declarations of some employers’ arguing of cheaper labor costs and those idealistic correct thinkers, politicians or researchers who claim that “immigration makes Europe better and richer”!  It might be but it could also turn catastrophic. Populations, cultures and civilizations have always get better and richer without requiring for this an urgent, massive and generalized worldwide cross-breeding !

Let us put aside the complaints and tears shed on the situation of the immigrants. The latter are indeed, often in a distress situation and many specialized NGOs care with them for charity purposes but also, in too many cases, for political objectives. The immigration issue is a much wider problem that not only involves the some thousands of legal and illegal immigrants but also the millions of European citizens who receive them … as well as the governments of the countries they originate from. We should not  forget in addition, that the money they transfer to their countries of origin,  largely benefit  their families  at home and are a significant support to the balance of payments of said countries who should make a better use of it (it is especially the case of Morocco, Algeria, Philippines, Central America, Africa, South and South-East Asia, etc…)


France and Great Britain have strictly no demographic nor economic need to favour immigration. On  the opposite, they should reduce it drastically while setting up a strong policy aiming at a definitive integration of the immigrants who are already there. Germany and some other European countries can rightfully be afraid of their declining birth rate; they nevertheless have the right (and obligation vs their other European partners) to choose who they want to receive on the basis of their economic needs and hosting capacities. The French socialist ex-Prime minister Michel Rocard was already obliged in 1990 to  remind the generous idealists of his party that : “we cannot receive the whole world misery !”

It is high time now, that all Member-States and the Union coordinate their policies in that respect and, when necessary, decide to adapt the Schengen framework without keeping blind pleading for charitable intentions and denying the realities i-e political or economic urgency, growing pressure from incoming flows as well as Europe’s actual needs and integration capacities.

The “arab spring” when it is achieved successfully as we hope, should result into the rise of a true democratic feeling among the people and constitutional reforms including a new three-powers based political organization and dropping the chari’a as the source of law. Such a change would greatly help in regulating the flows through subsequent elimination of  political asylum flows and making the new governing elites responsible for effective prioritization of  public interest over their own private interests and of people global socio-economic development !  In the same line, the eviction of autocratic, paranoiac and criminal presidents like Laurent Gbagbo in Ivory Coast, is a clear sign given to the African elites that they should care with their population instead of caring for themselves and thus avoid pushing people out of their country seeking for a decent living ! Let us wait and hope for a positive result because very drastic measures would prove necessary if such “freedom or democratic” movements were unsuccessful.


·         Nobody questions Islam when one, national or foreigner, is simply required to respect the law and customs of the country where he lives.  It is  also something obvious that needs now to be too often  reminded !  Religion is a private affair and it is not acceptable to impose its more visible or disturbing practices to the other people not even mentioning to oblige them to abide with one’s religious practices or customs by force or moral or social pressure.

It is therefore, simple justice that such an attitude be punished and the “islamists” (or muslim integrists) who would attempt to do it have to be looked after and punished as all other religious “integrists”, jewish,  protestant (some USA sects especially), hindu, etc… who practice a violent proselytism in some countries.

For the sake of their cohesion, the European societies should definitely reject any islamist attempt to impose in the public sphere, practices or customs stemming from the chari’a or from the various and multiple schools, interpretations or local practices of Islam. Beware of the highly “jesuitic” speeches of theologian Tariq Ramadan like who preach tolerance and respect of law when addressing the European public and however, state at the same time that we should “understand”, and therefore “forgive” with a view to further “accept” and finally “justify” before “imposing” said practices for the sake of old traditions that have most of the time, nothing to do with the “sunna” and the Holy Book !

Islam has to evolve, the ‘ulama have to frame this evolution, the imams to preach it … and the muslims to gently accept for instance, praying at home when there is no place left in the mosque and more important,  to definitely make their the idea that the women can live, think and act without being looked after by any self-appointed male chaperon … and finally to drop the  concept of “dar al Islam”, the dhimmi status and “Christians chasing” where it is practiced ! The Moroccan and Algerian governments are on this line. The governments of the “Arab revolutions” have to confirm that … and as a positive sign, review their Constitution dropping especially any reference to the chari’a as the main source of right.


·         Punishing a delinquent is not an “infamy” notwithstanding the excuses he might be given (poverty, joblessness, lack of social integration, lack of basic education, etc…). Too many judges and criminologists hesitate after they have been educated by our correct thinkers of  the “May 68 revolution for libertarian laxism”, now preachers of the politically and socially correct new wave that is presently flooding our developed societies. Each person has the same rights and the same duties. A poor therefore, an immigrant, a young one has not more rights nor less duties on the sole ground that he is a poor, an immigrant or a young one !

A delinquent is a responsible human being before being considered as an “ill-cared poor corrupted by the society ”. Most of the poor are not delinquents and most of the urban young are not jobless !

“Excuse” may be called upon the first offence committed with a view to mitigate the punishment and to give a second chance to the delinquent but a second offence requires adequate redress measures.  Military duty was a practical school that mixed the various social groups and where people could learn effort and discipline. It is indeed difficult to reestablish such an institution but experiences of delinquents or pre-delinquents reinsertion on a voluntary basis in military type structures, have been successfully made. This means that responsibility feeling does not in fact disappear among the hooligans or thugs, they simply need to be put in such a situation that they can identify where is really their honor and recover it.

For those who cannot be repositioned on the right way, jail will be the sanction … or as an intermediate step, why wouldn’t we reestablish physical punishment such as caning or whipping that would probably prove much more dissuading than jail for our young pre-delinquent machos who generally boast about it in front of their pals and girls ? 


·         There has always been rich and poor people. It is a pity but it is a reality and this is not an “infamous” phenomenon of our modern society that has considerably reduced the gap. Most religions (except maybe the Mormons) are suspicious with the rich but they do not condemn him and very wisely, just recommend to him the practice of charity or zakat.

Inequality indeed, is natural. Richest people are generally the most intelligent or the most active, most efficient, …or the strongest, the wisest and they are precisely those who make the society move forward. However, and in order to avoid that those people misuse dishonestly and harm the bulk of fellow citizens, the society has established specific direction and control institutions which mission is to tell the right and make it respected without blocking the dynamics of progress i-e the initiatives of the most intelligent and active people. And when they get rich, let us wish them all the best and also the people they provide with employment and revenues  !

Equalitarism is an imbecility that the European middle mass and especially the French petit-bourgeois society celebrate much too sensitively since the Revolution, imbecility that the leftist parties put forward in each election period including the French socialist party that still did not fully make its socio-economic update !

When the rich will have disappeared, the poor only will survive as demonstrated by the socialist soviet countries …  or only the saints, saddhu, ascetic or fools of the various religions or sects ! That is not  credible because it is not the human nature.

When elections time approaches, “the inequalities” complaint comes back again and again in the political speeches. However, and opposite to what is commonly said, inequalities do not increase despite some too visible “ultra-rich” and a lot of “ultra-poor” in constantly decreasing number thanks to an always more protective social net.



·         School and education are the foundation of social cohesion under condition that parents educate and teachers teach ! This is really worth indignation when parents do  not dare anymore to educate their children and when discipline at school has been systematically destroyed through promoting educational ideologies and methods stemming from the May 68 whims that definitely broke masters’ and teachers’ authority (“it is  forbidden to forbid”, “take pleasure without limits”, …) . Said whims have been originally inoculated by a series of “false political thinkers” beginning with Sartre (“the hell, it’s the others”) down to the Rue d’Ulm philosophers with Althusser and other Marxism deviationists not mentioning the correct thinkers of the Saint Germain des Prés middle judicial or university bourgeoisie. Since then, the concept of individual responsibility has been totally despised and they teach that “individuals especially when they misbehave, should be excused because society is  responsible for duly caring with them ” !

As a result, many hooligans and thugs, rich or poor, and unfortunately a lot of lost people the stronger of whom only will be able to overcome the lack of reference points their parents and teachers omit to give them. Our pedagogists, psychologists, sociologists and other “education thinkers” will have been the catastrophe of the second half of the past century, achieving the debilitation of the education system and the destruction of responsibility feeling among the young thanks to their pusillanimity and educational laxity. School children and students are supposed to learn and not to discuss what they should  learn nor to waste their future and their parents’ or the State money !

School disorder severely hampers the integration process in the suburbs where immigrated populations concentrate. The rates of school failure, joblessness and  delinquency  climb  then to incommensurably much higher levels  than in the rest of the country and turn rapidly into a national issue (refer in that respect to the studies of France’s “Haut Conseil à l’Intégration”).

The basic issue is not any shortage of means (lack of teachers !) but indeed, lack of discipline at work !   The general abatement of the pupils educational level and the deterioration of the classification of our schools, colleges, universities have nothing to do with the number of  teachers or professors. The basic cause is a fact that too many people involved in the educational system want to hide or ignore : when some pupils organize turmoil, play with their mobile or insult their teacher instead of listening and working, they do learn nothing and  prevent the whole class-room from learning anything.

Giving back their authority to  the teachers and professors is the Minister’s role and a question of  political will. It is the Minister’s function to decide (after consultation -not co-decision- of the main partners) what should be the contents and the methods as well as the framework and the conditions of teaching. The minister is in command and gives instructions. The civil servants obey and the Unions have no co-direction role in the management of the ministry . Their role is limited to the defense of the civil servants considered as state or local institutions employees and not as a “corporation”. The mission of teaching is the responsibility of the Ministry, not of the Unions !

Education is a very costly public service. It has therefore, to be efficient and this is valid for all public services which cost/efficiency ratio has to be continuously improved.


·         In the  same manner as for the National Education Service, it is un-correct and nevertheless true (but unwelcomed !) to state that overall public services main problem is not any lack of means but  a problem of more efficient work organization. This applies to Education services as well as to police, justice, hospitals and health services, social services and more generally, all public or para-public institutions within the “protected” sector. France for instance, is not an under-administered country but overstaffed and therefore, ill-administered : in such  a situation indeed, every one strives to create and consolidate his own little cocoon (or big bureaucratic fortress !) at the expenses of a smooth running of the whole system ! There are public agents in largely sufficient number but they are not assigned where they should and their work is not well organized. Efficiency is hampered also by rigid statuses and malpractices : one naturally prefers to stay comfortably in his chair during his duty time than to patrol on the terrain; it is obviously nice to complete one’s statutory leave with some extra free days on any complacent medical ground; it became also usual and now statutory, to recover night or Sunday work by  allocation of double time or more free hours or days, etc…, etc… Not mentioning the  debauch of recruitments, often on political grounds, made by the local authorities who recruit many more people than necessary considering the nature of missions  and volume of work transferred by the decentralization program.

The Government therefore, is fully committed to a courageous review of the major public administrations (education, justice, health, police and army mainly) with a view to better adapt the means to the real needs and improve the cost/efficiency ratio of the public services. The needs indeed, vary according to time and space : it is  commendable for instance, to shut  some class-rooms where the number of pupils diminish and open new ones where population increases, to rationalize the use of the medical equipment and staff at local and regional level, to increase the police patrols instead of mobilizing policemen for static guards, to coordinate the action of national and local social services in order to better service the difficult areas and prevent social issues and pre-delinquency, etc… As it was to be expected, the Unions and “the left” which troops mostly stem from the public sector, have shouted at the  government  : too many long time established habits and widely spread management comfort had been thus disturbed  within the central and  local administration !

It is sad to witness such a primary demagogy and to have to state such a deviation in the conception of the “public service”. The latter is paid by the tax-payers and has to be efficient in terms of volume and quality of services rendered as compared to the costs incurred. Its aim is not to provide job positions for civil servants nor to be used as a solution for unemployed people or social cases who are cared with in another way. It not the property of the Unions which interests and whims the successive governments have too much satisfied during the past decades.

This phenomenon of progressive bureaucratisation and socialisation of the public sector is not merely French. The Commission is another example at European level and all European countries endure the excessive weight and lengthiness of their administration. It is however true that France in this respect, has a specific position considering the importance of its public sector and its level of social protection which are undoubtedly well over the European average not mentioning the United States nor obviously the rest of the world. This high level of “socialization” of the French society would be ideal when supported by an optimal efficiency of the public sector but it proves to be a severe handicap when it becomes too heavy to adapt rapidly and too costly in comparison with the services rendered. Hence the willingness of  the French Government to reform its public sector.


·         Intellectuals do not necessarily have the intelligence of the world … they deal with words and dreams, not with decision nor action … they should be punished like Socrates “quod juventutem corrumperant”…

Before and, even worse, after last world war, most of our “great” thinkers, philosophers, sociologists, writers and artists have lost their entire life before they acknowledge the whims, turpitudes and crimes of communism that they formerly glorified as the “un-surpassable horizon” of the evolution of the society (J.P. Sartre’s illumination !). They had then to recover from their intellectual failure and deliciously dived into excess of tolerance, democratic  indignation, compassion and repentance about all the social matters  they had formerly misapprehended or denied through the straitjacket of applied Marxism and the avatars they strove madly to replace it.  They have been indeed, endowed with an un-surpassable capacity for ratiocination and sophisticated analyses of concepts, whimsical theories and most “creative” artistic approaches : Duchamp, Sartre, Althusser and so many others in France, Europe and United States were such brave fighters !  They however, have not been very much inspired by the search of practical solutions to  the world issues ! We may wonder at their brilliant intellectual mechanism or their extremely sensitive artistic feeling but we cannot but stay speechless when considering their total lack of intelligence of the world issues. They have played an indignant comedy consciously cheating generations of young people who lost their time … otherwise they have to be considered as a band of mere imbeciles !

Wrong thinking was so pregnant that some of them who participated to the Resistance movements or claimed so, have been questioning De Gaulle  when he came back to power in 1958,  asking seriously whether he might not prove “a bit fascist” ! They are now so much filled with emotions and fantastic whims (“democracy and republic might be in danger” !) that they push a spoiled, cocooned, anti-effort and  anti-rigor prone youth into generalized recrimination, dispute and relativism (“everything the  same, everything rotten”) instead of guiding it making its own way, acting and not complaining about everything as their parents have done for forty years. They thus, participate to the perversion process of European public mind at the  very moment when Europe is to face the hardest challenge of its long history !


In fact, our intellectuals are a bit lost and dilute their emotions and generous feelings in a compassionate equalitarianism where the French Socialist Party apparently wants to bog its next elections program. They keep constant in ideological conformism and error ! No matter if experience has proved many times it could not successfully come to anything  but totalitarian organisation and generalized poverty as shown by the soviet systems or by the pure communautarism as practiced in the Andean area !

They apparently, cannot get rid of false ideologies and turn in round ! Many others try to experiment the more modern and fashionable way of “durability” and “ecologism” that might soon turn into the new totalitarian folly the more as most of the ecologist troops have been educated through the frantic leftist or ultra leftist whims ! Priesthood and sermons about human rights are also a good outlet for our intellectuals in search of the truth (of God ?).


It is time now to come back to earth and not to drown anymore in perpetual commiseration mixing emotions and politics, compassion for some and development of the society as a whole. We have to separate the superior interests of a society, a country, a nation or a group  of nations (Europe for instance) and on the other side, the specific or individual cases that have certainly to be considered and treated in the best way as possible but cannot justify any priority over general interest. Europe is  to fight a difficult party in front of the other developed and emerging or developing powers. Exclusive or excessive compassion for particular miseries will not help in building welfare and future of our people as a whole.



“Social” keeps bound to economy. It is the unique booster of employment, purchasing power and social protection … although some thinkers begin to dream about “gross national happiness” !

European Renaissance initiated a civilization of progress that allowed the population of the world to grow and multiply, and to increase steadily its material welfare. Is that something good as progressist people think ?  Is that something bad as the Club de Rome followers and the “ecolo-regressive” are claiming ?  Is that sustainable as the durable growth supporters hope ?

Anyway, the standard of living of the European populations has constantly improved since the 39-45 war and that of the third world populations did not worsen globally despite the latter grew by four to five times since then.  Even better, some emerging countries are growing at a very high speed and turn harsh competitors for our economies and beyond, for the equitable use of natural resources in a from now on non extensible world. This results in important geostrategic  issues and generates major risks of competition and conflict between powers as well as a dire obligation to make choices adapting the development model Europe has spread over the earth.


The European development model enriched people to such a point they have never reached before neither in relation to material consumption nor to social benefits (education, health, joblessness, pension, old age and hazards of life) which access has been granted also to foreign immigrants including the illegal ones. As a consequence of this, our society is not anymore divided into social classes or casts but has progressively turned into a classless medium-rich petit-bourgeois society with related defects : fear to take any risk, fear of change, fear of losing social benefits, fear of the “other”, recrimination and complaint about everything, stupid equalitarism and jealousy of others’ success, attraction for  socio-cultural modes and millenarist fears (disparagement of progress, climate and  nuclear issues, …), attraction for jobs in public administration (including obviously its over-protecting status !) as a heart-breaking sign of the ambition of our youngsters (many investigations  on the subject) !!!! etc… etc… Such an attitude showing fear and rejection of any kind of effort and struggle for life is flooding our society at the precise moment when we need to adapt urgently to the external world pressure in order to improve our countries’ economy upon which efficiency and reactivity rely the future of our enterprises, people’s employment and sustainability of our social protection. We might otherwise witness the definitive submersion of our territories by the products of the developing world and the dynamics of their populations.


