Cheysson, Claude.

English

Archive of European Integration

The interview below was given in French by Mr. Claude Cheysson, 
Development Commissioner of the European Community, to Jacques 
Docquiert of the Paris newspaper "La Croix", and was published 
in that newspaper on January 14, 1978. The translation into 
Englis is unofficial. 
---------------------------------------------------------------Jre?/e 
Mr. Claude Cheysson is without doubt one of the best known 
French leaders in the world today. This celebrity is due to the 
responsibilities he holds in the Common Market institutions. He is 
in charge of development aid and relations with Third-World countries 
at the Commission of the European Communities, and, in this capacity, 
he is one of the creators of the famous Lome Convention, which links 
Europe to about 50 African, Caribbean and Pacific developing countries. 
His competence and responsibilities put him in a strong position 
to evaluate the often difficult relations between industrialized and 
developing countries. 
Q. We are witnessing a return to protectionism in Europe as much 
as in the United States. What do you think about this trend? 
A. This trend was unavoidable. When one goes from sustained growth 
to stagnation, there are repercussions in the whole economic structure 
that prompt people to look for quick solutions. The short-term view 
says: "Let,_ s close our borders to sell more on our market." This is 
certainly not necessary. Protectionism is a complicated form of 
suicide for European countries. We receive 75% of our raw materials 
from the outside, we export a very large part of our production. If 
we close the doors, the windows, if we shut ourselves up, we end up 
dying. Therefore, protectionism would be for us a disaster. It would 
be the end of development in Europe. 
Q. Developing countries are little by little undergoing industriali-
zation. Do you think that this development could mean the end for 
certain areas of activity in Europe, for example the textile industry, 
at a future date? 
A. The Third-World countries want to develop themselves. That is a 
fact. Some of them have this possibility. This development means an 
increase in agricultural production. It also means increasing the 
market value of what is produced for export and cutting back on imports -
therefore industrialization. All this is obvious. This industrial 
development alters relationships: if one country develops a clothing_ 
industry, it will have to be curtailed elsewhere. With industrialization, 
there is a capacity for exports that compete with us directly and 
this will have an effect on our development. Consequently, there is 
- 2 -
no doubt that industrialization of the Third-World will affect our 
economic structures and will mean recession for some sectors. But we 
should see the other side. Development of the Third-World is done 
with machines, experts, patents, engineering, which are provided by 
us. Industrial development of the Third-World therefore increases 
our exports of services and goods by opening additional markets for 
them. 
Q. Do European manufacturers who install their plants in developing 
countries with low salaries make the right calculation? Are they 
helping these countries or do they take advantage of them? Which 
type of development is necessary to the Third-World? 
A. There are industries that start in the Third World because of 
particular features of the country involved: a handicraft tradition 
or the existence of raw materials. These industries are developing, 
there will be growth and progress. 
But industries are also "parachuted'' into a country to take 
advantage of abnormal conditions of work: a poor population, no 
job security. This means a low manufacturing cost. The industry that 
prospers under these conditions is not healthy: if the poor conditions 
change, its fundamental reasons for being there disappear. Besides, 
such an industry is a foreign body because it is there to export to 
our markets. This industry makes no contribution to development. In 
such cases, the reactions of ~ur trade unions and political pressure 
groups would be very strong. We cannot accept the idea that it is 
possible to ignore human dignity and international agreements on 
conditions of work by putting down roots ten thousand miles away. 
And then, I cannot suppose that an independent country of 
the Third World, with a responsible government, will put up for long 
with this unhealthy type of development. These industries must be 
fought against determinedly. 
The multinationalE, for example, cannot understand this argument. 
It's about having legal tools properly adapted to the world situation. 
The political establishment should lay down the rules of the game 
and the means of enforcement will emerge. In the United States, the 
multinationals have accepted the rules established in Washington, it 
is· no longer a jungle. But in the world as a whole the rules of the 
jungle still apply and the multinationals take advantage. It is 
essential to establish ground rules; then, if the sanctions are strong 
enough, the multinationals will understand very quickly that they must 
comply. 
