A mixture of moderate optimism and pessimism. This describes my state of mind regarding negotiations under way between the EU and the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) states. The optimism is for the short term: it is highly likely that by the end of the year, both sides will manage to define (even though a few African countries may delay their signature) partial provisions and a few commitments in principle which will help to avoid the preferential regimes and other links, which have united the two sides for half a century, from crumbling away altogether. These arrangements will help to gain some time; but after that, the outlook remains uncertain.
Rhetorical indignation. There would be nothing easier for me than to reap the harvest of congratulations and consensus by borrowing the rhetorical tone and indignation of some of the official authorities and members of the European Parliament, and of various organisations, but I cannot see the point in so doing. I tried to raise the alarm call at the end of September, when I spoke of a “poisoned dossier” that may imperil a cooperation which went alongside the birth of the European Community (see our bulletin 8509) and by listing the necessary conditions and priorities if failure is to be headed off (see our bulletin 9510). I stand by what I wrote then. Since then, we have seen that negotiations with the countries of the Caribbean and Pacific are making progress, and that negotiations with some or other of the four groups of African countries have met with many difficulties. But in Africa too, there seems to be growing awareness of the need to subscribe to commitments of principle in the very near future, which, by stating a willingness to continue with special relations, would help to avoid the worst. The provisions which the European Commission has prepared (anticipated in our bulletin 9528) would help to avoid any harmful interruption of preferential European imports from the ACPs as of 1 January next year, because without them, the private operators would be forced partially to cease their purchases in these countries, due to fears of subsequent challenges which could lay them open to customs charges and fines, because other countries would inevitably bring complaints to the WTO.
The attitude which goes no further than to express indignation at the removal of EU trade preferences or at the calls on the ACP countries to bring in reciprocity in the long term, is hypocritical or naïve. The date on which the exemptions agreed upon in a WTO context will expire has been a well-known fact for a long time and the negotiation of the EPAs (economic partnership agreements) started years ago. The removal of European trade preferences in favour of the ACP countries is the automatic result of the gradual opening-up of the borders of the EU to the whole world; the African governments which got behind the demands of large global agricultural exporters on this issue (and the members of the European Parliament who did the same) must share responsibility for this development, and an organisation like Oxfam has always fought for this. The examples of bananas and sugar, however, spoke volumes: less protection for the European market means the reduction of preferences.
The real priorities. Trade is important, but the well-being of Africa can only be assured firstly by putting an end to conflicts and corruption, secondly by creating African regional markets and, most importantly of all, by resuming traditional African production, to feed the local population (unlike cash-crops for export which ruin the farmers, enrich multinationals and corrupt administrations, and lead to an incredibly harmful dependence on the outside for food). To this effect, local food production should continue to enjoy significant protection from external competition (including competition from Europe). As to African agricultural exports to the EU, these must also be safeguarded and encouraged, but this pre-supposes that preferences in their favour be kept in place on the European market, whereas the complete opening-up of this market would lead to their quickly being replaced by an invasion of products from other large exporting countries (including China, which is patiently waiting on the sidelines to see what happens).
No lessons, but an example. On the subject of conflicts, the European countries have no lessons to give: they have fought amongst themselves for centuries. But now, they have made a success of peace and replaced wars with cooperation and solidarity. In spite of the shortcomings and delays, therefore, they are proving that it is possible. But for the time being, developments in Africa are not all going in the same direction. I have no wish to slide into the rhetoric which I criticise in those who would give lessons, as I know that it is easy to write that peace is preferable to war; I will just point out that: a) emergency aid specialists and food aid specialists believe that in Africa, 80% of famines, violence against women, the intolerable situation in which children find themselves, are caused by internal conflicts; b) these conflicts are often caused by a desire to control the natural wealth and resulting revenue. The discovery of oil or natural gas deposits will not benefit the populations and it is often a source of conflict and ecological disaster.
The dangers of certain Chinese loans. General comments like those above are not specific to Africa; they can also be applied to many other parts of the world. Let us look at certain specific developments on this continent. The most spectacular recent phenomenon is the arrival, in force, of China: investments, loans, technology, trade. It is quite normal and appropriate, even, for the African countries to cooperate with continents other than Europe, for them to sell their raw materials to wherever there is demand for them and to welcome such funding as is offered to them. But some agreements give rise to confusion.
The burden of debt is generally considered as one of the main causes of problems and delays in the economic take-off of the less developed countries, and one of the main requirements of these countries is that this burden is reduced; initiatives are taken to bring this about, from time to time. However, some of this Chinese funding is basically in loan form. It has been indicated that last month, on the very day that the IMF (International Monetary Fund) mission arrived in Kinshasa to look into the question of writing off much of the external debt of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Congolese government announced that it had obtained a loan of 5 billion dollars from China, to refit mines (copper, cobalt etc) and to reconstruct the transport infrastructure destroyed by war. The authorities stated that this loan (part of which will be used to build housing and two universities and improve the sanitary structure of the country) would be paid back out of the money earned on the roads and railways built by the Chinese and, more importantly, through mining concessions to the lender. In other words, Congo is giving China its future mineral reserves in exchange for immediate cash. It is true that the Congolese authorities have accused Western private mining companies of failing to respect their commitments in terms of taxation. But the question remains: how will the new financial manna be spent? How will it be repaid? For the time being, the purchase of weapons is the main outlay of many African countries, and the “rampant corruption” (not my adjective) has not yet been defeated.
Unconditional? A glance at the latest UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) report on global investments is highly instructive. By taking stock of the impressive increase in direct foreign investment in Africa, UNCTAD recognises that there is positive fallout from the spiralling mineral prices, but this is often, the report continues, at the cost of social and political conflict. It points out that many studies have demonstrated a clear link between dependence on natural resources and risks of civil war and other conflicts. The report also lays emphasis on the environmental costs of the mining industry and regrets the fact that the investments have little or no effect on employment.
EU funding in Africa (EDF, EIB etc) and by the Member States is conditional on environmental and social conditions. The loans granted by China are subject to no conditions of the sort. This is a delicate issue, because Europe's attitude may give the impression of excessive and therefore arbitrary intrusion in sovereign countries' affairs; but the Chinese attitude indicates utter indifference to environmental and other repercussions of the projects they have funded.
At the same time, African countries are negotiating support, the objective of which is to improve the situation for their population. Aid of $3.9 billion has been quoted for Senegal (paid jointly by the World Bank, the IMF, the European Commission, France and the American USAid programme), which will aim to reduce poverty and which will be managed by an independent consulting group (it is true, as a newspaper observed, that Senegal has few tempting raw materials…). Very often, the priority demands target additional money. To give a small example: the reaction of an African country to the prudent attitude of the EU on the creation of a fund to compensate for loss of customs revenue as a result of the EPA. The European Commission has just confirmed the principle of this type of funding, when the customs duty is actually reduced (which may happen in 15 or 20 years time, and never for certain products). The reaction of the other party: “Central Africa stabbed in the back”, a phrase which was accompanied by an invitation to reject the partnership agreements. Is it logical to ask for money before the reduction of revenue has actually happened? Or is prudence justified by the often uncertain lot of certain subsidies?
The ACP states should all commit to move in the right direction if they are to have the right to claim European solidarity and European support.
(F.R.)