Two closely linked aspects. The subject of the sometimes bitter ongoing negotiations between the EU and some of the countries involved from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), as well as the discussions stemming from them is two-fold: revise the trade regime for both parties at a technical and operational level; define the nature and pace of the Euro-African partnership for the future. The first aim is urgent as time is short (see this column yesterday); the second focuses on the medium and long term. The two aspects are, however, linked. It was in light of the future goals of the new economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that last week's debates at the EU-ACP Parliamentary Assembly took place. During last month's preparations for the next EU-Africa summit (8-9 December in Lisbon), the “Development” Council spoke about a strategy based on the principle that Africa and Europe are linked by history, culture, geography and a “community of values”; and it is by basing itself on the same principle that the president of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, announced an initiative (mentioned below). Everything's connected.
In the debates. Now I'll look at some of the considerations following the debates at the Parliamentary Assembly itself. The protagonists in these debates raised all the issues, even the controversial ones and even if the Kigali Declaration watered them down later by avoiding any explicit denunciation of responsibilities and mistakes (it is true that this declaration explicitly covers the EPAs and not the whole of the EU-ACP relationship). I will now look at some of the aspects that were clearly there in the debates but which were absent in the declaration.
1. Serious delays in ratification of the revised Cotonou agreement. On 1 January it won't be just the current trade regime which, in principle, comes to an end, but also financial cooperation because the revised Cotonou agreement, concluded in 2005, has still not been ratified by a large number of signatory countries. René Radembino-Coniquet, President of the Gabon Senate (and outgoing co-president of the Assembly) indicated that only 30 ACP countries (out of 78) and 16 member states of the EU (out of 27) completed ratification procedures, which “included funding from the 10th European Development Fund”. These delays are unjustifiable, unless their aim is to oppose the very contents of the Cotonou agreement. Possible opponents, however, should not ignore the financial repercussions.
2. Level of conflict. The main cause of the discontent and delays in African development can be located within the internal conflicts. Glenys Kinnock, a great friend of Africa if ever there was one, indicated that inter-African conflicts have, since 1990, cost $300 billion, which would have been enough to cover the costs of education or drinking water in the continent. When we talk about a Euro-African Union, we forget the fact that the first objective of European unity was reconciliation and re-establishing peace, without which nothing would have been possible. If one is seeking inspiration from the European model, this should never be forgotten. The Parliamentary Assembly's analysis of the situation in the Congo is impressive: stability in the Great Lakes region is in danger (EUROPE 9548).
3. Importance of regional markets. The basis of Europe's economic success was the creation of the single market. The birth of a Euro-African area pre-supposes something similar in Africa, at least at a regional level. This objective, however, cannot be reached as long as the mainstay of African countries' budgets is based on customs revenue and if the countries in question subsequently refuse to give up their import duties.
4. Reciprocity. It is not true that the EPAs will deprive ACP countries of their customs duties at the beginning of next year. This is a very distant objective and which will undoubtedly suffer additional delays on the way. If the EU is maintaining this part of the EPA, it is down to the WTO obligations. If there is a generalised absence of reciprocity (already obtained at a level of the less advanced countries on the UN list), the EU will without doubt be prepared to give it up for the mostpart. For the time being it cannot do this.
Current trade regime is a failure. The factual observations preceding the comments by European Commissioners Louis Michel and Peter Mandelson, should also add that the African countries (as well as other ACP countries) still benefit from EU trade preferences and that the results have so far been disastrous. Mr Michel pointed out that this regime, far from reducing poverty and setting a development dynamic in motion, “has marginalised Africa within world trade”. Mr Mandelson defended the EPAs at the European Parliament's “development” committee and pointed out that ACP exports to the EU are constantly falling, “although they have better access to the European market than other developing countries”. In his opinion, a change of direction is indispensable and even unavoidable for the EU, which cannot go back on its commitments to other developing countries or defy the WTO.
It should not be forgotten that Mr Mandelson is involved in the final phase of the Doha Round negotiations and the EU would not be able to define its interests in these negotiations, as well as those of the ACP, if it infringed any of the fundamental rules of international trade. Both commissioners stressed that the trade chapter is only one aspect of the EPAs and there are other aspects of concrete support from Europe towards their development, including specific support in the trade arena (which pre-supposes the parallel entry into force of the revised Cotonou agreement covering the new EDF).
Several MEPs have contested the two commissioners' analyses and particularly criticised the EU for not having included the total opening up of the European market to agricultural products. The majority of observers, however, believe that such an opening up would mostly benefit the other big exporting countries, Brazil and China in pride of place. It is neither good intentions nor legal texts that will change the situation but rather a change in behaviour and new initiatives. Several ACP countries have actually proved this and have been able to improve their situation and move forward on the development path (this is, in any event, linked to ending conflicts). There are a few important documents showing what ways could be followed. I'll mention two of them:
A. Genuine agricultural cooperation. On 20 November the EU “external relations” Council adopted “conclusions” on the importance of increased sustainable agricultural development in Africa. Reducing poverty and food safety is through the relaunch of agricultural activity (which continues to involve most of the population); rearing animals, horticulture, fishing and forestry are mentioned (EUROPE 9547). African countries have to at least partially re-conquer their food self-sufficiency, while keeping their outlets in Europe, and they have to avoid monocultures for export which always make them dependent on imports to feed themselves. Local markets must be protected against import dumping, as well as European subsidies and those from other continents. The EU should also, via its aid, contribute to the rejuvenation of farming.
B. Destruction of mineral wealth in the Congo. “The mining contracts re-examination report” commissioned by the government to independent experts, assisted by the Carter Foundation and the Rothschild Group, has been damning. After examining the report, the Belgian newspaper, “Le Soir”, wrote: “The Congo has been ruined, its mineral heritage sold cheap to foreign companies with the complicity of the highest authorities in the country” (those in power during the “transition years”). None of the contacts with the big companies was considered satisfactory. 37 agreements are expected to be renegotiated, 30 of them should be scrapped. These involve gold, diamonds and several other metals; big international companies are implicated. The journalist, Colette Braeckman, concludes as follows: “It remains to be seen whether Congo will be able to re-negotiate one-sided agreements concluded with the heavy-weights of the world mining industry and the complicity of political figures who are still in office”. The fight for the control of this wealth is also at the source of most conflicts casting a pall over the Congo (even if ethnic rivalries also play their part).
We are already aware of the results contained in the report: the enemies of the appropriate and efficient use of African mineral wealth are, above all, the abusive claims from certain multinational companies and the corruption of the local political class. The way for turning the situation round is clearly outlined.
Let's not forget China. Overall, if the objective goes beyond trade and aid and aims at establishing a genuine partnership, all aspects should be discussed. The Parliamentary Assembly's refusal to tackle China's action in Africa, is absurd. It's a complex problem; African countries should obviously be free to import Chinese products and accept Chinese investment if this is in their interest. But the debate with Europe should be open and trusting, as well as including issues of debt and corruption if the objective corresponds to what is indicated in the first paragraph of this column.
This look at EU-ACP relations will be concluded before the end of the week with an initial analysis of the two texts that seek to illustrate solutions or at least, orientations, namely, “the Kigali Declaration” adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly, and the position taken by the president of Senegal, which he intends to submit to the next EU-Africa summit.
(F.R.)