- 3 -
The European Community adopted recently a "Code of Good 
Conduct" for its companies operating in South Africa. It requires 
that the companies treat their black workers the same as their 
white workers. I believe that this code will be respected: in fact, 
once a year, a report will be published on the way these rules are 
kept. The lies will be exposed, and the company that ignores this 
code is asking for trouble. Just think about the reaction of the 
trade unions in Europe. Think of the real cost to the companies that 
cheat. 
Q. One of the big successes of the Community in helping the Third 
World is the Lome Convention. Can this type of convention be "exported" 
for worldwide application? 
A. I answer categorically yes. Several aspects are "exportable". 
First, the methods: we have found an insurance system against bad 
years. Then the principle of the Lome Convention: Lome is the result 
of a negotiation. We went from aid handed out by rich countries to a 
system of negotiated cooperation. This system cannot be questioned. 
It is guaranteed. 
Then we dealt with groups of countries of different political 
inclinations and different levels of development. We cannot therefore 
interfere in their internal conflicts. We therefore systematically 
encourage nonalignment, and I am convinced that, if there is no 
world conflict, this nonalignment, i.e. the right to cultural 
identity, will represent one of the fundamental motivating forces in 
the Third World. 
At last, the third exportable .idea - we had a bipolar world 
after the war, this world is now divided into fragments. Is it 
possible to group countries so that discussions take place between 
states of the same region? I think so. The Lome Convention is also 
this: an understanding between Europe, Africa and part of the Arab 
world. A concept that may be applicable in other ways. We should 
try to have other agreements, with Southeast Asia :for example, and 
it would be particularly good if the United States or Japan could 
:follow suit. 
g. The Third World is experiencing several serious conflicts. Could 
the struggles for influence that are developing there start a war on 
a much bigger scale? 
A. If we leave these countries alone, these conflicts will not be 
serious. The Arabs have been very cautious, for example, in the conflict 
between Algeria and Morocco over the former Spanish Sahara. It needed 
non-Arab countries to establish their positions. The Arabs themselves 
knew that one should not interfere in a conflict between two class 
students :for fear of seeing the whole class at war. Sometimes, I am 
- 4 -
afraid that the two super powers may find it possible to confront 
each other during these conflicts, without compromising detente. 
When I see the evolution in the Middle East, where the Rejection 
Front could be tomorrow the victim, the de facto ally of the Soviet 
Union against the countries that, with Sadat and the Americans, have 
gambled on a better understanding on Israel's part! I am very worried. 
In fact, if the USSR and the United States should find themselves 
again face to face in the event of a conflict in the Third World, the 
thing might be contagious and would spread little by little through 
the Third World, each conflict becoming extremely serious. 
Q. Without discussing serious conflict, isn't the trend toward a 
division of the Third World between the socialist bloc and the West? 
A. I do not think so. There is no example in the history of the 
Soviet Union showing that it has been a partner for development. 
There is a total incapacity on the Russians' part to help any country 
to develop. The Russians are partners for military preparation and 
extraordinary allies in war, especially in wars of liberation - I 
give them their due - or perhaps in a war against a neighbor. But as 
soon as the war is over, they lose interest in the country. Their 
aid then decreases to the usual level, i.e. negligible, and their 
technical means are useless. 
Could China be different? Maybe in a hundred years, but today 
it does not have the means to intervene directly. In other words, 
if there ·is no war, the developing countries must necessarily rely 
on the Western industrialized countries. 
Q. What do you think of the French policy toward the developing 
countries and of its involvement in Zaire or Mauritania? 
A. There has been - on the French Government's part - help to some 
countries fighting to defend their freedom. When one looks at the 
situation in context, one understands the French policy. A friendly 
country is threatened - France sees a duty to help it and this 
awakens an emotion that proves France has understood an important 
aspect of the problem. Troops invaded Shaba, and France helped Zaire 
to reestablish its unity. I tnink, however, that it is necessary to 
avoid finding oneself in these situations. Our country, like each 
European state, must insist on the right of each country to develop 
itself its way. 
