Easy but dangerous approach. In the tricky dossier on recharging relations between the EU and the ACP states, two points have been established: - there is no consensus on the new future regime (mainly commercial); and the end of year deadline for concluding Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) will not be met (see this column yesterday). This raises two questions: What temporary solution should be envisaged? What should the direction taken by later negotiation be?
Elements of an answer to the first question are shaping up. At the informal ministerial meeting in Funchal, participants sought to define agreements of a general kind that would fix principles and a timetable, while putting off details and procedures till later. Council President Joao Gomes Cravinho spoke of a “general agreement of principle with each of the ACP regions, with certain details to be settled in January, February and March”, the aim being to convert the current preferential regimes into a “commercial regime compatible with WTO rules” (see report by Aminata Niang in our bulletin No 9508). According to Glenys Kinnock, each framework agreement with the six large regions concerned would fix the principles, including the GSP Plus system for all ACP countries (at first sight disregarding Peter Mandelson's objections on the viability of such a formula), with a timetable.
Such a modus operandi would save time, but would nonetheless imply that the principle of free trade areas, including trade reciprocity, has been acquired, even if the opening of borders by ACP states is “gradual and asymmetrical, with long transitional periods”. It is the very principle of reciprocity that is disputed by those who oppose EPAs, even though it appears among the rules of the WTO. There are signs that ACP countries want these rules to be amended in the context of the Doha Round, precisely to bring compulsory reciprocity into question as far as the developing countries are concerned. If the ACP countries do indeed envisage such a hypothesis and obtain appropriate support for it, it is understandable that they will not want to join the EU in the commitment to do away with all protection towards European products, according to a predetermined timetable. Ms Kinnock's good intentions are not being questioned, but it is doubtful that reciprocity and the timetable are things that will give rise to much enthusiasm in all ACP capitals.
True priorities. At a more general level, I consider the debate underway places too much emphasis on the trade aspect, as if it were the essential element of ACP development. This is the mistaken point of view that I spoke about yesterday. In fact, the competitiveness and expansion of exports depend on other priority and determining factors. Louis Michel was right to discreetly recall the road followed by Europe after its territory had been devastated by the Second World War. The first act had been reconciliation and then the creation of an integrated area in which wars would no longer be possible. African countries, despite their expressions of goodwill, are very far from this. Experts say that, in Africa, 80% of famines, destruction and economic failure are due to conflicts that continue to reign there. And when it comes to freedom to trade, Europe first of all achieved this within its own area. The creation of the single market was the point of departure for economic recovery. As Louis Michel said in Funchal: “There is no sustainable development without integrated regional markets”. The role of financial support is essential but only effective if it is accompanied by a merciless fight against corruption. According to a qualified study, money leaving African countries to be deposited in Switzerland or in other similar regions corresponds, in volume, to the EU subsidies paid to these countries. It is disconcerting to learn that, in some ACP states, the main source of state revenue comes from customs duties on imported products. At the same time, observers note the failure of the agricultural revolution (barring a few exceptions) and China is all set to acquire the natural resources of Africa, according to a criterion that analysts consider “very colonial”: - China imports raw material and provides manufactured goods and services in exchange, without creating added value on the spot.
Given these problems and developments, WTO rules, trade reciprocity, and the GSP Plus appear almost laughable. When it comes to exports, the real danger for the ACP countries lies in the growing competition from products produced in China, Brazil and other giants, which would eliminate African products from the European market (foodstuffs, textiles, etc), if the EU gives way to the pressure of ultra-Liberals in the Doha Round. We must not shy away from reality.
(F.R.)