EUROPE, novembre 1995, pag.14/17, photo Bonino

If you are looking for a synonym for the word "activist" then look no further than Emma Bonino. The European commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid, consumer policy, and fisheries took office in January, but the 47 year old Italian has been a leader for causes in her home country and around the world for much of her adult life.

Bonino brought with her to Brussels a reputation for honesty and straight talk and more than 20 years experience as an energetic activist for liberal causes. In 1975, three years out of the Bocconi University of Milan, the former languages and literature student was arrested for participating in a nonviolent campaign to legalize abortion in Italy. The next year she was elected to the Italian Parliament and has been reelected in every subsequent election as a member of Italy's Radical Party.

In 1979, Bonino won a seat in the European Parliament where she continued to fight for causes such as world hunger and disarmament. Campaigns she has worked for over the years include a protest against nuclear energy that resulted in blocking civil nuclear power in Italy. She has also promoted international human, civil, and political rights in the nations of Eastern Europe. In New York City, she was arrested for distributing syringes in the streets as part of a campaign to change existing drug policies.

Other issues she has actively supported include: establishing an ad hoc tribunal on war crimes in the former Yugoslavia; instituting a worldwide moratorium on capital executions; and fighting AIDS. She has recently been campaigning for a total ban on the production of land mines.

As the European commissioner for humanitarian aid in charge of ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Office) Bonino has been on 15 foreign trips in the last eight months. Three of these trips have been to the former Yugoslavia.

Commissioner Bonino recently spoke with EUROPE Editor-in-Chief Robert J. Guttman about her role as head of the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and its projets in crisis areas including Bosnia and Rwanda. She also discusses the political situation in her native Italy.

Is the European Union the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world?

Yes. The European Union - the member states bilaterally together with ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Office) - is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance. ECHO was established in 1991, and it's been operating since 1992. It started with a very small budget of 100 million ecus ($126 million) or less, and it reached, in 1994, 764 million ecus ($962 million). In this sense we are the major humanitarian donor throughout the world. If you look at a particular crisis area, for instance former Yugoslavia, the Commission has provided more than 60 percent of all the humanitarian aid given there since the beginning of the war.

More than 60 percent of the aid in the former Yugoslavia is from the EU?

Yes. Out of the overall contribution of the international community in former Yugoslavia the Commission and the EU have provided roughly 66 percent of all the humanitarian aid.

Most people in the US would say that the United States is probably the main humanitarian aid giver followed by Japan. What are you doing to raise your image so people know that the EU is doing such a large job?

I regret to say that the answer is the same, even if you ask most European citizens. In January the Commission carried out a survey, on who they thought was the major donor of humanitarian aid. The answers given in order were: "I don't know", the US, HCR, UNICEF, Japan, and ECHO or the Commission. The Union was mentioned only as the last possible answer for mainly two reasons. One is that the humanitarian office is relatively new compared with organizations like UNICEF, the Red Cross, HCR, or USAID, which have all existed for a longer time. That's one explanation. The second one is that the Commission is not directly implementing humanitarian projects, but the projects in the field are implemented mostly by either European non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Doctors without Borders MSF and Caritas, or they are implemented by UN agencies (UNICEF, HCR, WFP, or the Red Cross). The EU, through ECHO, carries much of the financial burden of sustaining all these relief organizations. So the image comi

ng back from the field, through television and other media, is that of the Red Cross, or the HCR logo instead of the EU's. We are trying to raise our visibility to be accountable to our taxpayers. It's two different things: you want to inform the European people of where and how the money is spent; and also inform the recipients of where the aid comes from. And we are trying to convince our partners of our political need for visibility. We are trying, for instance, to establish a common logo with some of the main agencies, to give profile to our joint action on the field.

So when somebody looks at the relief effort in Bosnia, for example, and sees Red Cross, that could be ECHO money. Right?

It is. For instance, when you see the HCR logo in the former Yugoslavia, we are providing 60 percent of their budget. The same could be said for the Red Cross. Also, we provide a large percentage of the Doctors of the World budget or Oxfam's. But when people see television images of relief work the only visible logo is theirs and not ours.

How are your relations with the US Agency for International Development (USAID)?