The Unions very hypocritically, are front line fighters for economic and social conservatism though they perfectly know it is a lost battle. Their objective (in fact, a pavlovian reflex after decades of Marxist and post-marxist follies) is to  show a strong opposition to any change of the  production and social protection systems with the suicidal risk to let them fossilize and crack.   Examples in France are the demonstrations against the CPE in 2006 (a kind of  labor  contract that makes more flexible and facilitates the recruitment of young people), against the reform of pensions scheme in 2010 and even more  stupid, the deadly blocking of the French seaports by the CGT ( ex-communist union) or the ideological and stubborn opposition of the syndicated “pedagogists” to  the reform of educative contents and methods in the National school system despite their clear failure, etc … etc… In Great Britain also, hundreds of  thousands have demonstrated against the Cameron drastic reforms while Germany and Italy have progressively reframed their public sector during the past years.


Our governments indeed, are aware of the urgency of such reforms since long, and now (forced by the 2008-2009 crises !) they do not withdraw anymore when demonstrators shout in the streets.  Re-framing and regulation go on progressively in firms management, financial sector and public finance management, in search of an acceptable balance between long term economic competitiveness and sustainable social protection. With this in mind, the German themselves, despite their (obsessional) monetarist rigor, admitted that they should demonstrate their total and however controlled solidarity with their European partners although the latter’ virtue is still to prove.  France and Germany are taking the lead in that respect and Europe gathers progressively, coordinating social and economic policies.  Europe’s future is there, facing successfully  the growing competition of its developed, emerging and developing partners.


A counter-example of what has to be done, is given by the attitude of  the French socialist party and  its fellow organizations (other leftist groups and ecologists). They do not have yet made their social  and economic “aggiornamiento” and once again, think, talk and act as if  the  world had not moved since decades ! They do not want to confess the follies of their presently “resurrecting” hero, François Mitterand (right to pension open at 60 years, nationalization of the economy, foolish social gifts, economic mismanagement, …) nor the highly counter-productive reduction of  the weekly legal working time (35 hours) elaborated by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then the “thinker” of  the socialist  party, and applied by Martine  Aubry, now first secretary of said party ! They go on thinking that the “social” can be financed through constant debt increase and act as if they did not understand that the financial constraint does not stem from the “naughty rating agencies” but from the  French and foreign saviors i-e the people themselves who save and will not buy the French debt anymore when they will have lost confidence. Our socialist politicians still play with the primary, demagogic, leftist slogan : “the rich will pay !”. Martine Aubry indeed, was shocked during her recent France Inter interview of the  9th of May,  discovering that there were rich people on one side, and poor people benefiting the RSA (solidarity revenue for the poor) on the other side … She could also discover and further state that in fact, the RSA might be financed  by  the taxes paid by the rich and that all  jobs on the earth are created and paid  by the “rich” shareholders and the enterprises they finance ?!

Demagogy make them say : let us eliminate the rich ! ( this has been successfully made in Ukraine and Russia by the Communist Party  during the 1920s !). It is clear however, that when this is done, everybody will be equal caring with all others equally poor : that is probably what the first secretary of our correct thinking Socialist Party means by “care society”,  the new concept she wants to promote.  Ségolène Royal turns around another concept : the miracle overall solution according to her, is the “participatory democracy”, the same  old “autogestion” that Michel Rocard promoted and quickly dropped during  the 60s !  Let us forget now about Dominique Strauss-Kahn. What is most ridiculous ?  his stupid sex affair ?  or the attitude of the New-York police and  justice at the service of  a demagogic Puritanism hiding the hypocrisy and frustration of a large part of the American society ? Strauss-Kahn nevertheless, was skillfully playing ambiguousness between the “rigorous liberalism” he practiced within  the IMF  and  the remembrance of his very “socializing” inventions when he was in charge of the elaboration of the Party programme.

Incorrigible and frivolous socialists ! They always  come  back to their centenarian doxa, emotions, generous feelings and demagogy when they think it will please the masses !


Coming back to Europe, it has to stop its overplayed comedy about free-trade and open competition which principles should not  be changed into a mere “free-tradist” ideology.  Europe has to show open by virtue of principles and economic effectiveness but it has also to prove able to protect its firms and its jobs by virtue of its interests. Europe should not hesitate in making its rights and requirements respected nor in helping its firms outside when dealing with uncontrolled imports from countries that do not respect minimal criteria in the social, monetary, financial and environmental fields or do not provide European firms with minimal and equitable conditions of fair competition. Our foreign competitors do not abstain in that respect as everybody knows !

The Commission for long, could not help practicing a generous laxism and a clear laisser-faire (often with some condescension ) as it  tends again to do it with regards to global heating (wanting to show as an example !) and more recently to immigration from in-and outside Europe. A lot of similar cases might be cited in the sector of development cooperation.

Europe  indeed, is permanently straitjacketed by a long time rooted correct thinking which prevent it to claim its existence imposing its own conditions and requirements as everybody does.  The world balance however, is changing and our relative wealth less assured. Hence, the necessity to prove more fighting spirit in the FMI/IMF stances, OMC/WTO’s, G 8 and G 20’s where big world game is played.


The G 7, 8 and 20 “raison d’être” is to find and permanently adapt the basic balances in the fields of economy, moneys, trade and social as well as economic competitiveness between powers, regions and blocs. Within such international discussion groups, the European member-states have to adequately coordinate action in order to show a coherent “European front” and give the right tempo to the Commission. The latter indeed,  has to prove less angelistic and more machiavelian boosting Europe’s and European people’ interests. Big deals are a lot and the G 8 / G 20 under French presidency show particularly heavy agendas : drug trafficking, value of moneys, trade surpluses and deficits, budgetary surpluses and deficits, financial flows regulation, climate change, energy sources diversification, etc… As far as energy and climate are concerned, nuclear energy shall remain central in any possible option despite Fukushima and the dreams and whims of the ecologists who do not fear incoherence anymore after they found the Graal of the renewable energies !  They do not care about the cost, presently totally un-economic, the production constraints ( no wind or no sun = no electricity !), and the natural space they need in producing, as for the folly of bio-fuels. Nuclear energy is the only source of energy able to fit the two basic requirements of our time :  first, provide the third world masses with a durable access at reasonable cost to basic energy sources (it seems indeed, difficult to preach them production and consumption decrease !!!), second, strive to limit as far as possible, oil and hydrocarbons consumption and its consecutive green-house effects, while waiting for the 4th generation reactors that will burn most of the fissile materials and further, fusion technology that will produce quite clean energy.

The German hesitations and Germany’s recent decision to get rid of nuclear energy within a  ten years period of time, creates ambiguousness and, as they did last year with the Euro-Greek crisis, they do not facilitate the definition of a European common policy in that respect. We will soon be able to check whether Angela Merkel’s bet proves politically profitable or not. It is certainly not economically nor financially and even less ecologically as Germany will be obliged to burn more hydrocarbons in order to balance the deficiencies and intermittences of the wind and solar energies after the nuclear production basis of the country will have been stopped.



Europe, peace and war


Crises in Libya and Ivory Coast are the perfect illustration of what remains to be done in the field of European foreign and defense policy. In line with what has been done during the euro crisis with Germany, France had to take the lead in the Ivory Coast crisis, and with Great Britain support in the case of Libya. In light of the latter intervention, we may appreciate the importance of the military cooperation agreement concluded between France and Great Britain in November 2010, especially when European interests may be at stake in any sensitive region such as the Mediterranean area, North Africa,  the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Ocean and naturally the Atlantic zone.

We could thus, appreciate how necessary was the “entente cordiale” between the European states and also the establishment of a European military command that provides Europe with the minimal and necessary autonomy in conducting its own interventions, apart from the NATO or US military structures which objectives and methods are not necessarily in line with ours.


France has been recently very much asked for taking major initiatives on behalf and for the benefit of the whole Europe for instance, fighting the 2008 financial crisis during the French EU presidency, building up a common response with Germany during the euro crisis in 2010,  initiatives of the G 8 and G 20, and now Ivory Coast and Libya interventions, …  Will it be France’s destiny to take back its secular role as the pivotal power in Europe ?  History and geography naturally tend to it as well as the French demographic evolution as compared to the rest of Europe, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc…


Anyway, demonstration has been made since long that decision and action in a crisis situation can only proceed from the main member-states concerned i-e France and Germany as a minimal configuration when dealing with economic and financial affairs in the eurozone, France and Great Britain for military affairs and especially overseas interventions, France with Italy and Spain for  the Mediterranean affairs, Germany with France and Italy for the East European zone.

We can now rightfully talk about a “European Directoire” which is to be progressively consolidated so  that Europe can totally and immediately take advantage of any opportunity that the world evolution may offer and face when necessary the difficulties that such an evolution will inevitably generate.

Europe indeed, cannot wait that the 20 or 30 member-states agree on all terms before making any decision, and this especially when urgency commands. It is therefore vital to establish an operational decision and action scheme involving the most immediately concerned states when a decision has to be made in reaction to any urgent situation. This nucleus of states will organize the convergence of their economic policies as well as their foreign policy and defense options. The member-states of the second circle will  follow when they can  and will contribute to the common effort according to their capacity but will not be endowed with any veto power with regards to the options of the leading group of states in the domain concerned. “Enlargement” as presently understood will be envisioned through the constitution of a third circle of associated states. The UPM (Union pour la Méditerranée) and the European neighborhood policy could be the framework for such a cooperation after the defects the present EU cooperation instruments are blamed with (ALA, MEDA, ACP, TACIS, PEV, etc…), have been washed out.


The idea therefore, is to enforce an intermediary step  in the “federalization” process of Europe (an ugly expression but a reality in progress !). And were it necessary to modify the “Treaties” in order to allow or facilitate such “coopérations renforcées”, to make possible a European immediate reaction in urgent situations and eventually get rid of political and bureaucratic inertia that the Commission institutionally suffers, don’t be afraid ! make it !

We have already lost too much time and we have to prepare in facing successfully the challenges of the changing world.



Elections turmoil, media over-excitement, people’ despair … and redress measures


Big buzz and large electoral (hopefully democratic ?) turmoil is to deluge  the world in 2011 and 2012. France, Germany, United States, Russia, the “arab revolutions”, many African states and others are on the line. Laurent Gbagbo has been washed away from Ivory Coast along with his foolish power probably inspired by his newly cherished Messiah and evangelist gris-gris !  Gbagbo was indeed, a very  bad model for all African autocrats who have not yet been thrown to the infernal  abyss like Mugabe, Omar el Bachir, etc… or those who are still more or less accepted in the club although their priorities still remain merely clanic or tribal such as the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria, Tch            ad, Uganda, Congo, Gabon, Kenya, etc… and most of the others !

What to think about the so-called “arab springs or arab revolutions” ? They have been so much applauded and sometimes so frantically praised during the past months by our great “democrats”, human rights priests, correct thinkers and the herd of our enchanted journalists who suddenly dropped their criticism prone obsession ! Please let us wait and further appreciate who the elections will bring to power and how the new elites will govern. On the positive side, the establishment of an acceptable democracy on the southern bank of the Mediterranean, would allow to enter into a confident and efficient cooperation aiming at solving our major common issues of development, migration and civilization, not necessarily with the idea of re-building the Roman Empire ! It would be a major geo-political event that would eliminate a large part of the major issues and risks the world  might have to confront during the 21st century . We want therefore to keep hope but have to remain prudent and wait a bit more before celebrating the “arab democratic salvation”. We have indeed, so many times witnessed the democracy confiscated by autocrats, oligarchies, military regimes or even theocratic dictatorships in Asia, Latin America, Africa, or in the Arab world as well as in Eastern Europe.


In the western countries where democracy is now well in place,  two complementary phenomenons are underway. They are typical of our “new petit bourgeois society” now largely homogeneised thanks to material progress and social protection. The first feature is people’s rejection of its own governing elites, and worse, the stubborn refusal of any effort or change that their governments for long has not even dared to require from them (this seems to be changing now since last crisis !). The second phenomenon is the gregarious accompaniment and rapid extension of people’s  moroseness and despair that journalists, commentators and communicators of all kind seem willing to perform in an irresponsible and however, very efficient manner.


The rejection phenomenon of  its governing elites directly stems from the fact that the European population, is presently spoilt and over-protected as no population has ever been in the history of mankind.  Being in addition, cheated by the preachers of a generalized and systematic “assistanceship”, it complains again and again about the miserable situation it is allegedly suffering.  Said population since its childhood, got used to be totally taken care of by its parents or by the State without being obliged to provide any significant effort in exchange. It is thus immediately striken with paranoiac crises each time it is required to move or change a bit ! It then begins to hate such “naughty, authoritarian, aggressive, fascist” political leaders who dare to refuse to meet its whims (should they ?) or simply ask them to “moderate” its gluttony and change some of its habits.

Frantic demagogy then floods the opposition political parties, unions and correct thinking associations. The governments change from right to left and then from left to right following the results of the successive elections and the ups and downs of our “petit bourgeois’s” mood.  The “left” indeed, uses to formulate and enforce (half-way only !) correct thinking whims while the “right” hardly dares (half-way again !) to fight them and pull them down. Public mood then is progressively weakening and people start to sneer and recriminate losing faith in what can and should be done while the extremists (right and left) as well as the ecologists (the “peace and love” wing as well as the politically violent wing !) prosper upon simplistic reasoning and propose (or impose) false  and often dangerous solutions for real issues to solve.


About the point we made in relation to media overexcitement, let us contemplate our journalists and commentators striving frantically with some hypocrisy (generally stemming from ready made ideas) and the most stupid with total good faith, to deliver a fashionable message, comfortably settled in the prevailing politically and socially correct thinking. They thus comfort the auditors/readers and consumers/voters in their frustrations and existential fears, whims, egocentrism, and consecutive disinterest for the society they live in. They are passionately fond of social events : outrages, all types of crimes, suicides of civil servants or employees who cannot bear changing their working habits, royal weddings, illegal immigrants squats, says and tricks of politicians, misinterpreted ministers’ words out of context, rumours of unproven turpitudes, etc… Some newspapers as well as internet media (Mediapart in France, Wikileaks elsewhere, …) are proud to mimic the “Inquisition”,  specializing in cheap scandals that they inflate as much as they can in order to attract all possible auditors/readers.

Most media blow with the wind for the very same reason. Sneer and derision become the central editorial line ! Humorists invade radios and televisions. Their success confirms the joint phenomenon of editorial deliquescence in the media and of “morosification”of the masses. How could you indeed, make people laugh (or smile !) except going with the dominating  wind and exploiting most widespread obsessions and frustrations ?

They are always in a hurry to write or speak of the daily events and have no time to make in depth investigation  nor to take sufficient distance in order not to say or write something wrong or superficial. They feed that way,  the disarray and gloominess of people who already think they are most unfortunate, thus making them glued in despair instead of showing  them what are the basic causes of the issues they have to confront and  therefore the ways and means for the solutions allowing to recover hope. 

Very few journalists or commentators have the real objective of informing people and showing the way. It is  true that enlightening the events and replacing them into a historical perspective within their specific background, requires time, experience and wisdom. Most journalist do not have time nor experience because they are young and in a hurry while those who enjoy more experience and wisdom, too often tend to dogmatize or drivel without updating their data as they should !

Finally, journalists join the intellectuals in the world of parole. They do not take any risk when making it light or irresponsible. On the opposite, in doing so, they are lauded as most  brilliant spirits by all mundane people. No sanction applies which makes the difference with the world of action, the politician who report to the voters or the entrepreneur who has to report both to his shareholders and its employees. Here is the real injustice !


In brief, people get lost and have no clear vision of the positive and negative factors they have to cope with, whimsical or real, present or future, because all (and especially the experts !) speak right and wrong at the same time. The admirers of correct-thinking and wrong-thinking on the left side are not able to provide the people with an immediate response to their problems, and neither are those who do not dare to fight till the very end of their “non-correct-thinking” on the right side.  The “petit-bourgeois” however, wants everything right now and when he is not satisfied with the response, he flees into abstention or dispute while refusing to understand that the world change does not allow him anymore to satisfy  his rich kid’s whims and requires he quickly adapts !

Despite this childish attitude of the voters, the Governments stand firm because they cannot draw back anymore !   France for instance, is achieving a huge effort overcoming the 2008-2010 crises thanks to a thinly balanced mix of economic, social and financial measures. It progressively places its economy back  in a competitive position while preserving a level of social protection among the highest in the world  (leveling of  cost/efficiency ratio in the public sector, reform of the mapping of the education, health and hospitals and judiciary systems, reform of the  Universities, public deficits  reduction and stabilization of debt, euro support and European monetary solidarity, initiatives in the G 20 about the monetary, trade and financial balances, raw materials prices, climate, etc…).  The French economy is back in terms of jobs creation. Purchasing power increases moderately but steadily while global growth is on a 2 % trend for 2011.

Germany, Great Britain and the other European countries are on the same way and the European economy starts again at a higher than expected rate in most Member-states since beginning 2011 !

Let us therefore reasonably hope that the European people will not let them be cheated by those illusionists who advocate for laxism and lie about the coming battles … and that the non-correct-thinkers will persevere and help people regain hope and confidence in their own future, their countries future and the future of a diversified Europe and however, fit for acting quickly and firmly in the present world turmoil.



(January 2011)


 European Cooperation is on the wrong way … time to dare another policy

  version française

Warning : please be kind enough to forgive this french styled english. It should not however, prevent the reader from understanding the substance of it !

Our cooperation has progressively lost its dynamics and further efficiency. Its credibility vanishes. The crumbling process is accelerating since some ten years while Europe is to face emerging competitors in a from now on limited world.

Your predecessors have let our cooperation get bogged (… correct-thinking attitude, fear of displeasing, benign neglect, or preference for a comfortable routine …).

The Commission however, cannot afford anymore such inefficiency in its cooperation : some egoist grounds command it such as budgetary necessities or the evidence that the development of third world populations, especially in Africa, remains the only way allowing to face the uncontrolled migratory flows that dangerously swell towards Europe … not mentioning the philanthropic reasons that justify financial and technical aid since the very beginning and claim at the same  time, for more decisive results. 

