oooooooo

OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND GENERAL DIRECTORS IN CHARGE OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

(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 !

                          

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

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 19^th 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 21^st 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 17^th 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 !

 

oooooooooooooo

ooooooo

OPEN MAIL TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND GENERAL DIRECTORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

(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.

 

Gentlemen,

 

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 “eurocooperation-contreregard.org” 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 19^th 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

 

 

 

SYNTHESIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF JULY 2009

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

 

                                                                                                                      

O          O          O

 

 

SYNTHESIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AS AT 31 / 01 / 09

 

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 eurocooperation-contreregard.org 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.

 QUITE NOT SUFFICIENT … IN-DEPTH ACTION IS REQUIRED

-          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…

 FOR FIELD ACTION AND STRATEGIES

 

 

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 !