At first sight, the polemic surrounding re-appraisal of relations between the EU and the ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) has calmed down. In fact, nothing has been settled. It is just that, for now, there is less being said about it. One is still discussing and seeking a compromise regarding Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) - sometimes successfully - but declarations and behaviour show that views still differ radically. In their public positions, none of the parties take into consideration the standpoints of the others. A number of political groups at the European Parliament do nothing to help restore calm and to find reasonable solutions when they accuse the European institutions of wanting to reduce Africa to ruin. The positions adopted by organisations of the Oxfam calibre, whose action is often praiseworthy, are detrimental to Africa in this dossier as they pursue their struggle to have European borders opened to farm products from the rest of the world as a whole, the result of which would be to eliminate “preferences” enjoyed by African products in the EU (as is already the case for bananas and sugar). Equitable solutions will only be found if all motivations and reasons set out in the different viewpoints are taken into account.
Mr Mandelson's motivations. Why did Peter Mandelson adopt his progressive stance in favour of keeping to the 1 January 2008 deadline (fixed a while ago now and accepted by the African states at the time) to bring EU/ACP trade into line with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)? Because he is responsible for EU trade policy and he cannot admit that the EU does not stick to the rules or to its own commitments, especially in the current Doha Round phase. Mr Mandelson considers free trade as the key instrument for development of the poor countries and, since the beginning of the debate, he has relentlessly affirmed that the 1 January 2008 deadline was not a bluff or a negotiating tactic invented in Brussels.
Mr Michel's vision. Why does Louis Michel, responsible for European development policy, support EPAs with such conviction and zeal? It would be absurd to affirm, or to pretend to believe, that he is hostile to progress by Africa or to the blossoming of relations between the EU and ACP countries. But he does firmly believe that EPAs are a good thing and that the new kind of relations they bring will help African countries to shoulder their responsibilities and combat bad governance and corruption. He has expressed these convictions on several occasions. In his view, EPAs are the right instruments for establishing EU-Africa relations between partners that are “equal in rights and duties”, and Europe (by renouncing the idea of Africa being its private hunting ground) is the best possible partner for historic, geographical and linguistic reasons as well as for its economic realities. Europe is the leading market for African products and the leading provider of funds (in donations, not loans like China). Investments must not aim at buying up Africa's natural resources but at transforming them in Africa. The new deal would be to encourage value-added investment that creates jobs in Africa. Regional integration will make African markets more attractive to investors. The aim is to have an equal partnership with shared responsibility, one that goes beyond aid to development, moving towards a more political and more economic approach.
What Africa disputes. Those opposed to EPAs do not challenge Louis Michel's aims but rather certain aspects of his vision, and in particular: a) commercial reciprocity (required by WTO rules to ensure preferences are lawful) and the EU's requirement that ACP countries accept the principle as of now, with firm commitments and deadlines; b) the inclusion in the agreements of aspects which are not required by WTO rules, such as investments, services, capital movements, public procurement (considered by the EU as indispensable to achieve the new models of relations, which are positive for the African nations themselves); and c) insistence on the deadline agreed in the context of the WTO (a deadline that the European Commission considers must be kept so that other developing countries cannot attack the EU/ACP trade regime - some have already done so, and they have won).
This situation of conflict has given rise to a series of troubles, the effects of which cannot yet be fully assessed. Inter-African solidarity has broken down, as some countries have signed up to agreements with the EU that the others reject, resulting in partial disintegration of regional groups. How can this impasse be overcome? We shall be taking another look at this problem in this column. (F.R.)