At school, we are taught that Europe was built on the cultural and artistic foundations of Greece on one side and Roman law on the other. In the background, Europe would then be a pure autodidact, having undergone no external influence, from Asia or elsewhere, for knowledge or culture. The fact of having self-designated old continent beautifies even more this image by suggesting the know-how in the surrounding areas derives exclusively from Europe itself. The message is intended primarily to the Middle East / Africa. In short, we should be grateful to the Europeans for taking us under their protective wings and learning what we know. The story has been told to all generations before us and continues to be repeated unceasingly. It is therefore hardly surprising to find people, also among the intellectual elite of our African countries, who believe that the Europeans, the French as far as our great continental region is concerned, have occupied us (and may continue) in a perfectly altruistic approach to help our development and our insertion in the modern world. After centuries of occupation, the result is without appeal in the form of a GDP of the whole African continent, among the richest of the Planet, lower than that of a small country like South Korea. It is a small country, practically without resources on its own soil, which imports two-thirds of its food needs. It was first pulled out of black poverty in the fifties of the last century, then effectively assisted by an American presence to become a Dragon now in terms of broad ranges of technologies and industrial products that it exports all over the world and all of that in in fifty years’ time.
Closer to home, there is the example of Israel (and this article does not approach the political / diplomatic aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian question). This country, very tiny by all the geographical standards, which displays a GDP equivalent to half of the African Continent, worked miracles, among others, on the agronomic and agribusiness, on a soil of mediocre quality and with extremely water resources reduced. They innovated in the field of drip irrigation, in the fight against pests, in the production of plant varieties adapted to the arid climate and in the mass production of poultry meat making the price of chicken available to a large segment of the low-income population. On the purely commercial subject, the Europeans, with their own confession, consider Israel as a formidable adversary. It follows they are apprehensive, on this plane, of the day when the Jewish state will reconcile with its Arab neighbors and, why not, with Iran even in the future. They fear losing a large part of their Middle Eastern clientele, who will prefer Israeli technology (to which the Palestinian elite among the Arab population contributed their share), cheaper and more appropriate. But they fear even more such a rapprochement may spread to our continent which would represent a real cataclysm on their juicy African business.
This scenario, regarded with astonishment by EU businessmen, is taken more and more seriously by European states to which it gives cold sweats. Until recently, despite the entry on the African scene of new economic players such as China, India, Japan, Turkey and others, the mainland’s trade with the outside world, which is mainly based on the sale of raw materials First and the purchase of corresponding Finished Products, continued to be managed without share by big companies of the EU thanks to a skillfully studied mesh of “international” standards made by the Europeans, for the Europeans. All of these aggressively supported, relentless efforts are presented, on the marketing side, in “regulatory” forms to facilitate their acceptance by African leaders. This includes the reference to codex standards and WTO regulations where European became masters in their exploitation for their benefit. But now, without going so far as to name them, United States actually considers that the organs of the WTO have been recovered by Europeans and others, against the US interests and show their intention to ignore these multilateral organizations which have been diverted from their original missions. This unprecedented shift in the US position vis-à-vis these multilateral forums, which must have played a role in the US withdrawal from the Iran deal, sounds like a tocsin in the ears of EU officials. They receive this as the appearance of a major opponent to their age-old ambition to expand the privileges (in the course of implementation) they have acquired over Africa and the Middle East to others regions of the planet. US opposition, unexpected, to that ambition, will result, and the Europeans are not mistaken, in a fast shrinking of the spatial influence of the EU in its environment. It is more than likely that the Israelis would play a role in the event of a regression, which appears more and more inescapable, of the influence of EU in its immediate neighborhood. The Europeans feel it and it annoys them to the highest degree. Because in such a case, the Euro would not have any more reason to be and, of course, the CFA Franc either what would bring the countries of the EU to the situation of each for himself. This prospect will particularly please the members of the current Italian government who have been calling for this solution for some time now.
But the EU / US standoff is just beginning with a first deadline on June 1 where President Trump is preparing to impose new tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from the EU. He spoke the same language to China, which agreed to quickly engage in dialogue (currently under way) to resolve the trade imbalance between the two countries. On European side, this imbalance formally concerns all the countries of the Union and the EU would like it to be managed by the European Commission. Usually, its President defines a mission and has it validated by the Council of Heads of States before appointing an interlocutor to conduct negotiations within limits set beforehand. Moreover, the negotiator in question may return to the Commission whenever necessary to advance the dialogue. This supposes several rounds of negotiations with, between two, validations with the hierarchy which is a bit reminiscent of the Soviet empire where the time spent for this kind of meeting didn’t matter. But this European practice is still applied when it comes to negotiations that the “European Empire” conducts separately with our African countries. As we have, as far as we are concerned, little or no alternative to the rapid sale of our Commodities, we are generally not able to keep the distance for the negotiations with the EU and we often accept what the EU agrees to give us in return for our perishable goods. It is unlikely, however, that this “old continent” approach to dealings will be applicable to negotiations with the US administration. In these conditions, except theatrical event, the chances are high that the imposition of tariffs on European steel and aluminum will come into effect next June.
There is still a considerable uncertainty: The tariffs in question penalize, more than any other, the German industry in its heart, namely the automobile industry and do not touch the French industry that have no such steelworks in activity. The pressure on Germany is likely to be of the same intensity as when President Mitterrand negotiated France’s support for German reunification against the adoption of the single currency. Today, it is neither more nor less than to come to the rescue of the first German industry that has already suffered several severe blows and needs to regain its bearings. If Germany decides to take back the Deutschemark, its favorite currency, the “Germixit” will be equivalent to a “Euroxit”
Africa should, by the time these gladiators are busy settling their accounts, move forward its African Continental Free Trade Area project to take the lead. In this case, as in others, one is never so well served as by oneself.
