Towards enlightened leadership and ethical globalisation: EU must look beyond

process reform

By David F. Luke

The EU aspires to take a principled approach on global issues (the reflections that
went into the White Paper on Governance bear witness to this). But on the other
hand, this is often contradicted by the unyielding pursuit of its own interests – along
the lines of Lord Castlereagh’s well-known doctrine, which, somewhat appositely,
was made in the context of Europeans meeting in concert.

On key international trade/sustainable development issues, for example, the

continuing prevarications over the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (which
is arguably not even in the EU’s own interest) and the recent shenanigans over the
reform of fishery policy stand out as eloquent testimony that the EU is not above
putting politics before principle.

Such contradictions leave those that look to the EU - rather than across the Atlantic -
for enlightened leadership confused. They also appear to confirm a view that is widely
held among anti-globalisation activists : that globalisation’s underlying neo-liberal
model is inherently incapable of reform to achieve effective and humane outcomes for
the greater good.

However, the aspirations of the White Paper indicate that the European elite is not
only conscience-stricken by the imbalances of globalisation, but also genuinely
shaken by the apparent increasing distrust of institutions and politics among
Europeans on both the Left and the Right. The European establishment seems
convinced about the need to do something about the extremes of globalisation,
pervasive poverty and deep-rooted inequalities. Take, for instance, the Copenhagen
Seminars for Social Progress sponsored by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in follow-up to the commitments that were made during the UN World
Summit for Social Development; Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt’s Open Letter
written after the events in Genoa during the Belgian presidency in the second half of
2001, calling for an ethical globalisation; the widely quoted remarks in the London
Financial Times of EU Commissioner Chris Patten in the aftermath of the appalling
events of nine-eleven; and even Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent speech at the
George Bush Presidential Library in Houston, Texas, in effect arguing that American
power must be harnessed as a force for good in the world.

In setting the context on how to respond to the challenges of EU governance in the

new global context, the White Paper itself recalls that many Europeans are losing
confidence in the ability of a poorly-understood and complex system to deliver the
policies they want. It notes that Europeans want the Union to ‘take the lead in seizing
the opportunities of globalisation for economic and human development, and in
responding to environmental challenges, unemployment, concerns over food safety
and regional conflicts’.

1
The main solution proposed by the White Paper is the ‘opening up the policy-making
process to get more people and organisations involved in shaping and delivering EU
policy’. The expert group that deliberated on this aspect of the White Paper
recommendations agreed, proposing in its report on Strengthening Europe’s
Contribution to World Governance, that the EU take up its global responsibilities by
devoting more attention to the impact of EU policies on third country partners as well
as itself, pursuing both economic and non-economic definitions of well-being; and
promoting a positive view of the scope for cooperation with EU partners at global and
regional levels. The expert group therefore concurred that broader participation in EU
deliberations can help to bring about a sounder basis for decision-making.

Accordingly it favoured ‘the inclusion in EU deliberative processes (though not

decision-making) of third country players, governmental or not, with an interest in EU
decisions. Such consultative inputs are crucial to the quality and legitimacy of EU
policy’. Worried that taking this route carries the danger of privatising and eroding
democracy, the expert group nonetheless was convinced that ‘including business and
civil society can reduce some of the imperfections of government.’

The expert group goes further to recommend the development and use of analytical
tools that help EU citizens and policy-makers to understand the multiple impacts of
policy innovation ex ante, as well as ex post. ‘No policy should be defined without
using such tools for addressing its overall impact on EU interests and also where
relevant on global interests.’ So far, so good.

Unfortunately, both the White Paper and the expert group for the most part dodge the
crucial question of how to mobilise and bring political forces on the other side of the
Atlantic on board in the war against poverty. For example, in the current World Trade
Organisation (WTO) negotiations on agriculture, what will be the response of Europe
to the trade-distorting farm bill that recently emerged from the United States
Congress?

Indeed, one cannot help but notice the overwhelming focus on process reform rather
than substantive reform in the White Paper and the report of the expert group. To the
extent that in time and space, stakeholders need continually to be engaged in
negotiating the definition of the ‘greater good’, reform to get the process right is of
course important. But it is easier than coming to terms with substantive reform. Even
if carried out successfully, such reform runs the risk of raising expectations which,
when not met, can result in the politics of extremes and massive loss of confidence in
institutions. This is why EU negotiating positions on the WTO Doha Development
Agenda, including farm and fishery reform, as well as the soon to be negotiated future
shape of EU-Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) trade relations, will be an early
litmus test on its aspirations to deliver enlightened leadership and ethical
globalisation.

Harare, June 2002

David Luke is Trade, Debt and Globalisation Advisor, Socio-economic Development Group
UNDP Bureau for Development Policy, Southern Africa Sub-Regional Resource Facility. The
views expressed here are personal. E-mail: david.luke@undp.org

2
3