Policy has failed. At what point will the EU consider it appropriate to begin rethinking its relations with Africa? This column has already expressed its opinion that further developments in this relationship are essential. This is not, however, easy to put into practice because opinions of the member states do not concur and neither the European Commission nor the European Parliament have provided clear explanations on this issue. Nevertheless, it is obvious that: a) the strategy for replacing preferential trade relations (such as those that have existed since the beginning through relations based on general WTO rules) has largely failed; b) the majority of African countries have developed very close economic links with non-European countries (China, US, Gulf states, etc) and the EU remains on the sidelines of these relationships. The European Commission continues to explain and justify a policy that is rejected by most African countries and which is based on regional Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). We have to ask ourselves to what extent the Commission still believes in this strategy.
Almost no results at all. Do we again need to point out the gradual progress that has occurred? The new strategy, supported by bodies such as Oxfam and other pressure groups, has been disastrous: the unconditional opening up of European borders to African agricultural products has led to destructive export monocultures in part of the continent. This has been to the advantage of big business and other monopolies but has destroyed local subsistence farming and the ability of African farmers to partly feed their respective local populations. This has occurred by getting rid of sometimes very ancient food traditions and imposing dependency on the people. In addition, the EU partly subsidises its exports, which creates a situation that can be described using two words: unemployment and dependency. Some African countries have also entered into agreements with countries such as China and the Gulf Arab states, which focus not just on mining and industrial projects by which also take over their agricultural land. These contracts involve the transfer of foodstuffs and sometimes even the ownership of the land, which is sold to countries that have almost unlimited monetary resources. Each and every African country should obviously be able to make its own decisions as it sees fit and some of them have mentioned the advantages resulting from farming previously neglected land. The experts, however, would like to know to what extent some of these kinds of agreements are really effective in developing agricultural activity or whether they mainly benefit the public authorities. It is likely that the following two scenarios occur: some operations benefit the local population while others only benefit the authorities. According to available information, Mozambique, Tanzania and Cameroon have made “long-term rental agreements” with China for part of their rice production; Uganda and Zimbabwe have done the same for cereals, and Ethiopia and Sudan have lost control of some of their national food staples.
Obviously, generalisations should be avoided: some African countries are positively developing their food production capacity, whilst others are making more investment in the purchase of sophisticated arms, rather than agricultural development.
The rejection. The EU-Africa summit at the end of November in Libya was the most recent Euro-African ceremony and was concluded with the adoption of the “Tripoli declaration”. This was full of purple prose and good intentions. Two of the speakers, however, manage to go beyond the usual rhetoric (EUROPE 10266). Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, declared: “Armed conflicts continue to threaten, indeed destroy progress achieved in several countries. Insecurity, terrorism and international threats are not just limited to a few regions; they are nourished by different networks. Poverty denies millions of men and women a life of dignity, despite progress made over recent years”. His African counterpart, Mr Kaddafi, vehemently attacked the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, describing them as “terrorist organisations, which have destroyed Africa”. He called for the abolition of the WTO, whose only objective was to “open up our borders to external goods, in order to destroy all our industries”. He called on the EU to stop chopping up Africa with its theory of “regional groups” and for it to abandon the EPAs, which hinder African exports to Europe. He also stressed the fact that Africa had alternatives: Latin America, China and India, “which respect our systems and do not intervene in our domestic affairs”.
Wouldn't all of this suggest that a rethink on the future is appropriate?
(F.R./transl.fl)