When development goes wrong, the finger is invariably pointed at the Third World. But as the European Commission admits, mistakes are also made in the West.
The Commission is currently preparing for negotiations on a new agreement with the world's poorest nations. Its recently-published guidelines for these talks are full of admissions of failure.
For a start, the existing agreement, the Lome Convention, simply hasn't worked. Most of the world is booming but the many of the 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states who signed the convention are in the doldrums.
In spite of the benevolence of the EU and a complicated system of trade preferences for these former European colonies, the ACP countries have seen their share of world trade fall to 1.5 per cent. A further fall to 1 per cent is predicted. Any further falls and they will disappear off the radar screens.
The Commission admits it has been highly inflexible in the distribution of aid. Assistance has been granted near-automatically, with insufficient regard to efficiency or equity. In addition, "dependence on aid, short-termism and the pressure of crises have increasingly overshadowed relations," the guidelines state.
Setting out the Irish view in Brussels last week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrews, described the Lome framework as "too unwieldy, too complex and at times even difficult to understand".
For the successor to Lome, therefore, a new approach is required - all the more since the world has changed greatly since the present convention was negotiated 10 years ago. The Berlin Wall has fallen. Democracy has taken root in many poor countries. Globalisation is the buzzword of the 1990s.
Earlier this year, the Commission published a Green Paper on development, which was widely criticised for its blandness. But the new guidelines are anything but bland.
What the Commission is now proposing is an overtly political strategy designed to win over or, failing that, buy the support of the ACP states for the EU in international politics.
The formula is simple: 15 EU states backed by 71 ACP states makes for a powerful force in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. In its battle for economic supremacy with the US and Japan, the EU wants to call in a few favours.
"Up to now, the group of 86 countries has not been able to exploit its clout at international level," a Commission spokesman explained this month. A sufficient "critical mass" would help Europe get waivers at the WTO and the World Bank as well as greatly increasing its influence on the world stage.
What really irks the bureaucrats in Brussels is the lack of recognition the EU gets for its efforts in development. Europe is the world's largest aid donor, but gets much less credit than the US. The Commission is determined to change this, and to get mileage out of development co-operation in other areas.
So now, instead of aid for aid's sake, development is to become a tool of foreign policy. As the guidelines baldly state: "Development co-operation must serve the objectives of the common foreign and security policy [of the EU]."
These policy changes are reflected in an imminent reorganisation within the Commission, which will see the policymaking aspects of development transferred to international affairs, leaving the spending aspects isolated in a weakened directorate.
With an eye to increasing globalisation, the spokesman says "these [ACP] countries will have to open up to the world sooner or later. If they open up to us in a controlled way, it will be to their benefit."
Honeyed words. But what do the poor of the earth get in return for making Europe a superpower?
The guidelines promise that poverty alleviation will form the cornerstone of any new partnership. Money will be directed at those who most need it.
This is what the Irish Government wants. We already spend almost 80 per cent of aid on subSaharan Africa and we'd like to see the EU show a similar focus.
Yet in the very next breath, the Commission says its main focus will be on promoting private enterprise. The "rising tide lifts all boats" theory underpinning this strategy may indeed bring some welcome improvement to some Third World economies, but on existing evidence the gains tend to be unequally distributed. The poor remain just that, poor.
There are many positive features in these guidelines. A new focus on human rights and democracy, for example; the call for good governance - Euro-speak for the fight against corruption; and a promise that aid will be given on merit, rather than aid.
So far, though, these is little detail in these areas. Nor is there any indication that the EU is serious about obtaining greater coherence between its policies in the areas of development, trade, human rights and agriculture.
For example, why are European firms allowed to export arms to countries guilty of human rights violations? Why to do we give aid to poor countries but prevent them earning money by exporting produce to us? Why is EU agricultural produce dumped on African markets?
The Commission is holding out the promise that free-trade areas will be set up with some of the poorest ACP states as part of the next agreement. But even this tentative commitment may not survive intense scrutiny from other areas in Brussels. And even then, weak Third World economies will need protection against flood of Western imports.
The EU is also anxious to address issues such as migration and drugs as part of the negotiations. Trade matters such as intellectual property rights and investor protection will also feature. The EU clearly has a long shopping list.
It isn't as though the sums of money available are huge. For the present five-year agreement, the EU has allocated about £8 billion to the 71 ACP states - not much more than Ireland alone is getting in structural funds.
The negotiations aren't due to start until next autumn, by which time both sides may have shown their cards more clearly. The ACP states are hardly in a position of strength, but even they will be easily persuaded to push for a better deal from their former colonial masters.
