Last week's look at the divergences between Africa and the EU over the new association regime demonstrated that no magic wand existed for wishing away these differences. Demagogic posturing is easy. It didn't cost the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) anything to call on the Heads of state and governments from the African Union (who will be meeting in Addis-Ababa at the end of the week) to throw out the Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU. Although economic operators are afraid of the legal uncertainties and are at risk of backdated duties being claimed from them, it won't be the FIDH that is at risk of interrupted export flows to the European market. The FIDH signed a spectacular “open letter” and with a clear conscience affirmed that the EU was not respecting rights to food, health, work and development in Africa, as if it were responsible for the fact that no African country is applying the international agreements on work, sustainable development and human rights. Pure demagogy and what a bad advocate!
This means that the EU cannot take a number of initiatives that would facilitate different compromises. I'll indicate two of them:
1. Calling for the validity of the ACP/EU trade regime, with no compulsory reciprocity, to extended. It is under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that the EU is obliged to call for reciprocity of trade preferences and respect for the derogation deadline (1st of January last). The WTO also has to respect its commitments and not forget that the current world trade negotiations, the Doha Round, is a “development cycle” that includes “special and differentiated treatment” for establishing the level of duty for a special regime for developing countries. This has not been done yet (even if provisions exist for less advanced countries). The EU may request that the derogation for ACP countries be extended until special treatment has been defined (particularly with regard to the obligatory percentage of imports and how long the transition period would last). In the meantime, the EU should not feel obliged to modify the trade regime without getting something in return.
2. The EU must not impose, under the provisional agreements with ACP, measures that go beyond trade in goods. The European Commission believes that the “new generation” agreements have to cover many aspects of economic relations (investment, services, public procurement, intellectual property rights etc.) in the interest of partner countries themselves. This is perhaps a correct vision and it is normal that Peter Mandelson has highlighted these aspects while negotiating. But it should not be forgotten that the only aspect imposed under WTO rules is the trade in manufactured goods. Other aspects are not covered by the Cotonou Agreement. European negotiators can mention and negotiate them with ACP counties that want to but there are no obligations.
I believe that the two orientations will facilitate compromises by toning down the drama of the deadline on 1 January last and by leaving African countries more room for manoeuvre as they see fit to negotiate and assess their national interests.
Advantages and risk from the Chinese. Europe has to tone the Chinese dossier down. African countries are obviously free to conclude any agreements and engagements with the Chinese they deem opportune: Europe does not own any exclusive rights. Some observations, however, are necessary. Chinese aid to Africa consists of loans that are mainly repaid in deliveries of raw materials and basic products over a long period of time. Instant cash, therefore, in exchange for the long term renunciation of ownership of natural resources. Africa continues to fight to obtain the cancelation of its debt; the EU and member states are supporting it in this demand and are making a significant contribution to this being accomplished. This will be more difficult if Africa begins to get itself into debt again, and for colossal sums too. Some African authorities believe that it is perhaps not their problem because it will be up to their successors to deal with it later on. China, as we are aware, is not imposing any conditions on its loans, while European finance is subject to rules tied to human rights, respect for the environment, project profitability, job creation in Africa. The future will tell which of these two approaches is more favourable to positive development in Africa. Louis Michel is preparing a communication on the triangular EU/China/Africa partnership. This will provide us with a timely moment to return to the matter.
(F.R.)