Redress measures include three basic reforms :

1.      The political approach to “partner” countries and managing elites is to take into  due consideration the constraints of their idiosyncrasy and the vagueness of their conception of public interest, inducing the necessity to follow a strict co-decision, co-direction and co-management process of general aid and projects and to get rid of the nice dreams of the Paris Declaration, European Consensus, Accra Agenda, etc… ,

2.      Priority in projects realization is to be given to a controlled process of responsibility taking and “autonomisation” of the field actors as opposed to the present practice of fake participation (or true “assistantialism”) that hides behind the overused word of “partnership”, thus maintaining the vicious circle of irresponsibility and dependence,

3.      The “règlements” have to  be totally reshuffled through clear prioritization of reactivity in decision-making allowing better results in the field rather than a false (and costly) financial management security for the institution and  its officers.

What have you done about that in 2010 ? What do you intend to do in 2011 shaking up our cooperation ?

The acting partners of our cooperation are still waiting for you to face your responsibility and make some strong decisions …  Just dare !




Post-Scriptum :  review of the  European and world background

This follows and complements what has been explained in the  site “Eurocooperation” itself as well as in the Open Letter 2010 and the Syntheses dated July and January 2009 (ref. Adds & Comments in the site).

Some readers might be shocked by the politically incorrect comments made about the European global background and more especifically, the French context. The idea is merely to review the debilitating cultural bath and the straitjacketing thinking framework that "correct-thinking" imposes on the Commission and the Member-states Governments. Irrational fears, existential complexes and good intentions indeed, are flooding the rich countries. However understandable and praise-worthy they might be in some cases, such feelings in fact, debilitate any willingness for change and fitting the realities of a rapidly changing world.

These background elements create for the Commission a dire obligation to bestir in facing the challenges of a changing world. Europe is to find a reasonable balance between “sword and shield” policies i-e the definition of active industrial and competitiveness oriented policies on one hand, the adaptation (and safeguarding when necessary) of the common internal market in front of a out of norms external competition on the other hand. In relation to development cooperation, the latter has to be in depth reformed in order to help effectively and efficiently the developing countries on the way of their future partnership with Europe.

At present, the European states have reached the rupture point of both, their economic “laisser-faire” and social welfare policies. Their priority now, is to regain control and create new dynamics in order their population can adequately face the competitive challenges of the emerging world. The Commission duty is now to actively support the move and eventually take the lead in its domains of competency.


About France

Government acts …

The French Government just decided a long time awaited reform of the age retirement conditions of the general pension scheme. For the first time in decades, a so-called “acquired benefit” has been suppressed after it had been granted by former President François Mitterand in 1982 at a moment when the evolution of the world would have commanded to decide the opposite. This hopefully, paves the way for other urgent reforms such as reorganizing structures and management of the health  systems, re-enforcing discipline in schools, rejection of educative utopias and generally speaking, reordering of public services which cost is far from matching the volume and quality of service rendered.

Last budget includes therefore a global freezing of State direct expenses as well as State subventions to local governments which expenses (staff hyper-inflation, greed for  communication, appetite for luxurious investment and socially correct subventions, …) have grown well over the real nature and volume of their missions thanks to the generosity and “clientele driven” policies of the local elected officers in charge which fancies are to be severely controlled from now on.

This marks the beginning of the global economy refloating after the socio-economic non-senses of the past socialist governments and the pusillanimity of a faltering right party that too often proved straitjacketed by the wrong- and correct-thinking taboos of those people keen to play the comedy of “emotions and good deeds” rather than to face the reality of the world.


… and “correct-thinking” reacts against change !

France in September and October this year, played one of  these  “happenings” its people are fond of, guided and abused by its usual “blocking beta” : some old-fashioned or revolutionary sections (last Staline admirers, ultra-leftist or anarchist ) of  the labour-unions have pushed the latter -some of them reluctantly- into the street ;  ex-trotzkyst  or anarchist groups as usual, have “broken” a bit more than they would ever be able to build; and obviously, the socialist correct-thinkers and “Droits de l’Homme” supporters have wept upon the rights of poor people (as used to do the so much mocked nuns of the 19th century !) while exciting the “youngs” into the streets in a totally irresponsible but very politician manner, for the pleasure of bawling out futile slogans about their  “cocooning” needs instead of encouraging them striving for their future life.

The "left” indeed and its “thinkers” prove every day in the street and in the media (and unfortunately also when they are in power i-e retirement at 60 years, 35 hours/week, welfare measures, etc…) that their economic culture is  very poor : according to their dialectics, we should earn more while working less ? For this, the State should just spend more, increase salaries and give money to the poor through taking it from the rich … we can thus, boost the economy and make people happy ! no matter if productivity  collapses, no matter the growing competition of the rest of the world, no matter if nobody is left to “make money” … The State will do it … and replace the odious“capitalists” !

Consequently and as always, the bulk of strikers and demonstrators was made of  civil servants or quasi-public officers comfortably settled down in their secured job and among them, was a majority of teachers and professors ! We could on the opposite, expect from the civil servants a commendable reform-prone attitude aiming at creating a more efficient "public service" instead of opposing any reform and behaving as if said "public service" was their untouchable property !

Anyway the "European individual" including the French one, has never been so rich nor so much protected ! Let us add that, after the low of end 2008 and beginning 2009, employment started again by mid-year 2009 and the unemployment rate never grew over its 2005 and 1999 level during the whole period ! Purchasing power also increased by 1 to 2 % each year during that time. People always can complain and demonstrate in the streets but situation could have turned really bad, had our governments made the wrong choices !  Why not therefore, continue supporting them in the fight for the euro and in the reshuffling of state and public sector budgets that will allow the consolidation of the European economies in front of the competition of the rest of the world ?


Suburbs issues and delinquency have not been dealt with drastically enough …

Some “breakers” (hooligans) came also from the city neighborhoods where the “culture of excuse” (“none of your fault, it is society responsibility”!) promoted by our correct-thinkers and “good-deeders” since the sixties or seventies, has definitely pushed them on the way of an always more violent delinquency. The “left” has no real economic culture but it proves indeed, an expert in the culture of excuse and guilt culture.

Against delinquency, we need obviously repression in the crucial cases but more important is to avoid non-punishment of the misdeeds (much too many judges look as if they had a problem with “tolerance zero” or simple idea of punishment and show reluctant to admit the reality of the delinquency process !).

Prevention and social intervention are also necessary, trying to compensate parents and school deficiencies regarding children education, thus avoiding perpetration of small misdeeds that would further  degenerate into more serious delinquency. It is necessary in that respect, to set up all possible means of re-education/re-insertion including adapted civil or military rigorous structures attending the young volunteers (unfortunately it is impossible to come back to military draft for all nor to recruit in the professional army, all the young idle people of the suburbs : they usually turn to very good soldiers, somewhat rude but disciplined and respectful with the people and values they defend !). Worth considering is also the idea of punishment methods that better appeal to the idiosyncrasy of our “young savages” ( caning or whipping for instance, in presence of public or representatives of the neighborhood, would probably frighten our young male machos and more important, hurt their pride much more than a few days or months in jail they usually boast about … when our politically correct judges agree to sentence them !  This kind of punishment indeed, is commonly practiced in many countries, especially the countries of  origin of  immigration, where it proves very  efficient with due respect to those correct-thinkers who want  to cure social and delinquency problems through angelism and redeeming excuse  .

Another basic requisite is the adequate leveling of living conditions and employment opportunities as well as correct operation of the basic public services in the ill-equipped zones (much has already been done in that respect, thanks to the “town development” policies but remains often to be made again when the vandals have passed). Employment unfortunately does not descend from heavens : it depends on the economic general activity and also on the will of individuals to actively find a job and/or to create in the sensitive suburbs, the security and conviviality conditions that might attract the job creators. The young, the associations and the municipalities could probably do it not waiting that a necessarily more distant government make it !


However, the basic issue is to re-build the school system our false-thinkers have ruined thanks to laxity of their “modernist” ideology

Respect is no more taught in the well-off areas nor in the suburbs nor in the countryside (“respect” remains nevertheless the main thing that our hooligans request for themselves !). Discipline has been totally forgotten as well as teaching the relationship between rights and duties, and school does not even teach properly simple reading, writing and counting. School is definitely not made for “cocooning” nor letting the children express what they want when they want, dreaming they will build that way, “their own knowledge by themselves” according to the theories-theologies that mistake permissivity and education, confusion and creativity, insult or violence and self-expression ! On the opposite, school is definitely supposed to provide them with the necessary reference points upon which they will be able  to organize thought and action enabling them to confront the ferocious competition of the new world instead of floating along their whims and the modes that pass away.

The Minister and the deciders of the “Education Nationale” have to enforce rapidly the necessary measures allowing to refloat the Institution through reestablishing masters’ authority and rejecting the unrealistic pedagogic innovations, and they have to do it despite any recrimination that the unions’ ideologists, false thinkers and utopian experimentators might oppose. Too much time has already been lost and we cannot wait anymore that the system corrects itself on its own, time necessary for a new generation of children and teachers to get rid of the false achievements of the “Education Nationale” in the last four decades. Reversing the trend is extremely urgent with regards to the country social cohesion as a whole and especially improving the quality of the integration process and the assimilation of the immigrated population children.

In the mean-time, the only way is through prevention/re-education including responsibilisation of parents (up to the financial  aspect)  and securing schools (with policemen when necessary) in order that all children learn back “respect”…. and through severe repression when the need is to punish some delinquent bands or a few thousands big and small traffickers who rot the suburbs protecting themselves behind paid youngsters.

Acting becomes urgent  because the bulk of young people in the suburbs is not yet  contaminated but they are heavily suffering the physical, mental and social disorder created by the delinquent minority. They are not responsible for the decomposition of the school system and the ruin of civic spirit. It is actually a misdeed of our “false thinkers” who since four or five decades have debilitated public spirit reciting again and again the desperately correct catechism of development of ego, relativism and irresponsibility of the individuals. It is therefore, an affair of mental healthiness for our people, getting rid of laxity and facility, and a question of  survival for our nations, giving back to the young people, the will and capacity to confront the new challenges of the world.


… while journalists and media continue to stir much wind as usual

On journalists and commentators side, the obsession for the scoop, audience or notoriety made them swell outrageously some insignificant but appealing details at the expense of an honest distance taking and in depth analysis of the global situation. This is a widely spread defect among the media tribesmen when we think about the way Presidents Obama and Sarkozy or Chancellor Angela Merkel are now criticised by the media while they were some time ago ridiculously flattered as the world saviors (Mrs Merkel had even been depicted as the “mutti” of Europe !). Each one of them has taken vital decisions and conducted fundamental reforms but “the opinion” swollen by the media suddenly forgot “the crisis” and began to yell at them for not having yet restored full employment, increased significantly purchasing power nor resolved the war and peace issues in the whole world ! It is pitiful !

In France, the comedy of information is successfully played by the journalists and humorists of the so-called “service public”, especially France 3 and France Inter, who do not hesitate to go on strike on any ground despite the opposed constitutional principle of “continuity of the public service” ! They are closely followed by the  usual correct-thinking commentators of Marianne, Nouvel Observateur, Le Monde, Libération and the internet media (the Mediapart new Zorro-type avenger for instance, is relaying our “killer-judges”, crusaders of the new religion of transparency and modern inquisitors who refuse to admit that many other political, economic or social imperatives or interests might be much more important for the people and the nation than their restricted interpretation of  the rule !) ….

Promotors of public gloominess and despair or specialists of nauseous investigations (for the possible glory of “killing” a Minister !), they have the grotesque arrogance to think “they are the opinion” while they only are the wind of it. Instead of trying to inflate it thanks to an easy demagogy, they should take some distance with information in order to explain its substance to the people instead of showing them the foam of it. It would be greater for them and more useful to the country. Anyway, a democracy does not need a fourth power neither that of  the street nor that of the media !


Conclusion for 2010 : the petit-bourgeois should quickly open his eyes !

Everything came back to normal and the French can now go back to work as usual but  the “acting minorities” apparently, still refuse to understand  that the present world has no more to do with pre-war world nor with the fifties or sixties. The former “working masses” turned into heterogeneous blends of individuals and social groups prone to an “enriched petit-bourgeois” attitude, and decidedly frustrated despite a standard of living their parents would not even have dreamed of. They appear now as rich people clinging to their “acquired benefits” (or privileges ?) as compared to the real poor, those living in the developing world who stare at the rich with some surprise and envy ( not yet with wickedness or hatred !) from the far away neighborhoods where they live, off the secured statutory and trade unions fortresses of the developed world.

Caution : envy turns rapidly into imitation which in turn, is growing into a fearful competition that direly commands us to accelerate the tempo !  Hence, the scandalous dishonesty of the correct-thinking elites who very jesuitically, push the demonstrators and especially the young into the street, despising the most elemental realities they are perfectly aware of but that they want to ignore by ideology or keep unknown to the masses by demagogy.


About Great Britain

The British Government published last October, budgetary forecasts that considerably reduce state expenses (number of the civil servants and wages, equipment, social expenses, …) while significantly increasing fiscal receipts. The objective is to face the delicate financial situation of the State and the British banking system. The latter indeed, have for years, applied hazardous policies tolerating or even favoring the excesses of uncontrolled financial liberalism and “free-tradism”. Health services budget is in a certain manner, the only sector escaping the rule of the axe !

Opposite to the French, the British seem to accept heartily the additional efforts and constraints required and this announcement did not cause noticeable protest of the people or unions until now (except the students who protested rather violently -but for only two days- against the huge increase of the University fees) . This assertion however, has to be confirmed in the coming weeks because the British, deemed as much less demonstrative than the French and other Latin people, have not yet endured the strong medicine they are supposed to absorb and harsh suffering could make them a bit more agitated.

As a sign of “the necessity”, we just witnessed the signature of a new type of military agreement between France and Great Britain : both countries decided to cooperate in the development of equipment for their respective armed forces, navy and air force and also in  the maintenance and somewhat in the research about their nuclear deterrent forces. The objective exceeds by far the simple need for public expenses reduction although it may have triggered the move. It is a door open in the direction of a further European defense under condition naturally, that both countries persevere through a frank cooperation and that others progressively join the team. This would then, be a real boost for Europe’s dynamics !


 On the German side

The German Government steadily goes on restraining public expenses as initiated some ten years ago. Seriousness and perseverance of the German policy in its financial and economic management has to be sincerely praised but Germany should not forget that it cannot survive without the other European countries, the latter being in addition, its main customers. Its virtue indeed, does not make it free from its basic European solidarity duty. Germany tried to escape it during last spring in relation with the Greek crisis and again in a softer manner in October with regards to Ireland, although it would clearly have been at the expense of its longer term interest.

It seems that by now, the German State and German people have understood that their own national interest was closely bound to Europe’s future and especially with the eurozone’s. Under such conditions, Germany is naturally entitled to claim that the other European countries strive strongly for better management. This also seems on the right way and the Commission is deemed to participate closely to this effort.


In the other European countries

One obviously, can learn a lot from the “reasonable northern countries” in some particular domains. It is however, an illusion to think that all their economic or social recipes can be  applied in larger countries or for instance, in the Mediterranean countries which idiosyncrasy  is so much different.

The latter indeed, are the heirs of an antique civilization where seriousness is not so constantly considered as the essence of life while lightness and vivacity often compensate this intermittent lack of gravity. Common sense and clear lack of appetite of the Latin people for real huge excesses, generally prevail at the end of the day. We can therefore expect that the severe redress policies that the Mediterranean countries have initiated under pressure of the crisis and with the help of their European counterparts in the eurozone, will effectively meet full success.

The countries of Central  and Oriental  Europe that recently joined the  Union, still are in a phase of political adaptation after their unfortunate soviet experience and they have to carry on their socio-economic alignment with their West-European partners. 

Respective situations are therefore very different between the various groups of Member-states and convergence will still take much time even when considering the only economic aspects. In the mean time, world goes on and Europe’s only way to face its challenges at present, is to rely on the policies of some of its members which influence upon world choices, might soon become insufficiently decisive when they act individually. That is the reason why the must is to clear very urgently the option of a tighter and jointly responsible European scheme between the Member-states who want to go forward in the way of harmonization/integration of their policies, for the sake of Europe’s rebound after the present crisis and with due consideration to the urgency of building the “Europe-power” of the 21st century.


The challenges of the G 20

The “groupe des vingt” is to be the restorer and further guarantor of the basic monetary, trade and financial world balances through calling people and governments for a better management of their respective treasuries, private and public. Both private people and governments indeed, should restrain their credit gluttony. In parallel, the dedicated international bodies should put under control the erratic financial flows and regulate the trade flows and the respective value of currencies in order to facilitate the correct and durable levelling of the social and environmental factors that pervert competition between the great economic blocs. In addition, they will have to care with the availability (or substitution) factor of natural resources that can put at risk in the long run, the welfare of mankind.

United States of America and China in that respect, are in the front line. United States Government duty is to calm the outrageously indebted American consumers and to abstain from making the other countries pay for their excesses through too much benign neglect in the management of their currency with the excuse of “re-launching” their economy.  China should definitely prioritise the durable development of its internal market instead of flooding its commercial partners with cheap products and “pirated” technologies that do not respect the rules and norms of international trade not mentioning the outrageous advantage they draw from their under-valued currency. This would probably result into a somewhat lower growth rate in the short term, but a better balanced and certainly more durable and socially more acceptable growth for all.