If one country is in conflict with it·s neighbor, we must adopt 
a posture of systematic neutrality. We should endeavor to limit the 
intervention of other countries, but we should not get involved in 
the conflict. This seems to me particularly wise with respect to 
former French colonial countries. You cannot - in a country that had 
been under a colonial regime for years - forget this period, and 
suspicion is aroused when an intervention occurs. Therefore, I think 
that the policy of military support is a bad one. I understand that 
we may be forced to intervene when we get into this type of situation, 
but my basic rule is that one should avoid that kind of involvement. 
- 5 -
Q. Should a leftist government in France have a different policy 
toward developing countries? 
A. A leftist government should have a policy toward the Third 
World, and I am not sure that the French government has one now. 
Such a policy should prevail over all the other interests, including 
the commercial interests of our armament industry and nuclear policy. 
I believe that all too often certain concerns - objectively valid -
have obscured our policy and that also our actions have not been 
consistent. When a country like ours is the object of so much 
criticism - from the United Nations and elsewhere - there must be 
some truth in it. For me, the truth must lie in the consistent nature 
of our actions. A leftist government should define a policy and make 
sure that everything it does is within that policy. 


Interview withh "La Croix" [on relations between industrialized and developing countries] by Mr. Claude Cheysson, Development Commissioner of the European Community. 14 January 1978

The  interview below was  given  in French by  Mr.  Claude  Cheysson, Development  Commissioner  of the European  Community,  to Jacques Docquiert  of the Paris newspaper  "La Croix",  and was  published in that  newspaper  on  January  14,  1978.  The  translation into Englis is unofficial. ---------------------------------------------------------------Jre?/e Mr.  Claude  Cheysson is without  doubt  one  of  the best  known French leaders  in the world today.  This celebrity is due  to the responsibilities he  holds  in the  Common  Market  institutions.  He  is in charge of  development  aid and relations with Third-World countries at the Commission  of the  European  Communities,  and,  in this capacity, he  is one of the creators of the  famous  Lome  Convention,  which  links Europe  to about  50  African,  Caribbean  and Pacific developing countries. His  competence  and responsibilities put  him in  a  strong position to evaluate the often difficult relations between  industrialized and developing countries. Q.  We  are witnessing  a  return to protectionism in Europe  as much as  in the  United States.  What  do  you  think about  this trend? A.  This trend was unavoidable.  When  one  goes  from  sustained growth to stagnation,  there are repercussions in the whole  economic  structure that  prompt  people  to  look for  quick  solutions.  The  short-term view says:  "Let,_ s  close our borders to sell more  on  our market."  This  is certainly not  necessary.  Protectionism is a  complicated  form of suicide for  European  countries.  We  receive  75%  of our  raw materials from  the outside,  we  export  a  very  large part of our production.  If we  close the doors,  the windows,  if we  shut ourselves up,  we  end  up dying.  Therefore,  protectionism would  be  for  us  a  disaster.  It would be  the end of  development  in Europe. Q.  Developing countries are little by little undergoing industriali-zation.  Do  you  think that this development  could mean  the  end  for certain areas of activity in Europe,  for  example  the textile industry, at  a  future  date? A.  The  Third-World countries want  to develop  themselves.  That  is a fact.  Some  of  them have this possibility.  This  development  means  an increase  in agricultural production.  It also means  increasing the market  value of what  is produced for  export  and cutting back on  imports  -therefore  industrialization.  All this is obvious.  This  industrial development  alters relationships:  if one  country develops  a  clothing_ industry,  it will  have  to be curtailed elsewhere.  With  industrialization, there is a  capacity for  exports that  compete with us directly and this will  have  an  effect  on  our development.  Consequently,  there is - 2  -no  doubt  that  industrialization of  the  Third-World will  affect our economic  structures and will mean  recession  for  some  sectors.  But  we should see  the other side.  Development  of the  Third-World is done with machines,  experts,  patents,  engineering,  which  are  provided  by us.  