Africa, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Europe, Gender, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Women & Economy

Q&A: "We Should Go Beyond Development Aid" Vis-a-vis Africa

Mario de Queiroz interviews Portuguese Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs JOÃO GOMES CRAVINHO

LISBON, Dec 16 2008 (IPS) - "Portugal does not own the European Union’s strategy for Africa, but we do feel a special affection for that continent and recognise that our relationship with them is unlike that with any other region in the world."

These are the words of João Gomes Cravinho, Portugal’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and one of the main architects of an EU proposal to establish a new kind of relationship between the bloc and the African Union (AU) at the December 2007 summit in Lisbon.

In this interview with IPS, Gomes Cravinho assesses the year that passed since 53 African and 27 European leaders met in the Portuguese capital, and answers questions on the role of women in peace and security operations.

Portugal does not have a monopoly on the role of privileged partner with a continent where it first gained a foothold in 1415 and from which it only withdrew in 1975, but "we are one of the countries with the ability to build bridges with Africans, addressing their various concerns."

IPS: A year on, what’s your assessment? JOÃO GOMES CRAVINHO: Twelve months is too short a time for an evaluation. Due to the long-term nature of what we are trying to do, it’s premature. Even if there are great inequalities between us on many levels, there is something similar about the EU and the AU: We have to deliver on our responsibility to the people we govern.

IPS: In what sense? JGC: In the sense that all governments are responsible towards their citizens. That responsibility was lacking from the logic of development aid and it’s very important that it appeared.

At the Lisbon Summit we decided to build four pillars: good governance, development, peace and security, and finally trade and regional integration. This means going beyond development, beyond donor-beneficiary relations, and into a new political relationship in which we all assume our responsibilities.

IPS: In practice some aspects will have to be stressed… JGC: Yes. We are establishing new prospects in our relations and dialogue with Africa, and it was a point of pride for Portugal that it was in Lisbon (on Dec. 8-9, 2007) that we managed to interpret the ‘spirit of our times’ in the ties between the two continents. It’s only been twelve months, so we are at a very incipient stage.

But we have managed to start up an intense, broad-ranging dialogue that corresponds to the needs of both sides, especially with regard to global governance.

In this sense, the response capacity developed by both continents goes beyond the domain of national or regional administrations.

IPS: Concretely? JGC: The environment is an excellent example. It’s important that we develop some response capacity with respect to problems that go beyond our continents. Africa is the most vulnerable continent to climate change, although it contributes the least to pollution. And while it is the most affected, it is excluded from the clean development mechanisms. The EU wants Africa to have a voice in the next climate change conference, to be held in 2009 in Copenhagen.

Another example can be drawn from the current global financial crisis. Where is Africa? It’s not there, in spite of its extreme vulnerability to the consequences of the crisis.

Beyond the topics of energy and the environment, we are promoting cooperation with Africa in sensitive areas like peace and security. There are relatively less visible but important things happening, such as the harmonisation of the mechanisms for establishing peacekeeping missions with African troops.

IPS: Are there also efforts directed at involving the people, through their various organisations, and not just governments? JGC: Apart from official institutions, the idea is to include the wealth of civil society, from parliaments, the business sector and universities, to foundations and non-governmental organisations working in the field. That is, to go beyond purely inter-governmental activity.

We need to reflect, create test cases and experiment with ideas. We need this sort of initiative.

IPS: In the year that has passed since the summit, has there been any progress in the field? What are the most pressing problems in developing a joint AU-EU strategy? JGC: The main problems derive from Africa’s lack of preparedness to deal with globalisation, unlike in Europe where throughout decades we have set up extremely intense and formalised coordination bodies.

When something internationally relevant occurs, the first thing European officials do is coordinate their actions. In Africa nothing of the kind exists. The EU has the AU as a counterpart for cooperation, but the working spirit that characterises a supranational institution is lacking in Africa.

This is a complicated problem, because since they lack the habit of coordination, they have a reduced capacity for dialogue. By saying this, I only mean that Africa is poorly equipped to tackle globalisation and that what we are doing is making our contribution so that Africa is better prepared.

IPS: National sovereignty seems a very dear concept to Africans… JGC: We have to consider that EU countries have been joined together for decades. The AU has existed for a mere seven years. For decades the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) did not contribute to building a notion of common interests and, on the other hand, the African countries gained independence only a few decades ago, which leads to their very different approach to sharing sovereignty when compared to the EU.

In any case, in seven years, the AU has managed to make more advances in the field than the OAU in 37 years, but this is a process that will take a long time. The case of Zimbabwe reflects the fragility of African institutions, and the consequences are all too visible.

IPS: For many Africans, the stigma of almost seven centuries of European domination persists as an argument when it comes to explaining many of their problems… JGC: The obsession with the legacy of colonialism, especially in Zimbabwe, is a profound distortion of reality. All countries have seen decades pass since decolonisation. When problems appear, you cannot always point the finger outwards. On the other hand, paternalism has always been present in the donor-beneficiary relationship, but it’s inappropriate for 21st century ties.

IPS: On another front, you are known for your engagement with the issue of gender equality, especially with regard to women’s participation in security, defence and peacekeeping missions, a crucial question for Africa. JGC: In spite of some progress in terms of women’s participation in important public posts, of which good examples are Finland, Liberia, Chile and Argentina, these advances are still the exception rather than the rule.

In the field of defence and security, the role of women in conflict prevention and resolution and peace-building is of the utmost importance. The participation of women is absolutely necessary in the spheres of peace negotiations and in understanding the various social roles women play in conflict and post-conflict situations.

IPS: In other words women, who represent a majority of the victims in conflicts, should become part of their solution? JGC: Indeed. Because as victims of armed conflicts, the reality of being a woman is taken to an atrocious dimension, as is the case with the generalised practice of using sexual violence as a weapon of war. We just have to look at the conflict in (the Democratic Republic of) Congo.

It’s crucial to give women a role in both formal and informal negotiations leading to peace, so that a gender perspective gains ground in concrete policies and processes.