Europe in such a background, should forget the supposed virtue of ultra-liberalism and “free-tradism” considered as dogmas. Europe has created a socio-economic model that balances in a rather satisfactory manner (better at least than United States, Japan and obviously, China and the other developing countries) social protection objectives with the basic requirements for competition. The European model however, suffers by now both, the wild competition of countries with less advanced or inexistent social protection systems and the relative inefficiency of our “public sector” which cost handicaps heavily the competitiveness of our production system. It is therefore vital to negotiate a phase of transition/adaptation that would allow to reduce these imbalances carrying on the structural reforms of the public sector, enforcing an industrial policy that efficiently supports the productivity efforts of European enterprises and deciding protection measures when urgency commands it. This transition period should last until production costs and constraints of the developing countries economies have reached the level where European enterprises will not be forced to delocalize for survival and said developing countries have re-centered their economy towards their internal market instead of frantically boosting their exports through unlimited social, monetary and environmental dumping.

Europe is the most important market in the world; it has therefore strong arguments to develop in the negotiations about regulation of trade, financial and monetary flows and about basic elements of the “industrial policies” to be led by the great blocs. It is in a situation to make its opinion prevail when necessary under condition its Member-countries are united.

The G 20 leaders therefore, will have much to “preach”, convince and negotiate about the modalities of organization and management of this transition phase. All countries and especially the G 20 members (including obviously the emerging countries !) will have to make concessions and carry out huge internal efforts in order to avoid war and to establish a reasonable equilibrium for the 21st century.

The negotiation will also include the parameters of resources availability and environmental protection that condition the “durable development” of all the  economies  of  the world : the principles agreed in the Cancun climate conference are positive in that respect (global temperature objective + 2° in 2050, all countries shall contribute to reduction of gaz emissions including developing countries and under control, second phase of Tokyo reduction objectives applying to the developed countries, « green fund » of 100 billions a year). It is however, obvious that, despite stubborn opposition of the Green, “alter-mondialists” and other taboo agitators, such limitation and further reduction of emissions in due time will require urgent and massive development of nuclear energy. As compared, the development of the so-called renewable sources of energy will not match the needs and proves hazardous and much too costly.  In relation to the development aid, will it be necessary to double the flow  or simply redirect it ?


Will Europe finally shape in such a background through common treatment of economic crisis and “external threats” ?

Let us find the way of a strong and self-confident Europe

Will it be possible to find a common way between the frantic liberalism of some of us including the Commission itself, the monetary obsession of the others and the extravagant expenses prone attitude of the latter ?  The crisis that forces the French and the German to harmonise their economic policies will probably oblige the European to tighten the ranks with  a view to build a “European Europe”, strong and able to decide on its own, a kind of  Europe that one day, Great Britain will certainly join (the just confirmed French-British military cooperation could eventually turn to the “sovereignty” pillar of this Europe).

The present European “club” is indeed, much too loose and therefore, unable to go ahead rapidly and efficiently. Hence the always more acute admonishment of Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian Prime Minister : “in a changing world, Europe has to stop caviling, stop complaining, adapt its model to prove competitive in the new world, decide the necessary common policies within a solid and open nucleus that goes forward not waiting the faltering and flabby ones”.

There is urgency. We want to preserve our Europe’s “europeanity” and independence of choice. The circle will then enlarge when the others will prove ready while the “essential” is saved.

Within such a background, the British Prime Minister declaration in Davos, might get great significance. He indeed, urged the European in claiming and fighting for the European values while the French President was fixing the G 20 agenda. We hardly could expect from a British (and conservative !) Prime Minister such an announcement of European faith ... especially in such a forum !

Is a "franco-german-british triangle" taking shape ? It would certainly appear as a major event of this new 21st century, enforcing Europe's role in the front row.

… not loosing time in debilitating debates about misinterpreted “human rights” and the nature of our relation to the others

Europe also, is at risk to sink into the weakening obsessions of the “religion” of the human rights about such themes as immigration and integration, education and employment of the young, reordering of  the “difficult” suburbs, delinquency, etc… Opposite to what believe the correct-thinkers, the true immorality is to escape the real issues hiding them or keeping silent while the right attitude is to confront them, talking and acting. That is the only chance to bar the way of the political and religious extremisms that stem from carelessness of the governing elites and exasperation of the people (the emergence of the populist right in many European countries and the extension of the islamist radicalist regression in the muslim countries are clear examples).

We have to remember that “Human Rights” are originally a European concept which values are far from being revered and respected in the same manner in most countries of the world (we do not think however, that basic teaching of Lao Tseu, Confucius, Buddha or Muhammad are really so different from Socrates’s or the Christ’s except when their  followers get temporarily perverted by new ideologies such as communism or by deviant interpretations such as Inquisition formerly or  islamist radicalism nowadays) . Are we therefore, deemed to consider as normal that the other countries do not respect human rights at home, and beyond that, should we feel guilty when we require, by force when necessary, that at least, they respect them in Europe ? Although some countries like China, Iran and others deny it on internal political ephemeral grounds (or just for fear of losing face again in front of the ex-colonial powers), “human rights” are permanent and universal even when not yet applied everywhere.

In addition, let us clearly remind everybody that the scientific, technical and socio-political knowledge capitalized in Europe during several centuries, is the only tool enabling the whole world to face the coming demographic and durable development challenges. The developing countries have duly taken advantage of it during the past decades and some of them with a real greediness ! Compassion and solidarity with poorer countries are certainly commendable but guilt feeling not mentioning repentance are ridiculous, unsound and unjustified on the sole ground that Europe has ruled or colonized the world. On the contrary, developing countries have to strive even more to catch up.  Europe can certainly help them but such a help can in no way, be considered as a due ! Emerging or re-emerging countries such as China, India, Brazil and others can rightfully be proud to progressively catch up with the former dominating powers. They should not however, forget that their emergence (Latin America and Africa) or re-emergence (Asian and Arabic countries) rely mostly on the “capital and know-how” created, accumulated and transferred by the European. It will probably be necessary to remind it to them in order to calm their eagerness in claiming for additional help !

Prime objective is to maintain European identity instead of watering it down into a mixed, world-wide, undefinable magma. On the opposite, we have to strengthen European identity and thus Europe’s self-confidence in order it can fully take part in the future world  and maintain its capacity to integrate with dignity, the  immigrant foreign people it agrees to receive rather than handling them as “parias” when the immigration flows exceed its needs and absorption capacity. Is it actually useful to remind everybody that Europe developed a brilliant culture and established customs and laws that all, European and foreigners, have to respect over the whole European territory ? Europe however, can be open and generous but it has then to fix what share of the world misery it can accept without loosing its soul.  This is to be said, repeated and enforced with due respect to the correct-thinkers or apparatchiks of too often misunderstood human rights !


For the sake of Europe, let us overcome the petit-bourgeois mentality our “bright intellectuals and however wrong-thinkers” have spread over during the past fifty years

The “intellectuals” of the various European Saint Germain des Prés have widely extended deny of responsibility among generations of young people (in France, from the J.P. Sartre’s protest “the hell, it’s the others!” down to the difficult births of the avatars of Marxism born by the Parisian philosophers). They taught them false thinking, believing they had rights and no duties, waiting for the society  to care with them instead of drawing on their own effort and intelligence. Such misconception of life turned to destructive mental whirls after the 68’s fancies (“it is forbidden to forbid” , “let us have pleasure without limit”…). All of this got progressively bogged into the marsh of a generalized correct-thinking that perfectly fits the egocentric and flabby profile of our new-middle-rich society.

The European petit-bourgeois “marching class” indeed, was born out of this whimsical mixture. It proves selfish, timorous, conservative with his own benefits but jealous of the others’, vindictive and easily authoritarian imposing its own belief (ex : the diktats of ecologism !), however compassionate with the poor and showing generous with the latter mostly thanks to others’ money (usually considered as suspicious !) or State subsidies, living in suburbs in artist-like but comfortable lofts … in fact the modern “bobo” (“bohemian bourgeois”) that Nietzsche, Jünger and others had anticipated not even referring to De Gaulle’s approach when he talked about the “quarrel of humanity, the only worth attention”.

Nevertheless, the European petit-bourgeois is at risk. He is waking up to the  harsh realities of the world. He gets progressively conscious that his “prophets” of the last fifty years have lied and that he will be forced very quickly, within this generation time, to adapt, prove creative in order to face successfully the competition of the other people of the world. Cheating the young, encouraging their social conservatism and welfare cocooning trend, is therefore quite criminal and it suddenly comes to mind that our modern sophists are probably bright intellectuals but have not yet been enlightened by the intelligence of the world. The latter unfortunately, have too often been relayed by the laisser-faire prone politicians who prefer the immediate comfort of social laxity rather than the longer term requirement of individual  and national effort.

Our governing elites will thus have a lot to do re-founding Europe and opposing a common front to the greed of the competing present and emerging economic blocs.  The agreement shown, especially between France and Germany, at the Council of the Heads of State on the 17th of December 2010 with reference to the euro consolidation scheme and the convergence of the economic  policies of the  Member-states, is a major step in that direction.

People expect now, that the Commission helps them and adapts to the changing world. Commission should then take innovative initiatives about great reforms instead of harassing the Member-countries with inadequate rules and obsolete practices turned to dogma by a system that developed upon itself and for itself since several decades of bureaucracy !





(February 2010)

European Cooperation is on the wrong way … time to dare another policy

Warning : please, be kind enough to forgive this French style English ! I hope however, it will not prevent the reader to understand the essence of it.




I sent you by the end of 2008, an information message about the Commission’s errors and weaknesses in relation with its development cooperation, and then, two further tougher messages during the year 2009.

I was suggesting you refer on this matter, to the  site “” and more precisely its index “Adds&Comments” where you can find the synthesis of the last exchanges we held with the various  actors and  partners of the European Cooperation.


I was pointing out in these messages, the necessity of an urgent realignment of our Cooperation. The latter indeed, is roaming for too long in unrealistic political and strategic orientations and getting straitjacketed in the midst of a kafkaïan procedural network. Its ever-growing rigidity makes it allocate its budgets without showing any real faith in its own action as if it were pure routine, in a definitely obsolete management framework.


European Cooperation thus, is simply turning as mediocre and inefficient as many other international cooperation institutions, the World Bank and United Nations in particular that Europe was clearly outperforming in terms of creativity (preference for the poor and for most inaccessible areas for instance) and reactivity, one or two decades ago. When we compare it on the other hand, with the bilateral cooperation institutions, it is free from the political and somewhat clientele-driven constraints that history imposes on the former colonial powers (France and Great Britain in particular). It neither has to face those of  the United States that prioritise a world balance favouring their own national  interests nor obviously, those of the new China which neo-colonialism is so greedy with commodities.


European Cooperation therefore, should not be so much afraid to say no in front of the frequent blackmail of its developing “partners” nor show such a reserve when it has to require from them (and eventually “punish”) the effective fulfillment of such political, strategic, technical or methodological conditions that could make optimal the use of the granted aid. The goal indeed, is to build a true partnership that naturally takes into account the identity of the partner but in exchange, duly clears its duties and responsibilities, without using anymore this convenient word as a substitute for the laxism of the donor and the clientelism of the assisted country.


-          What is at stake ?  first, the credibility of the Union’s foreign policy in relation with three quarters of the countries of the world, second, the optimal use of the European funds and last, the effective progress of the aided populations, all of this being actually unsatisfied due to the continuously deteriorating level of  efficiency of our cooperation.


-          The issue : The situation indeed, is degenerating since too long and the Commission did not take yet the initiative of the drastic measures for the most needed political, strategic and operational reorientation of the Cooperation. The  Declaration de Paris, European Consensus and other Accra Agenda are not valid substitute, however praiseworthy might be considered their intentions about “appropriation, ownership and responsibilisation” of the national deciders. They  advocate in fact, for a basic “laisser-fairism” which only effect is  to strengthen the vicious circle of dependence-misgovernance-dependence. These bold words hide in fact, the regrettable unwillingness or lack of political courage of the donors who prefer discharge their responsibility over the recipient administrations whom are perfectly known to be unreliable technically and financially.

No matter the results, the supposed beneficiary populations shall wait that their elites miraculously become honest, competent and responsible or that the donors take back the share of power and responsibility they have imprudently abandoned, thus dropping any chance of real education of said elites in governance matters i-e making  public interest prevail in decision making.

(Note : I want to reassure those friends who might be shocked by these “un-correct” statements. They stem from a constant  experience whatever the political regime and the place -ALA countries, MEDA’s, ACP’s, CARDS’s or TACIS’s- and are not a hasty generalisation of any arrogant or simplistic a priori … but said friends are perfectly aware of this even if they find it difficult to admit !).


-          The reorientation measures : An in-depth reform of the inner-side of our cooperation is vital, especially with regards to : 1. Relevance of the  country approach (nobody dares to say no and the Paris Declaration is a comfortable excuse ! it is therefore necessary to institutionalise a strict partnership  where both partners are co-responsible through an organized co-decision and co-direction system for definition of objectives, aid utilisation and management ), 2. Effectiveness of the field strategies (passive “beneficiaries” should change into responsible  “actors” which requires dropping the corrupting laisser-faire or assistanceship approach presently practiced, in favor of an educational approach through co-responsibility, and this from the Minister’s down to field level),  3. Efficiency of  the aid management system (the crippling obsession of the “Règlement” will fade away through a decisive reshuffle of the latter focused on facilitation of management  and search for results rather than on over-protection of the Institution and its civil servants … there is no development that does not bear some risk !)

As far as measures about the approach, the strategies and management efficiency are concerned, please refer to Adds & Comments January and July 2009 and chapter 3 of main text for more details .


Let me add that this should also be considered by all multilateral and many of our bilateral cooperation institutions.  It is indeed, obvious that neither a better coordination between sleepy and routine-addict institutions nor the so much praised “alignment” on inexistent or ill-applied policies and procedures of the “partner” countries, will make their individual cooperation nor the global cooperation more efficient as it is so often wrongly preached in the international meetings.

Haïti’s disaster makes us remember that this country has been a dramatic but most illustrative caricature of the errors, whims and benign neglect of our cooperation policies for decades !


The challenge now, is to set up a true co-operation process in the real meaning of the word, which implies a co-responsibility approach resting on the principles of co-decision and co-direction … i-e a real partnership and not a nice comedy where one plays the role of the “happy cuckold” while the other is the “flighty  mistress” !


-          The process for re-orientation :  The Commission should naturally behave as the prime actor of such a reform. However, given its lack of initiative in that respect, the  national authorities, Council members and European MPs concerned, would be praised should they decide to help the Commission and somewhat boost it in the right direction. They should not only express their “deep concern”, they should decidedly give it a decisive political and  institutional impulse. There is however, a note of hope when considering the on-going Commission’s Members renewal that could become a rare opportunity for this salutary reshuffle of the European Cooperation.


-         The reform background and the hypotheses :


The Commission came to near-exhaustion in the past ten years through “horizontalising” or verticalising” its structures, multiplying or re-clustering its various instruments and securing funds management piling rules and procedures, according to fantasies or advice of the experts. Alas, said changes have been made considering internal organisation constraints much more than field objectives and field efficiency which make now the Commission’s services work under a kind of closed circuit scheme, somewhat outside the real needs and objectives of the cooperation they are supposed to serve (ref. chapter 2 of main text … troisième faute…).

Through obstinately reducing the reform to a simple patching up of the old administrative machinery and not taking the strong decisions  required for a real strategic and operational renewal, the authorities have just facilitated the inexorable deterioration of the aid efficiency, thus depriving the Union from the world leadership it could claim in that domain.

Hypothesis 1 : The newly appointed Commissioners take courageous decisions in relation with political approach, field strategy and aid management.


The Member-States on their  side, have been bewitched by the sirens of the wishful thinking Déclaration de Paris, European Consensus and other correct-thinking resolutions. It is now very difficult for them to deny it even when said agreements evolve into a costly utopia for the donors and even more for the supposed beneficiary populations who hardly receive something at field level. One “jesuitically” not mentioned advantage, will be however, that donors people in charge will escape their responsibility because said responsibility will be transferred to the recipient Minister thanks to the “budgetary approach” and to aid “alignment” on the national policies, strategies and procedures … said Minister will therefore be “responsibilised” through the magic of the Déclaration de Paris !

We cannot endorse such a non-policy : coordinating and harmonising is obviously most necessary but such a “laisser-fairist” approach is highly irresponsible taking into consideration the present realities of the developing world (ref. Adds & Comments January 2009 ).

Hypothesis 2 : The Council Members definitely drop their correct-thinking utopias and actively support the new Commissioners in their courageous reform.


With respect to the Parliament, some hope : the new MEPs recognise the urgency of the matter and duly “question” the new Commission about its intentions in relation to the re-ordering of the European Cooperation (let us dream a while !). They could take the opportunity to remind it that the Union’s aid is delivered through grants (except the European Investment Bank) which fully justifies a much more demanding attitude than the loans delivered by most other institutions, … loans  that are supposed to be repaid by the beneficiary Governments .

Hypothesis 3 :  The Committee for Development and the Parliament severely places the Commission in front of its responsibilities.


Gentlemen Commissioners, the choice is either to persevere in the errors of our Cooperation or to take the initiative of the reform making the Union more credible and stronger … do not fear !   dare it !

Gentlemen General Directors, you shall bear the burden !  Europe needs it and the world too ! Thank you for conceiving, programming and conducting “le grand oeuvre” !



Post-scriptum :

During the past year, I had the  opportunity  to thank the Commissioner for Development and  Europeaid General Director for their comments as well as the Parliament’s Presidency and a few national authorities. Said  comments however, were escaping rather than focusing the basic issues (please refer here-above and Adds & Comments January and July 2009).  Strangely enough, nothing received from the Commissioner nor the DG Relex !