Industrial  development  of the  Third-World therefore  increases our exports of  services  and  goods  by  opening additional  markets  for them. Q.  Do  European  manufacturers  who  install their plants  in developing countries with  low salaries make  the right calculation?  Are  they helping these countries or  do  they take  advantage of  them?  Which type of  development  is necessary to  the Third-World? A.  There  are  industries that start in the Third World because of particular features  of the country  involved:  a  handicraft  tradition or the existence of  raw materials.  These  industries are  developing, there will  be  growth  and progress. But  industries are also  "parachuted''  into  a  country to take advantage of  abnormal  conditions of  work:  a  poor population,  no job security.  This means  a  low manufacturing cost.  The  industry that prospers under  these conditions is not  healthy:  if the poor  conditions change,  its fundamental  reasons for  being there disappear.  Besides, such  an  industry is a  foreign  body  because it is there to  export  to our markets.  This industry makes  no  contribution to development.  In such cases,  the reactions of ~ur trade unions  and political pressure groups would  be  very strong.  We  cannot  accept  the  idea that it is possible to  ignore  human  dignity and  international  agreements  on conditions of  work  by putting down  roots  ten  thousand miles  away. And  then,  I  cannot  suppose  that  an  independent  country of the Third World,  with  a  responsible government,  will put  up  for  long with this unhealthy type of  development.  These  industries must  be fought  against  determinedly. The multinationalE,  for  example,  cannot  understand this argument. It's about  having  legal tools properly adapted to the world situation. The political establishment  should lay  down  the rules of the  game and the means  of  enforcement will  emerge.  In the United States,  the multinationals  have  accepted the rules established in Washington,  it is· no  longer  a  jungle.  But  in the world as  a  whole  the rules of  the jungle still apply  and the multinationals take  advantage.  It is essential to establish ground rules;  then,  if the  sanctions are  strong enough,  the multinationals will understand very  quickly that  they  must comply. - 3  -The  European  Community  adopted  recently  a  "Code  of  Good Conduct"  for  its companies operating in  South Africa.  It requires that the  companies treat their black workers  the  same  as their white workers.  I  believe that this  code will  be  respected:  in fact, once  a  year,  a  report will  be  published on  the way  these rules are kept.  The  lies will  be  exposed,  and  the  company  that  ignores this code  is asking for  trouble.  Just  think about  the reaction of the trade unions  in Europe.  Think of the real  cost  to the  companies  that cheat. Q.  One  of  the big successes of the Community  in  helping the Third World  is the  Lome  Convention.  Can  this type of  convention  be  "exported" for worldwide  application? A.  I  answer  categorically yes.  Several  aspects are  "exportable". First,  the methods:  we  have  found  an  insurance  system against  bad years.  Then  the principle of the  Lome  Convention:  Lome  is the result of  a  negotiation.  We  went  from  aid handed  out  by  rich countries to  a system of negotiated cooperation.  This  system cannot  be  questioned. It is guaranteed. Then  we  dealt with groups  of countries of different political inclinations and  different  levels of  development.  We  cannot  therefore interfere in their internal conflicts.  We  therefore systematically encourage  nonalignment,  and  I  am  convinced that,  if there is no world conflict,  this nonalignment,  i.e.  the right to cultural identity,  will represent  one  of  the  fundamental  motivating forces  in the Third World. At  last,  the third exportable .idea  - we  had  a  bipolar world after the war,  this world is now  divided  into  fragments.  Is it possible to  group  countries  so that discussions  take place between states of the  same  region?  I  think so.  The  Lome  Convention  is also this:  an  understanding between  Europe,  Africa and part of the Arab world.  A  concept  that  may  be  applicable  in other ways.  We  should try to  have  other agreements,  with Southeast  Asia  :for  example,  and it would  be  particularly good if the United States or Japan  could :follow suit. g.  The  Third World  is experiencing several  serious conflicts.  Could the struggles for  influence that are  developing there start  a  war  on a  much  bigger scale? A.  If we  leave these countries alone,  these conflicts will not  be serious.  