AFRICA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: WHICH WAY FORWARD?

By Moussa Dembele Demba and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

DAKAR, Nov 24 2008 (IPS) - After African leaders nearly unanimously refused to sign Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the European Commission (EC) a year ago, EC resorted to the divide and conquer tactics and arm-twisting with individual countries to convince them to sign \”interim agreements\”, writes Demba Moussa Dembele, director of the African Forum on Alternatives (Senegal). In this article, the author writes that the struggle against the EPAs in their current form must continue and even redouble. The ongoing food, energy, and financial crises are inextricably linked to the implementation of \”free trade\” policies and unregulated capital flows and offer a preview of what is in store for African countries if they enter into a \”free-trade\” agreement with the EU. Africa must avoid any free-trade agreement that would aggravate its domination and the plunder of its resources. On the contrary, Africa must reject the EPAs in their current form and move toward alternatives. This does not mean a rejection of any kind of cooperation with Europe. Africa wants a genuine form of cooperation with Europe free of neocolonial paternalism, domination, and exploitation, and based on mutual respect and the promotion of mutual interests.

One of the most remarkable episodes in the struggle against the EPAs was their public rejection by African heads of state and prime ministers during the Africa/EU Summit in early December 2007 in Lisbon, Portugal. For perhaps the first time since independence, the world witnessed a firm and almost unanimous stand by African leaders in their relationships with Europe.

In frustration, EC resorted to divide-and-conquer tactics and arm-twisting with individual countries to convince them to sign “interim agreements”.

African countries had fallen into a trap by accepting to be split by the EC into two categories: “least developed countries” (LDCs) and non-LDCs. EC officials used that division to wage an insidious and vicious campaign to persuade non-LDCs that their interests are different from those of LDCs, insisting that the latter will continue to “benefit” from the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) policy no matter what happens -though we know that this policy has not been successful at all.

EC spokespersons said repeatedly that Europe would not extend the Cotonou Agreement -the current EU-Africa trade framework- and that non-LDCs had to either accept “Interim Agreements” or face high tariffs in European markets. In the end, a number of countries succumbed and reluctantly signed these agreements, either as a region (such as Eastern Africa, with Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) or as individual countries, such as Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana in West Africa. Nonetheless, negotiations continue in the hope of finding a compromise for full agreements that would satisfy both African and European countries.

Such a compromise will be difficult to find, however. The Africans are calling for “development-friendly” agreements, while the Europeans seem more interested in promoting their commercial interests. Moreover, by forcing individual countries to enter into “interim agreements”, the EC has shown that the only form of African integration it really supports is one that would provide a large and open market for European goods and services, not one that would serve Africa’s interests.

The EC conception of EPAs is fundamentally contrary to Africa’s interests because for Europe, they are basically “free-trade” agreements, given that they must be compatible with WTO rules. But we already know the high costs of “free-trade” policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank on Africa. A recent UNCTAD report shows that trade liberalization has led to neither trade diversification nor to improved trade performance in industrial or agricultural goods. Rather, it has reinforced Africa’s specialization in the export of primary products.

This pattern is likely to continue and even worsen under the EPAs, particularly as the EC insists on the following:

-the opening up of services sectors, such as water, energy, transport, communication, education, health services, to European companies;

-allowing European companies to compete for government procurement;

-guaranteeing the free flow of European investments and capital;

-granting European investors “national treatment” status, which would put them on equal footing with African investors. For example, European investors would have the right to sue African governments if the latter give special quotas to African contractors, which would be considered “discriminatory”.

In short, EPAs, as conceived by the EC, are a major obstacle to African regional integration, to food sovereignty, and to African industrialization prospects. They would also sap Africa’s resources by increasing the repatriation of profits and worsening tax evasion and other forms of capital flight.

Furthermore, these costs will be compounded by the costs of fiscal adjustment to trade liberalization, without any guarantee that the EC will provide enough resources to compensate for those losses.

Yes, the EC said that the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) will have enough resources to address the concerns raised by African countries. However, if the past is any guide, it is very doubtful that African countries will be fully compensated. An Oxfam International report has shown that since 1975, EDF disbursements have never reached even half of the nominal allocation.

This explains why the struggle against the EPAs in their current form must continue and even redouble. African civil society organizations (CSOs) are now working hand-in-hand with negotiators and policymakers to scuttle the EC’s aim.

The ongoing food, energy, and financial crises are inextricably linked to the implementation of “free trade” policies and unregulated capital flows and offer a preview of what is in store for African countries if they enter into a “free trade” agreement with the EU.

Africa must avoid any free-trade agreement that would aggravate its domination and the plunder of its resources. On the contrary, Africa must reject the EPAs in their current form and move toward alternatives. This does not mean a rejection of any kind of cooperation with Europe. Africa wants a genuine form of cooperation with Europe, but cooperation free from neocolonial paternalism, domination, and exploitation, and based on mutual respect and the promotion of mutual interests. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)