I am pleased now to thank the Direction Générale Development for its recent comments. The latter however, once again, do not embrace the basic issues as described above but refer to the common elaboration with the other DG and  Member-States representatives, of the ERD 2010 (European Report on Development) along with the Union’s “further development policy”.

The following three geo-political remarks therefore, are intended to help in better framing the European Cooperation policy within the rapidly changing background of the world. We hope nevertheless that this ERD strategic thinking will not result in a mere ascertainment of the world evolution but will effectively lead to realistic and urgent decision-making reforming cooperation approaches and methods as suggested here-above.


NOTE : For what relates more specifically to the nature and content of the proposed redress measures about political approach (elites issues and mismanagement, partnership and co-decision/co-direction, …), field strategies (institutional insecurity and formal sector hindrances,  priority to boosting the informal sector i-e 60 to 80 % of population, …)  and aid management (the burden of the “règlement” and its reform, …), one can find more details in the  previous Adds & Comments of January and July 2009 and obviously, in the abstract and dedicated chapters of the main text especially chapter 2 for the criticism and chapter 3 for the proposals.



Point 1 : Copenhague Conference, climate evolution, duties and responsibilities, and the partnership for “durable” development


The outcomes of the December 2009 Conference on climate are a perfect illustration of the present situation of the North-South relations :


-    We can consider as acceptable the position of China and  some other developing countries about the main “responsibilities” of the developed countries in relation with the present stock of green-house effect gases.

-          On the opposite, they should consider that they could not have reached their present development level and could not even think about any further significant and durable development in the absence of the “scientific and technical capital” accumulated by the developed countries thanks to their creativity and labour since five hundred years. We could rightfully add that the developing countries are already taking full advantage of this scientific  and technical stock since their “wake-up”, and some of them including China, without any restraint ! 

-          This results in a situation where no one can be considered as more responsible or guilty than the other. All of us are responsible for the future and all should strive consuming and producing in a more responsible and durable manner in what is from now on a “closed” world, avoiding however falling into the totalitarian prone proselytism of the sectators of the new ecolo-malthusianist religion (ref. Adds & Comments July 2009).

Let us come  back therefore to what is a must in such a case i-e the universal concept of partnership and related basic principles of co-responsibility, co-decision and co-direction, concept and principles that the Commission mistakenly dropped in its projects around the year 2000 when it forgot the simple etymology of the word co-operation ... concept and principles the donors have further ruined when they began to gently believe that their “partners” could suddenly become responsible  and efficient thanks to the magic of the “verb” of the Déclaration de Paris and European Consensus (ref. Co-direction in Adds & Comments July 2009).

In brief, it is mandatory that a balanced partnership be established, fully accepted and organised by all actors. It could otherwise degenerate in a severe confrontation fed by the rancours or fantasmas of the past. China and the other developing countries will have to strive hard adjusting their political, economic, social and environmental mix. The western countries including Europe, are willing to help them financially and technically as they did it since so many decades ...  but from now on, they should do it in a different way! 


Point 2 : Drawing a more dynamic  vision of the world, getting rid of the fantasmas of the past and liberating forces for a better cause

Behind Copenhague indeed, rises the shadow of the “Traités Inégaux” (Inequal Treaties) that an humiliated China will be inclined to take revenge of in case we do not show it the due consideration an old civilisation deserves. In the same manner, India after the Portuguese, French and British empires ... and also the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Arabic world, etc ... are feeding some rancour versus Europe and the western world as a whole.  Some may find it understandable when looking at the past five hundred years but the active complicity of the western adepts of the post-marxist or social-christian correct-thinking and repentance trend in the systematic disparagement of the West, is totally irresponsible and destructing when considering the build-up of our common future. The latter indeed, do not hesitate fuelling the resentment through charging the Western World with the sins of colonialism, slavery, warring, and obviously “exploitation of the wealth of the poor”, etc ...

All of these people or countries however, have sinned before Europe and some are ready to do it again: the Chinese Empire continues to believe it is in the “Middle” and pretends to extend its influence well beyond South-East Asia, the Pharaons who were fetching their dancers up to  Ethiopia, the Assyrians who deported the Jews, the invasions of the Arabs from Spain to India and Islam down to Indonesia and to the heart of  Africa, the generalised slaves trade in the ancient world in the Mediterranean and Asia and the more modern one organised by the Arabic merchants all over Africa and western Asia during centuries, the “barbaresque” pirates who  were selling their prisoners all over the  Mediterranean during the 19th century,  etc..., etc...

Who was first ? and who is most  guilty ? We cannot let people forget or bias the world history even when our “great hearts” and wrong-thinkers develop a lot of complexes and existential problems about it. The latter indeed, have not fully recovered from marxism and the avatars our pre- and post- 68 “philosophers” have built upon. They preach nowadays alter-mondialist-ecolo placebos for their new petit-bourgeois clientele, the enrichment of our civilisation through un-limited immigration and world-wide multiculturalism, self-education of the young without constraint nor duty, the “essential” responsibility of the society in relation with delinquency and offenders,  the social  distribution of  wealth before it has been produced, and employment creation through generalisation of public services which will recruit in due proportion of their inefficiency rate ! ... not mentioning the “fair rehabilitation” our intellectuals require as a must for those political criminals who killed in the name of stubborn ideologies they wanted to impose through their multiple failed revolutions !


They agitate their charitable and guilt bearing ready-made ideas inherited from Christianity with those avenging recriminations stemming from basic marxism. They heartily make a confusing mix, thinking that this succinct dialectic will help solving both, the petty internal issues of their rich home-countries and at the same time the huge development issues of the poor countries. They claim for instance for rich countries to pay for the poor and they stigmatise the billions “given” to the banks to end the crisis.  They say that “there would be no more poverty in the world had these billions been given to the poor” !  They forget however, that the aid core problem is not giving more : most developing countries indeed, are not in a position, lack of human resources and adequate socio-economic and institutional background, to make good use of more aid while the present one is already mis-oriented and inefficiently managed. In fact, development is  matter of approach and methods and therefore a human resources issue much before being a financial issue.  They forget also that in the developed countries, there is no enterprise without banks, no employment without enterprises, no public resources without employees and enterprises and therefore no public money for the poor ! …  neither for the “developed” poor nor  for the “developing” poor !


“Great hearts” and recriminators have then to come back to earth and stop thinking wrong ! Humanism remains the final common goal but politically correct fancies are incompatible with the realities of development (ref. Adds & Comments July 2009 and Chapter 1 of main text).  It is high time to overcome our respective rancours … history has been what it is since its very beginning ! Future only matters now. The only way is to join forces instead of wasting them in insignificant quarrels that would soon prove suicidal in what is from now on, a closed world. 


Europe has dominated the world since Renaissance because it has developed scientific knowledge and techniques that made possible a long term economic and social progress for mankind as a whole while other civilisations which were then at a similar cultural and technical level, went asleep  in the midst of their ancestral culture and way of life.

It would therefore be unwise to reprove Europe with this at a time when its “model” has grown universal  and proves to  be the only one able to face the  demographic challenge and find the ways of a durable development for the  whole world.

The rest of the world indeed, is waking up and claim for its share. Europe is  keen to  help, sharing its own scientific and technical  attainments ... but please, don’t claim for such a help as if  it  were a due !

Colonial rule disappeared over half a century ago and the elites now, have no excuse for not “properly” managing their national affairs.  Everybody now is fed-up with recrimination and arrogance on both sides, we want to co-operate fully and frankly as grown up persons and nations should do.


These last statements are certainly not politically correct but any further development of three quarters of mankind and the continuity of the progress of the last quarter (our quarter !) require now a lesser degree of political “angelism” (or cynism). Building a real partnership for development requires more realistic views in problems analysis and research of solutions with in addition, more decision spirit for action, not just words or wishful thinking.   




Point 3 : The new balance of consumption, production, employment and prices will establish without panicking when Europe shows decided in “co-operating” with responsible partners


Mexican flue now called H1N1 (pork flue !), has passed and  will probably have killed less people than an ordinary flue epidemics. “Crisis” also will pass : as it was reasonably thought (re: Adds & Comments July 2009), it has resulted by the end of 2009 in the same unemployment level as March 2005 in France and significantly below that of end 99. Last statistics show that purchasing power has increased by over 2 % in France during the year 2009. This is not exactly what could be called a catastrophic social situation. Figures vary from one country to another in Europe (a bit better in Germany, a bit worse in Great Britain) but it remains generally in the average bracket.

Once again, journalists have hurried talking and writing without checking as they should, the so-called “information” they delivered, thus contributing to the confidence breach and panic as they have also done with the climate change and the flue !  Journalists pushed by the dominating wind of gregarious restlessness and their obsession for frantic communication, claim for “regulating” bankers, industrialists and doctors activities ... but ... can we trust journalists ?  Their personal and  professional self-regulation system fails much too often !

In the same manner as last war has been more than a duel between France and Germany, this crisis differs from the others. It is a world crisis in which all countries have been or will be directly involved. We live now in a “closed world” and there is no more free space allowing escaping or delaying which means that all countries have to join forces to overcome the world challenges, crisis resolution as well as durable development.


By now, once the States have rescued the world financial system, and beyond its “regulation” initiated by the G 20, time has come to re-order public finance as well as private finance.


To refloat private treasuries means that our modern European petit-bourgeois and even more the American one, are deemed to refrain their credit gluttony and reorient their consumption trends i-e buying many less un-useful and unnecessary gadgets in China or other emerging countries and buying a bit more products from their own soil or “non-delocalisable” goods and services, those goods and services that can be produced in the Euro-Mediterranean and Latino-American areas.  Developing countries’ including China’s growth rate will somewhat decrease from its present level, artificially swollen with under-valued exports and a delirious construction sector. Prices will grow a bit in the consumption markets but a more realistic and valid for long term international balance will be established for production and employment, consumption and costs as well as relative value of moneys (yuan, dollar, euro).

To refloat public treasuries means that States will have to spend less  i-e keep on reforming public services in order they produce more “service” at a lesser cost thanks to  a better organisation, greater flexibility, less strikes and more dedication to public affairs than the few real hours a day they give it with a net rate of efficiency that lags far behind the optimum !


This progressive re-balancing of the international socio-economic parameters will speed up with the on-going increase of production and logistics costs in China and in the other emerging factory-countries which already pushes many foreign companies to re-think their foreign investment strategy. This re-balancing operation should ideally be carried out in full harmony and cooperation with United States that prove less voracious and more attentive internally and externally, China that worries a bit more for the development of its internal market and shows less frantically greedy with foreign currency, and Europe that really feels like to prove the world that its model is well performing thanks to the balance it successfully managed between the social and the economic.

The G 20 mission is definitely to point out what is socially just, economically feasible and environmentally sound between the great economic blocs and between the latter and the rest of the world.

In such a perspective, urgency for Europe is to carry out a kind of mental  revolution, i-e get rid of its obsession for “libre-échange” and for worldwide ultra-competition on one hand, design a European common policy for production and  exchange that shows a reasonable solidarity with the  rest of  the  world but also a clear preference for its own economic and social interests on the other hand. Europe indeed, suffers from the absurd mania of our successive Commissioners in charge of market and competition, who systematically tend to give priority to the rule (or dogma) over the European enterprises basic interest and European citizens employment (another example has just been given through the reaction of our present Commissioner about the French Government will to re-orient the planned investment of  Renault -a Government partially owned and supported company- in Turkey).




Conclusion for action


With regards to the rest of the world, Europe definitely, has to show solidarity and resolution. Handling people as responsible partners and not more as assisted clients will make it more trusted and respected by both, governments and people. Partners are equals you can discuss with, co-operate and eventually confront while “clients” are irresponsible people whose fantasies and fancies you deliberately ignore or despise as insignificant. This will be the great and definitive revolution in the North-South relations given that permanent excuse and benign neglect policies proved highly counter-productive in development matters.


With regards to the great political or economic blocs, Europe is experiencing talking with one voice in the international meetings as it did recently with some success in the various G 20 meetings. But beyond this, Europe has to perform urgently the great internal “metamorphosis” that a former European Head of State, maybe shrewder or more courageous than the others, was claiming for :  Europe has no more time to lose arguing, fearing and complaining, it has to join forces around the nucleus of States who want to  go forward, even when leaving on the roadside for a while, those who are un-decided or un-willing  (ref. conclusion Adds & Comments July 2009).

A great foreign policy is to be ambitious and courageous. Europe has the necessary means, does it have the will ?



O          O          O





European cooperation is on the wrong way... time to dare another policy.

Warning : please, be kind enough to forgive this French styled English ! I hope however, it will not prevent the reader from understanding the essence of it.

Authorities have still not measured the seriousness of the issue … they feel at ease with the on-going process of fossilisation that slowly cripples the cooperation …
European Parliament’s presidency advises us to contact the MEPs of the Development Committee and the concerned General Directorates and units of the Commission.
Thank you ! However, most interesting would be to know what exactly the Presidency can do and what it is intending to do in view of boosting the reform movement on the Commission side, instead of playing such a role of go-between. A nice exchange of opinions on the Presidency’s or Parliament Communication DG’s “blog”, is not really sufficient nor satisfactory.
We mean political action and institutional responsibility of the Parliament in an important sector of activity of the Commission (e.g Cooperation and External Relations) which supervision is supposed to be assured by both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
Do we have to wait for the newly elected MEPs to sit effectively before we can hope that Parliament moves ?
Member-States hesitate imposing another vision of cooperation to the Commission.  
Too often, they hide behind the international or inter-institutional agreements and “consensus” (Déclaration de Paris, European Consensus, Accra Agenda, etc…) thus trying to show their concern with aid efficiency while they simply forget that efficiency relies mainly, on each cooperation proper approach and organisation. Better coordination between flabby or routine stuck bi-or multi-lateral cooperation bodies will not make the whole more efficient … And even less when they benignly declare that they want to “align” on hardly existing or mis-applied policies and procedures of the “partner” countries ! (Please refer on that subject to the comments made last January 2009).
In fact, the decision-makers of the national cooperation institutions themselves, are frightened by the idea of change and the difficulty of it, hence their reluctance to require from the European Commissioners the reform they don’t dare to make at home. Are we thus, condemned to continue playing around in the decaying circle of mediocrity ? Shall we be obliged to appeal to the Heads of State ?
And the Commission, stuck between correct-thinking, “laisser-faire” and bureaucratic rigidity, is “decidedly irresolute”
Mail received from the Commissariat for Development and the various DGs refers also to those famous international or inter-institutional agreements and consensus which it is so tempting to hide behind. They modestly admit that not everything is perfect and adduce that “the Commission as always, remains open to any evolution” in its policies definition and its aid distribution set-up. Nobody would dare to question this as it seems the most obvious and necessary thing.
It would however, be a bit more exciting had it been said that the Commission was actively searching for and definitely wanting to hurry up the reform instead of nicely stating that it is not necessarily opposed to it ! May we hope for instance, that the DGs involved (Relex, Development and Europeaid), taking opportunity of the setting-up of the new Commission, actively prepare strong initiatives ?
Much time already passed and it is now urgent to decide and carry out an in-depth reform of the political approach, field strategies and day to day management of our cooperation. This would make it truly effective and safeguard the credibility of European foreign policy vs the developing world (please refer to front page of the site where the issue is summed up).
In order to avoid qualifying it as foolish and irresponsible, let us try to explain this “irresolution” through an original mix of correct thinking (fear of saying “no”), mis-conceived liberalism (excessive “laisser-faire”) and bureaucratic rigidity (an instrument for exemption of or even escaping individual and institutional responsibility) that puts the Commission into a straitjacket and prevents its chiefs from making the decisions that the fulfilment of their mission would command.
On one side, we have to fight against the English mental disorder of “obsessive laissez-passer, laissez-faire” with a view to establish and conduct strong European policies in international aid and in economic as well as social matters in general. In relation with development cooperation for instance, the Commission keeps on financing corrupt and inefficient governments and hardly dares (more than rarely and very gently !) to make them some kind of remark while the simple idea of imposing them better controlled and more efficient cooperation approaches would be seen as a sacrilege not even talking about any possible suspension of aid (too few exceptions confirm the rule in that respect !). Same theology of laisser-faire and liberal “angelism” reign in other main domains such as trade, investment and “concurrence”. The Commissioner for Internal Market for instance, just denied any real control of the excesses in financial innovation (re : his first proposal for regulation of the “tax-free paradises” hedge funds which was just advocating for a simple process of “reconnaissance mutuelle” between financiers in total contradiction with the recommendation of the April 2009 G 20 !). The French and German governments had recently (July 2009) to push the same Commissioner in order he decides to firmly remind the boss of the European organisation in charge of accounting normalisation, he has to adapt norms urgently as required also by the G 20.
Same kind of reluctance is shown by the Commission in protecting the European firms against take-overs led by foreign competitors, including in the strategic sectors … and even worse, when barring the European companies from taking over foreign competitors which would better place European economy in the world competition, as if we still were in the situation of the nineteenth century ! (examples are given in the full text of the site). Finally, it is strange enough to note that said reluctance is usually the case of british or “britishised” persons in charge. Our trans-channel friends are decidedly “shopkeepers minded” as de Gaulle once said, turning now into “agio-addict” golden boys whose obsession is to collect immediately the profit of the day instead of thinking in longer terms of action. They are ready to dive again into the same pre-crisis errors (foolish bonuses start again in New-York, free-tax paradises come back to surface in London, and markets are re-sanctified …) as opposed to the common sense basic regulation that France, Germany, IMF and others want to impose to “the markets”.
Europe will have soon to draw the lessons of it and organise in such a manner that those countries who want to march forward, towards a strong Europe with its own policies and rules, are not delayed by those other countries who still are undecided or do not want to play the same game !
On the other side, (and paradoxically, at the same time !), we need to cure the Commission of its “French administrative disease” and bureaucratic sclerosis : the patient indeed, is out of breath before even running … and he will be soon obliged to run fast in our changing world. Rigidity reigns over rules and procedures of cooperation and everybody agrees on the fact that is a major cause of inefficiency of European cooperation (and the fact that others do not do better, is not an excuse !). Although this is a pure execution matter, far from policy making or strategy definition, the Commission leaders are still reluctant to reshuffle the various “Règlements” and put down part of their protecting shield as they should. Acting faster and lifting some of their administrative cover, would certainly lead them to take some more risk !
All of this is really a shame. The political authorities (I-e the final deciders, Member-States and Parliament) should decisively and urgently recover the handle and General Directors and Commissioners gently obey as they do not take the initiatives they should.
Consultants and civil servants are deeply sad that nothing moves and desperately wait that “They” finally take the necessary decisions
Consultants comments
Consultants are really upset in front of the system inertia and the blocked situations they have to face at any moment. Some talk bout the “talibans of the bureaucracy” ! Many complain about the recurrent “don’t make waves !” “don’t create additional problems” which is too systematically opposed to their proposals for alleviation of management issues or speeding up field action. Anyway, all complain about the generalised frustration the consultants feel and also the civil servants they work with. The latter indeed, can only but state the inertia of the system and regret in diplomatic words, the inaction of their bosses in reforming it !
Some are worried with the “politically correct” attitude that biases the political and strategic approaches of our cooperation. They often mention the political or diplomatic questionable arguments that are used for hiding and justifying “yes decisions” when and where it should be “no”, thus contributing to development of laxism and bad management habits. Mendacity and blackmail so become, reasonably and cynically, the rule of the game : “ if you don’t want to give me, I’ll find the money anywhere else !” or “The Commission is good girl, let us make it, it will not be too much regarding about by-passes or misuses !”
Many criticise the mere substitutive effects of the aid that allow the national deciders to dedicate the available national resources they should earmark for this or that type of project, to other “priorities” … priorities that are not always very clear nor really a priority ! Such by-passes will naturally tend to grow with the development of the “sector” and “global budgetary” aid.
Others talk about the bad quality of project definition adducing that many of them do not fit the existing local dynamics and they regret that the effects of the projects only last for the project life : it is in particular the case of the rural and urban/peri-urban development projects and the informal sector as a whole that the Commission, despite all criticism made, had the merit to make it a strategic thrust of its development action during the 80s and 90s. Such erroneous project definition remains unfortunately, the case of most ACP and MEDA projects. The relevant and efficient approach however, is very well known and has been widely practiced by he Commission itself in ALA countries for the past 15 years. It is a difficult one and rather demanding, hence the Commission’s reluctance to make it a pivotal policy of its aid to the poor countries as it should have been done and its apparently decreasing interest for this priority sector of development activities … Pity ! because it simply touches directly two thirds of the population of these countries and it remains the unique way of creating and strengthening the local internal market as the basis for further development of the so-called “modern sector”!
Comments of the civil servants in charge
The Heads of Unit and Head of Delegation have dramatically disenchanted reactions. They generally agree on the statements made in the site herein but remain doubtful and often desperate when thinking about the possibility of success of the reforms taking into consideration the present level of bureaucratic sclerosis and their bosses’ fears about the simple idea of shaking the “cooperation monument” in any manner.
-          The less conscious of them do not like talking about the divagations and errors of the Commission. They have to be praised for gently advocating for the Institution! They however have to know that the criticism does not focus their proper work and addresses policies and a management system they are obliged to comply with and they are not responsible for. Some however, are more “commissionist” than the Commission : they often are former consultants who became European civil servant !
-          Others mention that several evaluations have already been done without tangible effects… evaluations required by the Commission itself (DG Development and ECHO in particular), another by the Parliament (Fondation Mayer 1999) and others by fellow institutions (OECD evaluations for instance). Yes indeed ! but said evaluations however relevant might have been their statements and recommendations about some points in daily management and organisational matters, never really questioned the management framework itself nor the field strategies with the aided populations and even less the political approaches to the beneficiary/partner countries i-e those sensitive areas where precisely, drastic reforms should be accomplished and where lie the major opportunities for improvement of cooperation efficiency.
-          Most of them are discouraged and the most frustrated dare to say that “cooperation has been useless” and that “a new generation perhaps” (and in the developing world itself) may be successful “as it seems that nobody by now is wanting to move”. This is excessive and they are probably wrong for the time to come (on condition obviously that somebody initiates the reform !) but they are worn out by years of unsuccessful attempt in making heard the realities of the field and simple common sense.
Are the Commission leaders conscious of this disastrous situation and its dramatic progress among the European staff since some years ? We are facing a wall of indecision in front of the reform …. Hence, the exhortation made in the access and conclusion pages of this site :It is your job and your responsibility, gentlemen and ladies Commissioners and General Directors, forward ! do not fear !
Some concepts and approaches are misunderstood and need to be cleared up
Considering the form and content of some comments, some points need to be replaced within their natural and logical perspective. This will avoid misunderstandings or hasty judgments that erroneously mix facts and concepts that have no actual linkage or do not lie upon the realities of the background where action takes place.
Budgetary aid
Effectiveness of budgetary aid is generally considered as doubtful and its relevance strongly questioned in most comments. The main reason for it, is that this approach is in fact, a risky combination of political issues (general lack of sense of public interest among the elites of the “partner” countries), technical issues (lack of competence of the administrative and technical entities in charge) and sociological issues (strong inclination to corruption and by-passes on both the deciders as well as the execution sides) … all issues largely discussed and explained in the main text of the site.
Some commentators however, try to validate the idea of budgetary aid. They adduce that the present modalities of aid management (apparently too directive in their view !), might “have debilitated the capacities of the national actors” and they add that “it is necessary after all, to let them make their own mistakes in order they can learn good governance” !!! Others in line with the Déclaration de Paris, European Consensus, Accra Agenda and other well intentioned documents, put forward the wishful thinking of “appropriation/ownership and responsibilisation” : people are deemed to gain ownership and responsibility feelings and principles through experience of aid management by themselves.
This is a rather specious (and very costly !) way of thinking because one can legitimately say on the opposite, that too much “laisser-faire” (shall we dare the word laxism !) in aid management, is the main and basic incentive to bad management habits i-e corruption and biased decisions, that are deeply rooted in an idiosyncrasy which is totally different from ours, …we too often forget it ! As a consequence, carrying on cooperation through a rather loose approach such as budgetary aid, although it is dreamed as “responsibilising”, will definitely consolidate the vicious circle “assistance-inefficiency-dependence-assistance”. The problem is a real one but it should not be understood the wrong way !
 Budgetary aid could thus be welcomed on condition it is framed through a partnership system organised under a co-decision and co-direction mode as should be all partnerships that are not used to hide dereliction of the due share of power and responsibility of the partners in decision making about the purposes and modalities of aid utilisation and management.In addition,a demanding partnership will always show more respectful of the “other” identity and dignity than any unconditionally granted aid which is known and accepted in advance to be misused (although correct thinking does not allow this to be said clearly).
The reader may refer on this subject to chapter 1(… local elites and governance …), 2 (… first fault, inadequate use of partnership concept …), 3 (…coaching the elites, a partnership that is no longer a comedy …) and to Adds & Comments of January 2009.
There is a clear legitimacy talking about appropriation/ownership and responsibilisation at the level of local organisations where a true feeling of solidarity and mutual responsibility do really exist between actors but it is indeed, a dangerous whim (and even a farce talking about “appropriation”) when dealing at the level of national politicians whose sense of public interest is known to be very low and usually inexistent for various cultural, social and sociological reasons that have been extensively explained in the main text. Coaching of national level deciders through a solid partnership is still the best mean of education of the elites regarding their obligations, missions and functions. Apart from this, another way would be a turn back to some ersatz of neo-colonialist tutelle that nobody wants anymore or the continuation of the present excessive laisser-faire which main effect is to maintain and develop an inefficient laxism that in addition, has proved counter-productive for education about governance since a long time.
It is indeed, too easy to hide behind brilliant but vane intentions of “responsibilisation” of the leading elites whose quality of governance is likely to remain disastrous and public interest feeling inconsistent for still a long time. Cooperation is certainly not to be handled as an enterprise but it should neither be treated as an “angelic” charity affair ! We all agree that donors financing is to reach the populations it is intended to and should not be perverted in questionable investment nor in substitute to regular national budgets nor even worse, tolerate it “evaporates” before reaching its target !
Aided populations have waited enough since the “independences” and it is mandatory to efficiently push their leading elites in doing properly their duty, coaching them on the long and difficult path of good governance. As far as European aid is concerned, it is generally a gift and not a loan : such coaching and control therefore, are not only technically desirable for sake of aid efficiency, I is also an obligation vs the European tax-payer !
We also had some difficulty understanding why a new intellectual “mode” endeavours to get rid of the so-called “project approach” pretending to replace it by the so-called “sector approach” or the “global budgetary aid”. Here again, a certain degree of confusion is noticeable because this is typically a “no-problem” or at least an undefined issue. It is however, very much talked about in the leading circles of our bi- or multilateral cooperation institutions. These so-called “approaches” are in fact, different channels of aid distribution or different levels of aid aggregation : anyway, everything has to finish into one or several projects, programmes or specific actions including sector and global aid … and were it not so, it would then become very much disturbing !
This distinction can only be understood in case its promoters’ intention is to limit de facto their coaching and control at sector or global budget level and to abstain practically from entering “the details” of said budget utilisation and management i-e the projects and activities financed through aid : this is precisely what is questioned here and where begins the risk of misuse or inefficient management of the aid …   this is unacceptable ! and the fact that this “approach” makes the job easier for the European civil servants and alleviates their possible personal responsibility as well as Commission’s do not make it more acceptable ! The projects and activities stemming from the sector or budgetary aid have also to be monitored with a clear co-decision power.
This is why in the particular case of sector or global budgetary aid, co-decision and co-direction procedures are definitely more needed on the ground of the greater generality of these latter types of aid, in order to avoid wrong choices, delays and the development of bad management habits among governmental deciders and in the administration. 
The Commission civil servants and the consultants who practiced the co-decision/co-direction system as it has been put in place in Asia and Latin America, deeply regret its suppression. Some Delegations strove as much as they could to delay the “new règlement” which application brought ALA projects and programmes back to the institutional and management problems of the ACP and MEDA areas they wanted to escape. It has to be remembered that the Co-direction system has been put in force during the years 85-90 (when European cooperation significantly developed in the ALA countries) as a reaction against the ACP approaches then considered as both, too “laisser-fairist” and too bureaucratic. Let us remind also that a kind of plot against Co-direction took place at the Commission around the year 2000. It has been led by civil servants and consultants who in fact, were not that aware of the subject as it could be ascertained through the exchanges held at that time with the DG and DGA in charge and their respective cabinets. Said interlocutors were so much accustomed to ACP’s and MEDA’s rules and habits that they could not imagine other approaches. Their arguments relied either on routine or theoretical views about institutional organisation much more than on practical experience and efficiency concerns. In addition, anxiety was rising at the same time about minimising one’s responsibility in the aid management in order not to take any personal or institutional risk. We certainly can understand this very human basic attitude but the beneficiary populations as well as the European tax-payers are fully entitled to expect from our cooperation instrument that it strives and eventually take some risk to get effective results instead of enjoying a nice administrative nap listening to the soft music of the financial flows that steadily irrigate our partners’ administration !
A few comments assert that Co-Direction is not a perfect mechanism and there has been failures. They apparently come from people who did not really practiced the system but simply heard about it. Their arguments will be examined hereafter but it is important to note that they do not question in any manner the series of decisive advantages the system provides. Said positive points have been mentioned in chapter 2 ( … first fault : inadequate use of the partnership concept … the co-direction system was achieving a responsible partnership … ). They are mainly flexibility and reactivity in field action, transparency and security in financial management through control at source, coaching-training of local executives, management in hands of the co-directors avoiding that all problems systematically climb the line up to the Delegation (and Brussels eventually) and the minister on the national side, with the diplomatic problems and the delays or blocking it entails.
Arguments put forward by these commentators stem mostly from misunderstandings of the very nature of the system and/or a certain level of confusion in the concepts and statements :
-          “The projects, they say, are evaluated according to their “décaissement” (money spent) and not to their results”. This is unfortunately, the case of more and more projects of the Commission (and caricature-like since some ten years) but experience shows that ACP and MEDA projects/programmes in a general manner are much more subject to this kind of criticism than ALA’s ones and that the projects managed under co-direction have rarely been criticised for this for the very reason that co-direction alleviates and accelerates considerably the administrative process, hence less expenditure delays and therefore, lower pressure from the hierarchy on that matter.
-          “The rules for providing equipment, services or material and other bureaucratic hindrances, handicapped the projects” : certainly yes ! however, this has no relation with the fact that a project or programme is managed or not under the co-direction mode (on the opposite, co-direction alleviates and accelerates considerably the administrative process).
-          “Many projects were badly conceived or prepared because they were not supporting or generating local dynamics” : we fully agree with that (re : chapter 2 … “second fault …” and 3 … “choose the right target, select efficient policies, informal sector is the priority” …) but again, this has no relation with the principle of co-direction and does not condemn at all the “project approach”. Said projects have simply been misconceived and evaluation missions duty is to re-orientate decidedly their policies and strategies ! It is a matter of correct identification, preparation and decision-making before project launching, it has nothing in common with the co-direction based management system. 
-          The “new financial règlement facilitated the projects management”. Opposite to the commentators opinion, it did not … at all ! Big troubles happened when the co-direction has been abandoned in ALA countries and many Delegations strove to delay its application maintaining as far as they could the co-direction system for the on-going projects.
-          “There has been bad consultants and bad co-directors” : each one of us knows bad consultants or experts as we also know bad civil servants … but here again, where is the relation with the co-direction system ? The latter indeed, allowed very often to avoid or resolve difficult issues in cases where the quality of the civil servant in charge was in question ! …. But we also know very many good civil servants and many more good co-directors than bad ones !
-          “Projects effects are too often, bound to projects life-time when these are headed by foreign experts … and they should be managed by the population itself” : the central objective of all projects should be to push the “autonomisation” of the local organisations in order to trigger a self-sustaining development process that survives the project itself and develops after its termination. A certain confusion arises on this subject : a development project is not required to be sustainable in itself, it just has to trigger activities that have to prove sustainable in the long run and beyond that (more important) organisations, groups, enterprises, institutions which emergence and consolidation it has to support successfully (please refer on this matter to chapter 3 proposals). Co-direction is the best tool for triggering such a process through the input of external competency it facilitates : such competency is still too scarce in the world of cooperation and dramatically lacking in the administration or institutions of the developing world. Finally, in relation with the idea of giving the decision-making power to the beneficiary populations, great care should be taken not to mistake autonomy and sustainability of the organisations with the old political dream of enterprise management by its own staff.