The  Arabs  have  been  very  cautious,  for  example,  in the conflict between  Algeria  and  Morocco  over the  former  Spanish Sahara.  It needed non-Arab  countries  to establish their positions.  The  Arabs  themselves knew  that  one  should  not  interfere in  a  conflict between  two  class students  :for  fear of  seeing the whole  class at war.  Sometimes,  I  am - 4  -afraid that  the  two  super powers  may  find it possible to confront each other during  these conflicts,  without  compromising detente. When  I  see the evolution  in the Middle East,  where  the Rejection Front  could be  tomorrow the victim,  the  de  facto  ally of the  Soviet Union  against  the countries that,  with Sadat  and  the Americans,  have gambled on  a  better understanding on  Israel's part!  I  am  very worried. In fact,  if the  USSR  and  the United States should find themselves again  face  to  face  in the  event of  a  conflict  in the Third World,  the thing might  be  contagious and  would  spread little by little through the Third World,  each conflict becoming  extremely serious. Q.  Without  discussing serious conflict,  isn't the  trend toward  a division of the Third World  between  the socialist bloc  and  the West? A.  I  do  not  think so.  There  is no  example  in the history of  the Soviet  Union  showing that it has  been  a  partner for  development. There is a  total incapacity on  the Russians'  part  to help  any  country to develop.  The  Russians  are partners for military preparation and extraordinary allies in war,  especially  in wars of liberation - I give  them their due  - or perhaps  in a  war  against  a  neighbor.  But  as soon  as  the war  is over,  they lose  interest  in the  country.  Their aid then  decreases to the usual  level,  i.e.  negligible,  and their technical means  are useless. Could  China be different? Maybe  in  a  hundred years,  but  today it does  not  have  the means  to  intervene directly.  In other words, if there ·is  no  war,  the developing countries must  necessarily rely on  the  Western  industrialized countries. Q.  What  do  you  think of the  French policy toward  the  developing countries and of its involvement  in Zaire or Mauritania? A.  There  has  been  - on  the  French Government's part  - help to  some countries fighting to defend their freedom.  When  one  looks  at  the situation in context,  one understands the French policy.  A friendly country is threatened - France  sees  a  duty  to help it and this awakens  an  emotion that proves France  has  understood  an  important aspect  of the problem.  Troops  invaded  Shaba,  and  France  helped Zaire to reestablish its unity.  I  tnink,  however,  that it is necessary to avoid  finding oneself  in these situations.  Our  country,  like each European state,  must  insist on  the right of  each country to  develop itself its way. If one  country is in conflict with it·s  neighbor,  we  must  adopt a  posture of  systematic neutrality.  We  should endeavor  to limit the intervention of other countries,  but  we  should not  get  involved  in the conflict.  This  seems  to me  particularly wise with respect  to former  French colonial countries.  You  cannot  - in  a  country that  had been  under  a  colonial  regime  for  years  - forget  this period,  and suspicion is aroused when  an  intervention occurs.  Therefore,  I  think that  the policy of military support  is a  bad one.  I  understand that we  may  be  forced to  intervene when  we  get  into this type of situation, but  my  basic rule is that one  should avoid that kind of  involvement. - 5  -Q.  Should a  leftist government  in France  have  a  different policy toward developing countries? A.  A leftist government  should have  a  policy toward the Third World,  and  I  am  not  sure that  the French government  has  one  now. Such  a  policy  should prevail over all the other interests,  including the  commercial  interests of our  armament  industry  and  nuclear policy. I  believe that all too often certain concerns  - objectively valid -have  obscured our policy  and that  also our actions  have  not  been consistent.  When  a  country like ours is the object  of  so  much criticism - from  the United Nations  and  elsewhere  - there must  be some  truth in it.  For me,  the truth must  lie in the consistent nature of our actions.  A leftist government  should define  a  policy and make sure that  everything it does  is within that policy. 

Interview withh "La Croix" [on relations between industrialized and developing countries] by Mr. Claude Cheysson, Development Commissioner of the European Community. 14 January 1978

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration