Partnership agreements blocked. African countries are right to affirm and consolidate their autonomy. Obviously they have the right to decide themselves how they behave and how they decide their economic and trade policy, as well as how they use their natural resources. They are free to negotiate with China and offer the latter opportunities for exploiting some of these resources. They are also free to conclude agreements on oil and gas with third countries or with the international giants in this sector, and to manage funding from the EU or from other sources as they see fit. It is not just their right; it is also a duty to their people, the legitimate owners of the resources in these countries.
The EU, on its side, must respect the autonomy of African countries. But if the prerogatives of the EU are declining, the obligations incumbent upon it are not inherently changing. Almost ten years ago the two parties agreed to negotiate economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries as a whole. These negotiations began in 2002 and have only been concluded, more or less satisfactorily, with the Caribbean region. African countries consider that this model of agreement, as devised by the Europeans, is not satisfactory. Some African countries partially accepted it on a bilateral level and our publication regularly reports on this subject. The very principles of these agreements (based on the immediate or almost immediate opening up of the markets in Europe, and in principle the reciprocal opening up of markets, in order to respect WTO rules) have now been clearly rejected by the African negotiators. Two days ago, our newsletter published a clear and explicit overview in its depiction of the dialogue of the deaf (EUROPE 10243). African countries are demanding that their free access to European markets, without customs duties or quotas, be confirmed. They demand, however, to retain the facility to apply restrictions and import duties (which, in their view, sometimes represent essential budget revenue). The EU points out that over the past 30 years, its exports to black Africa have been decreasing (Karel De Gucht affirmed this), whilst other exporting countries are increasingly replacing Europe as suppliers of merchandise and other goods. African negotiating countries have noted this blockage and have subsequently called for the debate to take place at the highest political level, with the obvious goal of not restricting the question to “trade” but of extending it to Euro-African relations as a whole.
Pole of attraction for investment. Africa has considerable assets. Recently there has been a lot of talk regarding rare minerals which China owns and which are crucial to high-tech industries throughout the world. Different analyses and far reaching studies show that Africa possesses these minerals as well; and its leaders know it. Congo has blocked exports of tantalite, which is used by the airspace industry, and the price of tantalite has already risen by 140%. One study has described Africa as a new pole of attraction for investment, whilst another has underlined that investment there is more profitable than elsewhere, concluding: “Africa really is ready for take off”.
European orientation. This take off, however, will take a variety of different forms and will depend on an end to conflicts, the different domestic situations and the appropriate use of capital flows. China, the US and Europe are partly in competition. The EU should not have to pay for everyone else or pay much more than the other parties, except for humanitarian and development projects - the accomplishment of which can be controlled. Last month (at the UN Millennium for Developments), the president of the European Commission declared that the Millennium goals can be attained “if good policies and the necessary resources are available. Fund donors must keep their promises and developing countries must take their future in hand. This involves solidarity, participation and shared responsibility” (EUROPE 10217). The European commissioner for development underscored: a) the European approach to food safety, health promotion and support to developing countries so that they can be equipped with efficient tax systems; b) the availability of the EU to mobilise, in particular, up to €1 billion for ACP countries; c) the results already obtained for developing primary school education for millions of children, drinking water mains and food safety.
The EU's orientation appears to be clear: increasing amounts of funding for well-defined and controllable projects; much less funding to certain political authorities that might sometimes circumvent the controls and use it for weapons, personal interests or corruption. I do not believe that these orientations will be modified at the level of heads of state or government.
(F.R./transl.fl)