In conclusion, let us say that there have undoubtedly been failures of some co-direction teams but many less than elsewhere and that considering the technical and methodological aspects, the projects or programmes under Co-Direction have logically, more effectively and more efficiently reached their qualitative and quantitative goals thanks especially, to the flexibility and reactivity they have demonstrated. Technical and methodological comparison between the ALA area where co-direction has been extended to almost all countries and ACP and later MEDA, is enlightening in that respect.
“Autonomisation” and “responsibilisation” at local level vs national level (rural development, urban and peri-urban development, informal sector)
Comments about the concepts of “autonomisation and responsibilisation” reveal a clear misunderstanding of the field realities and misapprehension of the adequate approaches although informal sector covers up to 80 % of the population in the developing countries.
Talking about responsibility, solidarity, mutual responsibility and mutual aid through mutual organisations makes sense between individuals, groups, associations and institutions of the local level because people do really feel it and have a real practice at that level.
But talking about “appropriation/ownership and responsibilisation” of the governing elites at national level has always proved vain and risky because the notion of public interest is rare or inexistent and they cannot abstain from making their whims and personal interests or those of their family, clan or tribe prevail over common interest for a series of cultural and sociological reasons already extensively described in the main text.
Letting the governing elites in charge of aid management is therefore very risky, decidedly costly, mostly inefficient and absolutely counter-productive as far as education in governance matters is concerned. In other words, it favours the perpetuation of the vicious circle assistance-laxism-dependence-assistance !
Opposite to this, all development projects at local level, should not only focus on regular participatory process but on full implication of the population and local leaders in the conception, creation, and execution including financing of their own local economic and social activities. The main goal such projects should be systematically given is to encourage the emergence and further consolidation of local structures (associations, groups, mutual institutions, savings and credit associations in particular, …) which success and sustainability will trigger over the years, an autonomous local development process.
This process is to further develop into planning, programming and execution of their own local development plan at village/community, watershed, municipality, province or regional level with the help of the local authorities and the local units of the central ministries. This is explained in details in chapter 2 (…second fault, informal sector …) and proposals in chapter 3 (… choose the right target, select correct priorities and efficient policies…).
The right approach and methods are perfectly known and have been experienced successfully by many programmes of the Commission in the ALA countries during the past fifteen years. The Commission however, has acted and still acts as if it wanted to ignore it, probably because such approach and methods are more difficult and demanding, require that people take some responsibility and only produce mid-long term results. 
This type of projects is called “3d generation” after those qualified as “2d generation” which require simple participation of the population (excluding generally significant financing and effective management) and those called “1st generation” that had a simple objective of building and doing for the people, hoping that they would reproduce afterwards. The “3d generation” projects unfortunately, remain an exception and most projects lag behind within the 2d or 1st category …. This remark is valid for the EU cooperation as well as for the World Bank, the Regional development banks, the UN and the bilateral cooperation institutions, only exception being the IFAD/FIDA for some of its projects.   The projects of the NGOs are usually too small to produce any significant multiplying effect, supposing they have the right methodology (some have) and the necessary means for applying the full approach (problems of budget size and execution time-frame). 
Such methodological backwardness and lack of creativity is unacceptable when thinking about the issues at stake and the urgency of informal sector development in the poor countries for the survival of over two thirds of their population and consolidation of their internal market which is the only basis for a further sound development of the so-called “modern sector”.
Beyond politically correct and charity thinking, the whims and realities of the world background
Some commentators react against a few statements (rather un-correct and un-charitable we confess !) about the socio-economic and cultural background in France, in Europe and the world. Let us clear this and explain again.
“The national elites do no make their job properly”
We shall not come back on the causes of mis-governance (lack of public interest feeling of too many deciders, inertia and lack of competency of the administration, corruption, …). We already advocated on this ground for “securising” systematically the management of aid for sake of an efficient and optimal use of the cooperation funds. Said criticism may be viewed as harsh. It is not however, an a-priori nor a hasty judgment as commented by a high ranking official of the Commission. It is unfortunately, a constant experiment in all countries and all types of regimes the Commission is working with.
This being known, it is hard to admit any kind of political, cultural or sociological excuse in defence of the elites in the developing countries when they do not make properly their duty in the way the French and Russian elites omitted to do it before their respective “great revolutions”.
Various vital issues are at stake : improvement of peoples’ living conditions and also world security when poverty pushes them in disorderly migration flows towards either western “eldorados” or other southern neighbouring countries where they find another type of misery and often physical insecurity. The worst situation is when religions begin “ideologising” and politicising, perverting people through their charitable or social-relief associations that the governing elites precisely have not been able or do not want to develop. Such process generated violence in Algeria and in Gaza for instance. It is now dangerously developing in Pakistan … and Egypt is profoundly contaminated as well as the whole muslim world. In brief, this social and political disaggregation process creeps progressively in all places where the elites stubbornly keep for themselves wealth, power and culture without showing the slightest intention to make them profit the country and first, the poorest of their fellow-citizens.
This obviously, is not he exclusivity of the sole muslim countries. The process is similar in the sub-saharan countries, in Asia and Latin America. The latter also have witnessed the break-out of a lot of trouble despite the social measures some of them have taken (agrarian reforms usually partial or unfinished, embryos of hardly sustainable social protection or health systems, …). All of them will rapidly get into major trouble under ever-increasing demographic pressure and anarchical urban development, if their governing elites do not drastically change attitude and stop endemic mismanagement. It is however a fact that such an unhealthy situation becomes soon explosive in islamic areas where the religion, already naturally very persistent and active, tends rapidly to turn highly activist and to pervert itself into radicalism in front of the elites lack of minimal care for the people. This happened also at a lesser degree, in Latin America when some elements of the catholic church took a wrong way during the 70s and 80s and it could also extend to Asia through the extremist hindu and buddhist movements were they left to themselves. In Europe, xenophob and racist or ultra-conservative movements were directly born from the “benign neglect” of our political leaders who during the past decades, denied that uncontrolled immigration, communautarism and permissivity in the education of the young could generate crucial problems for social cohesion.
Religious radicalism is definitely unacceptable because it is a false solution but lack of attention of the elites which nurtures radicalism, is absolutely unforgivable because it is imbecile and dishonest for the next generations.
Considering the poverty issues (60 to 80 % of the population of two thirds of the countries in the world are concerned ), the risks for destabilisation bound to an increasingly massive, uncontrolled and unaccepted migration towards the western countries (not even mentioning the huge migration flows between southern countries) and those risks created by the religious exacerbation of the political passions and social issues, it is particularly criminal on our side, to continue practicing irrelevant and inefficient approaches and tolerating mis-governance of the elites of the countries we keep on helping.
“Info” inflation, gluttons’ crisis, paranoia of the “protected sector”, … and competition of the real poor 
Economists’ divagations are well known
Last non-sense recorded is Robert Fogel’s , professor and Nobel Prize during a meeting of the Cercle des économistes” in Aix en Provence in July 2009. He declared that the Chinese GDP will reach 120.000 billions dollars by the year 2040. This is over three times more than the already fantastic extrapolation of the last decade Chinese growth rate, supposing that China will be able to bear the latter for over thirty years more !! We conclude that Nobel Prizes can be very talkative and eventually forget some of the basic political, social and environmental parameters which evolution might counter-act and ruin the straight economic calculation.
Economists indeed, are too often overenthusiastic with their “models” although the latter are not always that reliable nor complete and as they are also “political animals”, they often let their sub-conscience interpret and sometimes subvert realities making easier for them to justify very reasonably and logically their ideological preferences at the expense of common sense !
Sociologists and socio-economists do not use such sophisticated models and they can therefore ratiocinate more easily. They are usually University students and professors for life and very keen on complicated and confusing analyses but are not really interested in searching very much in-depth for solutions to the issues they raise as it results from their numerous courses, lectures, studies, symposiums and forums ! They love analysis but they feel a bit uncomfortable with action.
On the media side
The noise they make, always sounds in the direction of the dominating wind which better spreads good and preferably (it’s more exciting !) bad news, those news that better draw the attention of the readers, listeners or spectators. The French “public service” of radio-TV could be made their model, being a kind of caricature of the French spirit which is said to be criticism-prone rather than inclined to long term construction. French “information public service” indeed, is very skilled at maintaining people’s gloominess and despair through preaching the politically correct and ready-made ideas of the day about the distress and decay of the world. It never comes to its mind that on the opposite, it should strive to re-establish self-confidence, hope and dynamism in order to help people getting out of the trouble created by the shocks of a changing world. This attitude would certainly be considered by sensible persons as a “better public service” but its journalists keep on glorifying its deeds and misdeeds as if they were the guards of the Holy Graal while they do not hesitate to interrupt the “service” through repeated strikes each time they paranoiacally think that their dignity (or their status !) is attacked ! And nevertheless, they are not “The Opinion” nor “The 4th Power” although they pretentiously think they are ! 
We enjoy two categories of media. The “correct-thinking” medias (in France, Le Monde, Le Nouvel Observateur, Canal +, and unfortunately a large part of our famous “public service” with France Inter, Radio France Internationale and France 3) seem to have perverted their mission in soaking people with sad news, desperate comments and re-chewing for them most common ready-made ideas with the help of their “experts” and placing their humorists in the front line in order to discredit all what could be un-correctly positive. Thus they close the vicious circle of gloominess, enduring complaint and no future ! On the opposite, the “un-correct thinking” media (in France, Le Figaro, Valeurs Actuelles for instance) strive in the tempest to make the due share of positive events and identify the dynamics that could boost people out of the crisis thanks to return of self-confidence and to responsible acting of individuals and their organisations. Let us thank the latter for the efforts they make and regret the wastage of intelligence and energy the former perform unprofitably … except perhaps for the ego of their journalists !
As an example of this bubbling nature of the media, we have witnessed for instance how rapidly panic about Mexican flue (H1N1 virus) has extended over the world during the month of April 2009. The governments reacted promptly avoiding the error made by the French government in 2003 when it did not take into sufficient consideration the fears of our fragile “petit-bourgeois” during summer-time heat, thus offering the media and the political opposition a unique opportunity to rave about people’s cocooning needs and hospital urgency staff difficult job !  Similar noise has been made around Al Gore’s terrific film about the next climatic disaster, in line with the nice television auto-promotion pictures of Nicolas Hulot and the boring mass of the no less beautiful photos of Yann Arthus-Bertrand … to such a point that the “bobos” (ecolo, liberal, left-leaning and environmentally sensitive petit-bourgeois population) made a triumph to the ecolo candidates in the last European Parliament election. 
Environment is certainly an important issue but why don’t they talk about the solutions instead of making people mad about climatic change ? It is more technical and less show-off but it would certainly be more useful for “the cause”. Thinking about it, we should remain cautious and make sure that the militants of said “cause” do not mix it unduly with other political or ideological objectives that have nothing to do with sustainable development and preservation of the environmental potential . One indeed, can worry when looking at those individuals who strongly claim for “ecological attitude and restrictions” after they have been politically educated through the already “petite-bourgeoise” and pre-bobo “revolution” of the year 68, when listening to the incredible number of leftist social and economic whims and non-sense that the young ecolo buds say they want to promote, when others try to realise a confusing synthesis of marxism and ecology into an undefined “altermondialism” and when all of them demonstrate rather sectarian malthusianism and rigidity about what people should do. The idea then irrepressibly comes to our mind that the ecologist dictatorship could become as disastrous for the world as has been the dictatorship of proletariat … and this obviously for sake of humanity’s happiness which measurement indicators the socio-ecology thinkers are frantically searching for after those of the IDH (human development indicator) … ah ! measuring human happiness ! how nice !
Crisis is on
Considering the lack of vision of the economists and socio-economists and the lack of judgment of the media, one may better understand why “The Crisis”, last shock of the world change, could seize the consumer and his financiers in total euphoria of mere gluttony (and this through full credit !) and could be so much emphasised by the media bells.
Everybody at all levels of income began to think he could buy always more without earning more nor working more … and the bubble exploded !  
The media then, went repeating the same anthem about the same lay-off plans of some dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of employees thus making people think that such plans were multiplying indefinitely. They did not talk about recruitment and new jobs while in France, Germany, Italy or Great Britain an average 10.000 people change job every day in each of these countries and tens of thousands of job positions are available that our young people do not accept considering they are below the level they pretend to have !
Such lack of distance and sense of relativity when reporting economic or social events, is the sign of a serious and regrettable lack of professional rigor . This may be sometimes due to insufficient time given to checking and framing (it may then be qualified an imprudent announcement) but it is much too often based on the false evidence of a never questioned correct-thinking or on mere bad faith, one supporting usually the other (it is then misinformation, political bias or even disinformation that creates, willingly or not, anguish and eventual social unrest). We can perhaps accept this from opinion or propaganda newspapers and media but it is unacceptable from the so-called “reference” newspapers or media and even more from the “public service of information” … because we expect from the latter’s journalists that they provide us with information that has been verified and replaced within due perspective without any unnecessary comment, mimic, interjection or sign that betrays their personal or institutional opinion or preferences we do not care of !
Finally, crisis is on but panic fortunately, begins to fade away. Employment level, in France and Germany as an example, is likely to stabilise in 2009 at his 2005 level or to come back at its 99-2000 level while the governments have put in force the accompanying measures that will alleviate the sufferings of those people who have lost their job for a while. Let us remember : nobody at the time of the Jospin (2000) or Villepin (2005) governments in France, thought that the situation was catastrophic nor deadly ! May we add that the level of revenue and consumption did not stop increasing from year to year since the end of World War and this for all social categories from the lowest “decile”( lowest 10% revenues) up to he highest “decile” as say the social economists … while working time and physical painfulness of work have considerably decreased in the past decades.
It becomes thus, vain and somewhat shocking that citizens of our rich countries, groan against “the crisis” and the efforts required from them when considering the situation of dire poverty, huge unemployment and generalised under-employment in the developing countries.
Who is responsible ?
This crisis indeed, proceeds directly from our ever-growing credit gluttony and irresponsible attitude as compulsive consumer. The process began with the inconsistent formulas of our intellectuals of Saint Germain des Prés and other such places in the western world where intelligence and art are supposed to blossom. “The hell it’s the others” said once the famous but mistaken J.P. Sartre and our pedagogic false thinkers assert that “the young have to build themselves by themselves, so let them do” while a famous criminologist declares that society is highly responsible for the crimes and offences people commit ! They have been soon followed by the choir of charitable people, heroes of the great causes « à la mode », false thinkers and other mundane who went repeating over and over again the same nice but senseless and ready-made ideas about individual and society, liberty and oppression, claiming for rights but no duties, etc…, etc… Thus began the de-responsibilisation process of the “masses” that have evolved into vague and moving aggregations of consumption addicts and over-protected individuals with irrepressible jealousies, envies, appetites and demands ! These new sophists should have been given Socrates’ ciguë … quod juventutem corrumperant ! The decaying process went on with the irresponsible slogans of the 68 , “it is forbidden to forbid” or even better “have pleasure without limits”, that have dangerously merged with an excessive “laisser-faire” in the economic and financial affairs. It is therefore, high time to get rid of the culture of permanent excuse in social matters (criminology, immigration-integration, education in particular) on one hand, and to come back to a more rigorous management of our social market economy on the other hand.
We can and should have empathy with those who suffer but it seems difficult to feel the same for those who keep on systematically groaning or those who pretend to talk in the name of the poor and harshly require counter-productive measures ! In addition, the unions, the civil servants or public sector employees who claim they worry for the quality and continuity of the public service as well as our young people and students anguished with their life wide open in front of them, should seriously think about the necessity of continuous effort and change …. and, getting rid of the corporatist and crypto-revolutionary propaganda of their acting minorities, should better analyse what is wrong with them because what is going wrong is not necessarily “fault of the others”.
Let us overcome our obsessions and prepare for change and competition
The “responsible left” ( “la gauche de gouvernement” as they say in France) has to definitely quit its economically insignificant speech and its false generosity (“social first”) as well as its primitive slogan (“rich will pay”). The “liberal” right (in its French meaning) in turn, should stop over-emphasising investors’ motivation for short term profit as the unique motor of economy at the expense of social motivation which weakening will soon make the economic machinery to suffocate.
Let us celebrate real entrepreneurship which creates, invests and organises with its stakeholders and workers but it is impossible to love and encourage the “hired manager” who looses contact with the fundamentals of human activities and suddenly struck by absolute egotism, misleads the enterprise he has been made in charge of, abusing its stakeholders as well as his workers.
Economic and social realities indeed, escape theories, the marxist dogma as well as the “friedmanian” one !
Finally, beyond the present crisis which will pass, beyond the French obsession for “service public” and the German one for value of money, beyond the English “liberalising” folly and the excess of ecologist obsession, we have to definitely understand that the third (developing) world and the so-called “emerging powers” have now entered the world competition as producers as well as consumers. This will deeply disturb the socio-economic and ecological balance of the world. This is the dominating factor of the evolution of this century and we should be conscious that in such conditions, refusing change in our consumption patterns, our working habits, our working and living places, our “statuses” and social benefits, our skills and sectors of activity, etc… is simply a suicide !
We shall be obliged to search, find and adapt in order we can continue living as well as we do now, probably better but certainly in a different manner … do we live as our parents or grand-parents did ? What then ?
About construction of Europe and of a respectable European foreign policy  
Following the Nietzsche’s analyses about human nature, Ernst Jünger, a German and European “honnête homme” of the 20 th century, both thinker and warrior, lucid critic and however optimistic about Europe’s capacity for self-rebuilding after last World War, talks about the growing mediocrity of the western individual who is now the “petit-bourgeois” archetype of our modern society : …" although he is fond of specious conventional ideas, he will be alert, intelligent, active, suspicious, without inclination for beauty, instinctively depreciating noble actions and ideas, caring with his benefits, security lover, propaganda sensitive, inflated with philanthropic theories, and however prone to constraining when his fellows or neighbours do not abide by his rules…”.  He adds in a more positive manner in his manifesto La Paix : … “time has come in Europe for merging on the basis of its people’s union, a vital condition of its grandeur and constitution… since Charlemagne’s reign …”. The today’s statement confirms the post-war vision. There is nothing to add.
Then comes a later exhortation of Guy Verhofstadt, a European leader who does not hesitate telling things as they are : “in a changing world, Europe is to stop cavilling and complaining, it has to adapt its model for successful competition in the new world, conceive the necessary policies within a strong and open nucleus of states that marches forward not waiting for the undecided nor the flabby ones…”.
Within the perspective of the de Gaulle’s “European Europe”, it will indeed prove soon necessary to tighten the institutional set-up in order that those who want, can march forward building a Europe that can decide for herself by herself . Necessary also to stop the comedy of enlargement-dilution of Europe in a sort of undefined free-exchange zone with no identity and no power. Europe’s common interest is far more demanding and has to prevail over pleasing the british shopkeepers or golden boys “ready to sell the rope they will be hanged with”, or the newly joining East-European states that still fear for their security and do not trust Europe’s defence or the United States that only care with their geo-strategic national interests. Being good friends and allies, is not a sufficient reason for constantly delaying action of those Member-States who want to march forward. It is now a question of survival and beyond, a question of honour in front of the rest of the world.
We are therefore, waiting for the proposals of our General Directors and Commissioners and further decisions of the Heads of States and especially, proposals and decisions about the constitution and organisation of the “nucleus of active European states”. The others will join when they are ready or when they want.