In the last few years there have been various contacts and exchanges of information between ECHO and USAID, but the relationship was not very structured. During my visit to Washington last May, fresh political impulsion was given to the idea of establishing a more structured and permanent relationship trying, for instance, to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts, which is the case in some humanitarian theatres, and of trying to be more synergetic in order to be more effective. We are now on the verge of agreeing that for particular crisis areas we will have joint evaluation missions so that we can determine together the most cost-effective way to deal with the needs identified. I hope that we will be able to start this exercise very soon. We are also determined to set up a database for real on-time information on who is doing what in all the countries in which we are both operating. This will help to prevent overlapping and improve our efficient response. For instance, rather than setting up separ

ate transport and communication infrastructures, we could use jointly the same infrastructure in given places. We will make this happen with our new coordination effort.

How large an organization is ECHO?

We have administered a budget of 764 million ecus in 1994, which means around $1 billion, with a staff of 80 people. Because we are working through NGOs and UN agencies, last year we supported and financed more than 1,000 projects. But we receive and process proposals for a lot more than that (roughly 3,000 per year). There is a lot of work that goes into choosing a project, channelling money toward it, and then evaluating its effectiveness. I believe that we need more staff and better organizational structure to handle the growing number of humanitarian problems around the world.

Where does your money come from?

From the budget of the European Union, which in turn is made out of Member states' contributions, plus customs duties and VAT levies.

Is Bosnia your largest relief effort at the moment?

The bulk of our effort at the moment it's almost equally shared between Bosnia and Rwanda. We finance humanitarian projects, however, in more than 60 countries. We are involved in some less remembered crisis areas, including Liberia, Angola, Cambodia, and Afghanistan. I believe that 1996, particularly now that a peace process in Bosnia is underway, will see a major effort toward humanitarian relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of the Republics of former Yugoslavia. Of course, we will be involved there for a few years to come, as we can count on more or less 3,6 million refugees or displaced people. It will take time for resettlement, and to go back to a normal life, not to mention the fact that there are some 700,000 to 800,000 refugees in our Member states. We will also face major immediate problems as winter approaches, a very hard season throughout former Yugoslavia. This situation is clearly urgent. Our action in the area will be needed, unfortunately, for a few years ahead.

Are you optimistic that the Bosnian peace process is going to evolve into something that's finally going to work?

We must be optimistic. I don't know if it will wok or not, but I know that we already have more than 3 million people displaced. The question arises whether, at the end of this peace process, we may not end up with an even larger number of displaced.

What is ECHO doing in the Middle East?

We have been present in the region from the very start of operation "Provide Comfort" in Northern Iraq. More recently we have focused our assistance in the region also on the predicament of the Palestinians, both in refugee camps (Lebanon) and in the Occupied Territories. I do hope that as peace the process proceeds, we will be in a position to withdraw. When peace comes and rehabilitation and reconstruction agencies are active on the field, our humanitarian job is basically done.

We are present in 60 countries, and it's quite easy to enter a crisis theatre, but it's very difficult to get out. the only place we were able to leave was Mozambique.

What is ECHO doing in Rwanda today?

In Rwanda, the problem is that the process of repatriating 2.3 million refugees is very, very slow due to the political conditions inside Rwanda and Burundi. As you probably remember in August the Zairian government sort of forced the repatriation. We acted with the UNHCR trying to convince the Zaire government that we could not accept forced repatriation. People don't want to go back because, in part, they are afraid. Secondly, repatriation can only be done in an organized way, and we have to monitor the process so that the rights, or human rights, of these people are assured. But the process is very, very long. People are really afraid to go back, and they don't know where to go. We are working on that, and we don't know if we will be successful by the end of the year. Not that we are hoping that by the end of the year all the refugees will be back in their own countries, but at least that we may be able to establish a trend. We hope that in one year or so we can think that the problem is on its way to

being settled. But I am not so optimistic. Tensions in Burundi and in Rwanda are still very high. That doesn't help people to go back.

You were just in Cuba. What was the purpose of your trip to Cuba. Are you giving humanitarian aid?

ECHO provided humanitarian aid already in 1993 and 1994. We are trying to prevent a dramatic deterioration of conditions for the vulnerable people, particularly in the health and food situation, and a major humanitarian crisis. We have been giving aid, through European NGOs, directly to the suffering, bypassing the government. We are particularly taking care of handicapped, elderly, women and children. By the way, there are a lot of american NGOs working in the humanitarian field in Cuba. These organizations, such as the churches and other, have dispensed aid for roughly 70 Million dollars so far.

Could you give us an overview of the situation in Cuba?

What is happening in my opinion is that here is cautious move towards economic reforms. The problem is that for the moment there does not seem to be even the beginning of political reform. Yet, economic reforms, for instance the possibility of private work and private property, or else the law just passed on foreign investments, may help bringing about some sort of political reform. The Cuban government may be willing to follow China's example (i.e. economic liberalization within a communist political regime) but I don't think this will work: Cuba is not China. I believe the international community at large shall continue to press the Cuban leaders to accept a step by step political reform. There is now a dialogue going on with the more moderate Cuban exiles, and it will do no good for anyone if there is a violent collapse of the regime.

Did the recent UN women's Conference in Beijing accomplish anything?

It has been a very important event, even though no one could expect concrete results right away. What is important is the underlying fact that women's issues no longer belong to small radical groups. They have been recognized as major issues by the international community and the most respected UN agencies. It is like the Rio Conference, which also didn't have concrete results right away. It underlined the fact that environment issues were not only concerns of Green groups, but rather major issues involving the entire international community. The Women's Conference in Beijing, following the Cairo conference, will have the same sort of effect. Women's issues, different as they may be from one continent to another, are now the concern of the whole international community, and not only of some groups or some countries. That seems to me the major message coming form Beijing.

Is your job going to be any easier if the EU develops a common foreign and security policy? Are you hopeful that something will develop?

I firmly believe that Europe needs a common foreign and security policy, and that the rest of the world also expect us to have it. The hope is that with such a policy we can be more adequate in preventing at least some man-made disasters, so that the humanitarian needs will be reduced. We never thought that humanitarian efforts were the solution. That is absolutely impossible. In fact we are in the field and on the spot when and where politics have failed. That's exactly our task and our job.

What would you say is the top foreign policy problem facing Europe today?

In my opinion, the major problem is that we do not yet have such a policy. That's really the problem. Europe does not speak with one voice, which means that our attempts of preventive diplomacy are far less effective than what is needed. It's 15 different voices, and sometimes it's one at odds with the others, which of course, severely limits any kind of diplomatic headway.

Is the Italian Prime Minister, Lamberto Dini, a proper leader, or should there be elections and a political person running Italy?

Everybody knows that we will have to have elections. Now the debate is on whether we are going to have elections in March, or in June during the Italian presidency. Neither solution seems inspired by good sense, neither for my country nor for Europe.

What do you think of the Andreotti trial? Is that going to help or hurt Italy or help or hurt Italy's image abroad?

It's quite astonishing. It seems to me, being Italian and knowing how the system worked, that at the end of the day the risk is that Andreotti may become the scapegoat for everything. Normally a scapegoat is very dangerous. It's not only dangerous for the goat itself, but it is perceived that all the others become innocent. That seems to me the main risk associated with this trial.

Is Italy ready for the single currency? Do you think Italy will be ready for a single currency when it comes about?

Only a strong political government, with a strong commitment can try to do whatever is needed to meet the requirements of the Maastricht Treaty. So it's premature, in my opinion, to assess whether Italy will make it or not. But certainly there isn't much time, and certainly it's not a technical government that can do such a thing. You need political and public opinion support.

How much support do you think the EU has in Italy? Is it very well thought of?

No. Italy is a country who has always been generally speaking pro-European. Which also means that we believe that, in any case, we are good Europeans. Yet at the end of the day we discover that we are among those countries who do not always comply with European rules or directives. On the other hand, for the moment at least, we do not have yet any sort of Euroskepticism. The risk is rather that we take it for granted that Europe exists, that Europe will stay there, and that anyway we are part of Europe.

Do you think the EU needs to enlarge? Is enlarging to include Central Europe a key issue?

Enlargement is a geopolitical imperative, but we absolutely need a deepening process to update all EU institutions, The institutions we are using were foreseen for six Member states and have already been stretched for 12, and now for 15. It's quite evident that they will not be adequate for 25 Member states. Enlargement is possible in my opinion only if it goes in parallel with a sound change and deepening of the European political equation.

I guess I'd be remiss if i didn't ask you one question about fish. What is happening?

The problem with the fisheries portfolio is very simple, even though there are no easy solutions. There are too many fishermen for too little fish. That's the point. Miracles don't happen anymore. This is a sector which can only have a better future if we have the courage to carry out very deep changes in its socio-economic structures.

What's been the main accomplishment of the EU?

To exist. Yes, that's quite an example. I do not see any kind of example worldwide like the European Union. I see some free trade zones, but frankly speaking, I don't see anywhere in the world outside of the EU 15 countries trying to create not only a free trade zone, but common institutions and at least the beginning of some common policy. And, seen from the point of view of the federalist that I am, it seems that we are going very, very slowly.