In the seventies, and in the eighties, the diplomatic and business relations of European countries with the Gulf monarchies in particular, and MENA zone (Middle East and North Africa) in general, were still strong , fluids and continuous. Oil money was flowing and did allow for many companies, German in the first place, growing in record time in large companies playing internationally. It seems reasonable to think that the United States played a facilitating role for such investments. Indeed, tensions were highest during this Cold War period and the Americans had to ensure the continued assent of German officials, and they had it, on their policy of containment of the Soviet Union in Central Europe through, inter alia, the installation of medium-range nuclear weapons on German soil. Both parties found their account.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the reunification of the country, Germany, which lost its greatness in the war, naturally expected to find it financially and commercially, as the first European industrial power in Europe, reigning directly over Europe and by weighing on the trade of neighboring countries, including Turkey and Russia and, by countries interposed, notably France, on the African continent. The Euro should be the ideal instrument to achieve this end. Nevertheless, as President Trump has bluntly acknowledged, the Americans have considered, and still do, the launch of the single European currency as an unprecedented existential danger on the Dollar and, after assessing the repercussions, have begun to act accordingly.
Thus, after the war in Iraq, which cost, according to President Trump, trillions of dollars in the US, and the war in Syria added to it, this environment of proximity to European countries has undergone irreversible changes. The usual diplomatic and commercial anchoring points of continental European powers in this area have either been destroyed or seriously damaged. As a result, EU trade activity in the region has shrunk considerably. The monarchies of the Gulf, released without much damage from the Iraq-Syria war, have in turn printed new directions to their trade with the world that no longer seem to favor the EU countries. For example, if Saudi Arabia concluded on 2017 several hundred billion dollars in commercial contracts with countries like China, Japan and the United States, Germany is returned, it is a first, the pockets empty after moving Angela Merkel last spring to the Wahhabi country. Trade with Russia and Turkey has also been badly damaged and the situation in Ukraine is far from being a solvent customer for the moment.
But while the EU’s diplomatic, political and, even more, trade-related influence has suffered a historic downturn on its eastern flank, Europe seems to be more firmly tied to Africa than ever before. The EU remotely manages in Africa the bulk of economic, financial and commercial activity and the Euro is King directly, or indirectly when, for example, the value of the Franc of the French Colonies of Africa (CFA) is guaranteed by the European currency. Major European service providers, SGS, Bureau VERITAS, TÜV Rheinland and Intertetek, the best known, crisscross the Continent and maintain a firm hand on the commercial transactions of our countries represented mainly by the sale of raw materials of agricultural origin and the import of commodities. In this respect, the requirements, related to the Accompaniment and Certification Process, studied in detail and refined, allow these ubiquitous behemoths, in addition to being highly paid, to have access to all the information they want; which they use to consolidate their current positions and to perpetuate their privileges, that they have wrested from the different countries, on the continental African market. Their historic colonial roots, which allow them unparalleled knowledge of the terrain and African practices, added to a multitude of standards, health security and others, tailored appropriately to promote the position of European companies in the face of competition, make the EU, for the moment, a “virtual” actor unmovable for any country wishing to invest in Africa.
However, if the “Brexit” could be done, there is no reason to consider that the “Euro-interest” marriage that Europe has forced on the African continent is indissoluble. Trade and diplomatic relations existed between African countries and with the Middle East area well before the colonial era. This has also been the case in Morocco with the southern Sahara countries. The whole thing is to know how to put these relations back to order and to the necessities of the day by allowing a better perspective for the development of the African skills to enable them to play the role which is theirs on the international chessboard.
It is nevertheless a difficult task, to be led by mutual agreement, which must be taken very seriously. The countries, our neighbors to the south, have countless natural sources of wealth, particularly in terms of agricultural resources. If Morocco wants to take a more active part in the African (agro) industrial take-off, a top priority for all of us, it will have to improve the offer of its assistance and redouble its efforts. For example, Africa spends more than 20 per cent of its revenues annually in foreign currency in order to comply with the requirements of Europe’s expertises, of which the agro-industrial sector has the lion’s share. Much of this money is channeled through the organizations mentioned, which date back to the colonial era, and others that have recently been added, all of which benefit from support, more or less discreet, but very broad and on all plans from their respective home countries.
But as the saying goes, well-ordered Charity begins with oneself. Indeed, if Morocco wants its offer of aid and assistance for an African market upgrading to be taken seriously by the brotherly African countries; it must enforce such principles at home in the first place. For example, it is anomalous that a “renown” European provider, who has made a breakthrough on a certification niche, offers, against payment, certification documents for a few days using. This type of “grocery certification” (our archives) is simply outrageous. Other practices of sleight-of-hand, designed by these people to issue health safety documents that bypass Law 28-07 (our archives), are just as repulsive but still exist. The immediate conclusion to be drawn from these actions, which border on fraudulent behavior, is the disregard of these providers for our national laws and regulations. The question that naturally comes to mind is: Why are our supervisory authorities not reacting? The officials concerned give the impression of having been anesthetized by these European providers. In fact, the credibility of our supervisory bodies, which they would do better to think of improving, must probably have been provided by auditors of the same kind as the providers mentioned above. Maybe this explains that.