O          O          O





Warning : Please be kind enough to forgive this French style English ! I hope nevertheless, this will not prevent the reader from understanding the essence of it.

 The site has been made known in the past months, to the national authorities in charge of cooperation, the members of the European Parliament, the Commissaires, General Directors, Directors and officers in charge of development cooperation in the Commissariat for External Relations and Commissariat for Development as well as to the Heads of Delegation of the European Commission and the consultants who collaborate with the Commission in this sector.  Many of them therefore, kindly sent their comments after they have read the various pages gathered under the title Europe and cooperation … time to dare another policy . From these comments, stem the following observations :

-          The national as well as the European authorities express very politically and diplomatically correct opinions : they claim some kind of progress while they agree on the fact that much is still to be made. They seem in addition, to be satisfied with the inter-institutional agreements and “consensus” that have been built at international level and should according to them, respond to the objective of improvement of the aid efficiency.


-          The consultants’ comments as it was expected, are much sharper. They underline it was high time to tell how things are quitting the usual diplomatic language. In a general manner, they focus on practical aspects, field approaches, aid management systems, socio-economic impact, ownership and responsibility sharing among protagonists, etc…




Said comments have been summarised under the following headings. 




Development issue and vision of aid at international level


It is indeed, difficult not to agree with the laudable purposes of the Déclaration de Paris (2 March 2005), European Consensus (24 February 2006, Accra Agenda for Action (September 2008) and all other recommendations made by the various reviews of aid efficiency, namely : focus on poverty reduction, aligning aid on national development priorities, ownership and responsibility building of the partner countries deciders, improved coordination between policies and programmes with respect to the so-called “wider policies”, etc…


This is unquestionably positive. Don’t you think however, that said documents keep on chewing some evidences and good principles that some University authorities or development researchers might have elaborated omitting however, the necessary connection between the conceptual and the real ? The “anglo-saxons” would probably not hesitate to qualify this as wishful thinking (“utopie” in French) hadn’t they participated to its conception !

We can indeed, hardly find any practical proposal about the “how ?”. Of course, it is convenient to “follow, support or accompany” as far a possible, policies orientations, programmes and processes of the partner countries. Is it however, realistic enough when most of them neither have the public services able to correctly plan, program and carry out their action nor even the elites willing to bear the public interest burden whom we would dream to meet as responsible interlocutors ? 

Of course, it would also be convenient to better coordinate action between the donors, the partner governments and their civil society but it is in fact, what is tentatively made since years within each country with more or less success. The idea of common planning/programming between national authorities, donors and civil society is highly fascinating : is it however, realistic when one knows that the simple participatory definition of a policy or programme between two or three distinct national bodies, usually takes months or years ?


Such well-intentioned declarations are very reasonable and are pure common sense thinking but they , unfortunately, suffer a deadly trouble, “angelism”.  They can also have a negative side-effect creating an elegant smoke-screen hiding the real in-depth issues. The latter are first,  fear to say no when it would be necessary in front of “governance” problems,  second, inability of the field strategies in creating the necessary local or national proper development dynamics, finally, administrative hindrances that became the prime cause of aid inefficiency.

Once these problems will have been solved, only then will it be credible to talk about “ownership and responsibility building of the deciders” or “alignment on priorities and processes of partners” as well as “coordination and harmonisation of policies and programs among participants”. It would not be worth any real value coordinating under-efficient cooperation systems with a view to satisfy ill-defined priorities with partners whose reliability is doubtful. The previously mentioned agreements and consensus therefore, certainly have a great conceptual interest but suffer probably a low practical feasibility. As a consequence, each cooperation institution should strive to “come back to earth” as soon as possible after they have been seduced by the sirens of the international “high level” conventions.


In fact, the feeling is that the national and multilateral cooperation institutions have spontaneously but inadvertently worn a nice conceptual straight jacket. Perhaps, they did not even get conscious of it or they may have been mistaken about the basic causes of the trouble (which would already be serious) … but most probably, they managed to escape the difficult “come back to earth” mentioned above thus preserving the relative comfort of the existing political and institutional framework (which would be worse). They seem to rely on “the international” for the solution of problems that each cooperation organisation and first the Commission, should cure internally !

In fact, the Paris Declaration, European Consensus and other Accra agendas may become the international insuperable excuse that prevent the various cooperation bodies from reforming drastically their approaches and methods as they should do it for the effective improvement of the efficiency of their aid. It would be internationally incorrect not to follow the same way as the others even if the path is wrong … but as everybody agreed on the same error, it cannot be wrong or at least, would it be a politically correct error !





Budgetary aid and governance


The budgetary aid accounted for positive side-effects are very relevant (ownership and responsibility of the governing elites, alignment on national priorities and processes, …). For this however, it is necessary that the national elites accept to “responsibilise” and that the national priorities are correctly chosen ! Fundamental weaknesses in fact, still are low or unreliable public interest conscience on the deciders side and  low planning/programming capacity of too often, inefficient and corrupt public agencies or administrations. In such conditions, the objectives sought for remain highly theoretical in front of the field realities.


Governance issues indeed, cannot be solved through the usual incantations nor any kind of sensitisation programme on public finance management, responsibility of deciders or training of executives. It cannot be cured that way and such an irenic attitude is likely to prove counter-productive, accustoming our partners being satisfied with words ! The bet however for a constructive dialog can be won as experience showed, through a management system based on co-decision and co-direction that progressively teach the deciders the good practices while guaranteeing sound and efficient action. It will take some time and  require patience as well as a strong field accompaniment. In addition, and this is probably even more necessary, the donors, the Commission first ranking, will be required to bear and manage their share of power and responsibility as a responsible partner. This management system therefore, opens the way to a true partnership that is no more an easy diplomatic word but an effective sharing of decision power and responsibility.  Apart from this, the only options are a simple return to the colonial rule that nobody recommends or the continuation of the present excessive “laisser-faire” that nurtures the vicious circle “laisser-faire-inefficiency-assistance-dependence” down to begging soon followed by complaint and guilt culture.


As a consequence, the budgetary approach could become feasible assuming that a co-decision and co-direction partnership system would be set up for aid orientation and daily management.  Which means that the donors (and obviously more those donors who deliver donations !) would not be satisfied with simple words or mere promises nor with so-called governance improvement plans which effective control remains out of their reach. More technical assistance therefore, will be required but experience proves that well defined, framed and conducted actions always provide better results and cost far less in the long run than larger subventions when the latter are left to local deciders’ fantasy whose management is not actually reliable politically, nor technically or financially (and this is not a hasty value judgment but a constant enough experience).





Reform and effectiveness/efficiency of the Commission Services


Being as enthusiastic as the OECD evaluators (peer reviews) about the progress made in Commission’s aid efficiency since the years 2000 reforms (re : Communication of 16 May 2000), is a somewhat difficult exercise as widely explained in the text. We should acknowledge that it was not easy and would have been un-welcomed for the US and Australian evaluators to state anything else about the European cooperation and all the more difficult as their own cooperation is far from being a model of efficiency. Structural reforms have definitely been carried out along with some methodological inputs. However, they have been made preserving the present aid management system which lack of reactivity has quitted  most positive effects that were expected from said reforms. We certainly can say that reforms have been made but it would be disastrous to dream about their effects as the field officers of the Commission and their fellow consultants could state along the past recent years.


Thinking about future, and to make it clear, European cooperation efficiency relies both, on a behaviour drastic change in front of our partners and an in-depth reform at execution level :

-          The Commission has to prove less angelistic in elaborating its concepts and less “laisser-fairiste” in approaching issues and deciders in the partner countries. It has to acquire the moral strength and the institutional means to propose its analyses and solutions, and eventually to make them prevail or dare to say no when necessary as a responsible partner should do !

-          Once this is done, it should first, undertake a profound reform of its rules and procedures with a view to avoid the costly administrative hindrances that block its field action and second, strive to adapt its field strategies in order to effectively promote the proper local dynamics which emergence and development are de facto, hampered by the inadequation of the present management system.

In brief, an actual and decisive improvement of the aid efficiency cannot be conceived without an in-depth change of our partnership practice (it is not just a word but shared power and responsibility … and with the willingness to share it) nor thinking the reform while preserving the present management framework.


All this being done, we could then establish and develop on a sound basis what relates to coordination with the others (Member States cooperation and other international donors, …) as well as harmonisation with the world and regional “wider policies”. The European cooperation could thus pioneer the movement and in order to finish on a positive note, it would then be in a position to take the natural lead in terms of political and technical credibility and not only in terms of financial volume.

For this, drastic political decisions have to be made which initiative should be taken by the Commission. It would however, be wise that the Council and the Parliament make a clear statement on this issue in order to impulse the movement and make it decisive.





Ownership process with the local entities … still utopia with the national elites


The comments of many readers lead to the necessary distinction to be made between the concept of “ownership/responsibility” at national level elites and “ownership/responsibility” at the level of local communities, groups or associations.


Talking about aid ownership/appropriation by the national elites and their “responsibilisation” sounds totally angelistic … and somewhat humoristic knowing the gluttony of many deciders in relation with aid money ! A lot of reasons explain (but do not justify) why the notion of public interest is a scarce notion among the deciders in partner countries as well as their frequent inaptitude in setting up and managing efficient public services which is not primarily a problem of financial and material means but a problem of human nature and social behaviour. This has been widely explained in “les élites locales et la gouvernance” in chapter 1 and in “accompagner les élites sur le chemin de la bonne gouvernance” in chapter 3.

On the opposite, the process appropriation/responsibilisation is key for local development promotion based on the dynamics of local groups or associations which members effectively feel responsible and are socially active.  That is the basic instrument for further sustainability of the activities of our aid programmes and for the emergence and further consolidation of autonomous local development processes. Such a process has been described in “le vrai défi est de mettre en mouvement le secteur informel” in chapter 2 and in “le secteur informel est la priorité absolue » as well as “ les dynamiques de développement local » in chapter 3.


At local level indeed (communities, groups, tribes, municipalities, watersheds or homogeneous regions), you can find rather profound responsibility feeling and joint action willingness as well as effective social control mechanisms powerful enough to found a solid policy for the promotion of local autonomous development processes. On the opposite, it is total utopia and even counter-productive to pretend founding an inter-state cooperation on a supposed feeling of civic and social responsibility that proves very rare among the elites of the national level or of large administrative entities and this for several reasons, sociological, political, institutional or simply human.




Correct thinking, laxism and intellectualism … social justice, effort and individual responsibility


Many comments have also been received about that part of the text (chapter 1). One question was : why a full chapter about the background and why don’t you immediately focus on the critique and proposals ?  We feel like to say that it seemed highly necessary to better identify the fears, un-said and taboos that grasp our European societies i-e the cultural, institutional, political and ideological bath within which the Commission has to think, decide and act. This may help understand (not justify) its lack of reactivity in front of the risks and opportunities that a profound reform of the approaches, strategies and management framework of its cooperation, implies.

You may also find in this chapter some comments or statements about the issues of poverty and development, observations about the approaches of some bilateral or multilateral institutions, some geopolitical remarks and an analysis of the issue “elites and governance”, all matters that may help framing the chapter 2 critique and the chapter 3 proposals.

It was first, necessary to re-order in line with common sense, a few ideas, assertions and behaviours  that the dead ideologies and the new religion of “good deeds” have irremediably disturbed ! The latter reigned over the post-war generations and are still pregnant in our public mood through our modern “politically correct”. It has alienated the basic common sense of too many of our fellow citizens and perverted up to the judgment of most of our most cherished intellectuals and the majority of our “opinion makers”.



For instance, we can rightly be fed up with the continuously renewed complaints of the preachers of correct thinking and of the “agit-prop” like professionals of the political parties, unions and other “revolutionary” groups who obstinately strive to persuade the average European citizen that he is immensely unfortunate and totally abandoned by his political leaders. The European petit-bourgeois is a bit lost when listening to the speech of the correct-thinking and good-deeds prone socialist-minded brave hearts on one hand, and the purely artificial and mad reasoning of the ultra-leftists on the other hand. He nevertheless gets progressively anxious even when he does not fully believe their nonsense. These very talkative prophets loose their soul and energy trying to drive the “masses” crazy feeding up their anguishes. They should instead, educate them and explain in order they regain self-confidence. The world is now in a whirl of permanent adaptation due to the emergence and thus, the competition of the developing countries : reject it would mean disappear. It is necessary to alleviate the choc as far as possible but it is vital to face it and struggle. On the opposite, in France for instance, as always in the fore-front of the good as well as bad causes, we see them now in the middle of the 2009 crisis, strive to block the necessary reforms and criticise the decisions made to put again the economy on the right track and save the jobs. They should instead take their share of responsibility and participate to a sound public safety effort explaining the why and the how to the French !


For them, no matter if the consumption and social protection level of the average European has improved constantly since decades. It certainly grows more slowly now than during the “30 glorious years” and even if it might stagnate or somewhat diminish in 2009 as it has been the case a few times since last war. Of course, there are still rich people who might not deserve it as others would and poor people who should be better protected. It is however obvious that someone who is aware of the real socio-economic situation of rich and poor people in the third world, may rightly feel indecent such kind of self-contemplation of the average westerner petit-bourgeois, abused and depressed by his cultural, political and unions mentors.


It is certainly highly commendable to show maximal empathy with our needy fellow-citizens and provide them with the safety net that will help them overcome a difficult moment before they take over again. It is however, totally de-motivating for the individuals and the society as a whole when excessive compassion nurtures gloom and passivity soon followed by discontent and sterile recrimination. The same occurs with development aid when excessive compassion and insufficient authority turn it to mere “assistantialism” thus boosting the vicious circle of poverty and dependence, the exact opposite of what we want..



In such a background, the “wrong-thinking” and the politico-mundane restlessness of our “left bank Saint-Germain des Prés” intelligentsia turn intolerable, same as the forgeries, inaccuracies and fake conventions of its European and American sisters. As it has been during Socrates time, our modern sophists keep on corrupting youth through poisonous unpolished ideologies that are easy to shout in the meetings (“the rich will pay”) and through the “good deeds” drug which effects make mad our politically correct “bobos”* (“normal is nothing, a-normal only is worth celebrating”). Same as they did 25 centuries ago, they accuse Socrates but at the end of the story, Socrates is still there while they are out ! We certainly could not keep silent on this. Please refer to chapter 1 : “le petit-bourgeois européen … ou l’aliénation par le penser-faux et la peur de l’autre » and especially « the germanopratinism  …. ». (* “bourgeois-bohème” : a « bobo» is a young or middle-aged bourgeois, politically correct “consumptionist” with American style “liberal” ideas and some “green” conscience … he/she enjoys to live in so-called popular areas on condition, obviously, they have large space and nice comfort !)


As a matter of fact, the response is in the balance that everyone can conceive and maintain between both terms of the above mentioned title “correct-thinking, laxism and intellectualism” on one hand , “social justice, effort and individual responsibility” on the other hand.  It is an old quarrel which philosophers and politicians are not through with. The question therefore, is not advocating for “liberal and anti-social brutalism” but acknowledging as it should, importance of the notions of effort, discipline and solidarity that allow self-construction of the individual for himself and for the benefit of the society he is part of. Opposed to the catechism that an “angelistic” correct thinking wants to impose from confusing theories of the post-ideological era, the individual also is responsible for himself and society is not in debt with him for everything. The defects of the latter are not an excuse for the faults of the former : society therefore, has to be reformed when necessary and the individuals have to be reminded discipline when there is a need.


Maintaining successfully such a difficult balance is the honour of the politicians. Let us add however, that they are not really helped by the “intellectuals” whose “intelligence of the world” is not always that sharp nor by the journalists who often prefer to think they are “opinion makers” when blowing with the wind, instead of ploughing the trail of simple but earnest information that might help in people’ education ! Isn’t that what should be the mission of any “public service” pretending to deal with information ?



As far as “public services/utilities” (in the French meaning of “services publics”) are concerned, let us repeat that nobody wants to “attack” them. It is thus, necessary to stop the paranoia of the unions and other groups who pretend to “defend” them although said “public services” are not their property. The latter are indeed, the backbone of any State worth being qualified as such and their inexistence or weakness is a basic cause of under-development, hence the importance of the observations made along this book, about the notions of governance and quality of deciders.


The only objective is to make them more efficient and less costly for the national community who is the owner and the manager, through the State per delegation. This national community indeed, faces by now a situation of direct competition in production and thus in employment matters, with the other developed countries but also with the much less demanding economies of the developing world, we should not forget it ! In such a situation, it is frankly unacceptable to be unwilling to change anything in the management and organisation of the “public services” for which “defence” some unions and politicised groups claim they will fight to death as if they were their owners in place of the State or the Nation ! The necessary change will obviously question some social rights (“droits acquis” in french) or better said, some comfortable but costly habits conquered along the years by our battling civil servants and public employees over too gentle and timorous governments. Let us remind anyhow that said public officers enjoy a statutory guarantee of employment. In such conditions, it would not appear excessive or unjust that their working conditions and social benefits be made more flexible, aligning them for instance along those of the private sector which salaried people do not enjoy such guarantee of employment ! Besides this, it is worth mentioning that permanent improvement of the management and reactivity of the “services” are the better long term guarantee of users satisfaction and consequently, of their sustainability and capacity to ensure a public service for all.


Everybody feels it but some deny it, straitjacketed by their fear of any kind of change, by some political or institutional fantasy or simply, by a basic reflex of defence of their own personal or corporate interest. They reject it stubbornly and do not hesitate to make it pay by their fellow comrades and the users or clients. Clear example of this is given by the series of popular meetings and strikes organised in France since years until taking the risk of fragilising the efforts made for recovery in the midst of the present 2009 crisis, by some unions, associations and political groups claiming they are the chivalrous shield “against the reforms and in defence of the public service” !  Up to the University “doctors and researchers” who want to remain in their cocoon instead of “teaching and finding” a bit more and better fit with the changing world.   

This irresponsible attitude points out the contradiction thus denied, between right of strike and continuity of the “public service” and between cost of service and financing capacity of the national community not mentioning the mere cost/efficiency problems that a better working organisation could easily resolve …. The solution for them is always more staff, equipment and money no matter if this is productively used or not, and they do not even have the slightest suspicion that quality and continuity of the “service” might rely first, on their own change of behaviour !


This conceptual weakness certainly stems from the particular idiosyncrasy of the “administrative world” as an administrator is supposed to manage “the existing” according to a set of well established rules and not to change it. It is therefore, a widely spread defect in most large administrative bodies and the European Commission, unfortunately, did not escape it… hence, the usefulness of such comments  about its action background .

Shall we therefore, loose faith and hope ? Certainly not, on condition that a clear and strong political will allows, and obliges if necessary, the administrative executives to decide and implement the change !