From a new starting point? The path has been cleared for the relaunch of negotiations between the EU and associated African countries over the economic partnership agreements (EPA) that caused so much heartache at the end of last year. This is an issue in which all African, Caribbean and Pacific states (ACP) are actually involved from the legal point of view but the world's eyes are focussed on Africa. The African Union (AU) has called on the EU to relaunch the talks at the highest political level; Alpha Konaré has approached the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, on behalf of the AU to get him to arrange for the talks to start up again, and the ambassadors to Brussels of the ACP countries in Africa are backing this move, hoping that the Commission will comply (see issue 9608). Logically, the ambassadors argue, the talks should be re-opened from a new starting point that takes account of their countries' development strategies, and the mandate of the European negotiator (the Commission) should be given greater teeth.
The time of trade alone has passed. The above exchange of diplomatic notes, necessary for talks to be opened, has not yet crystallised into a timetable or programme. No doubt that is being worked on. On the European side, a partial change of direction is required. The final phases of the occasionally turbulent talks last year were marked by the demand that the EU should respect its pledges at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The pledges were connected with the 31 December 2007 expiry of the WTO derogation whereby the EU was allowed to continue to apply unilateral trade preferences (a special trading system) to ACPs without being forced, in the absence of a genuine free trade zone, to extend such preferences to all developing countries. These were in fact trade talks, led by EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, which resulted in partly conflicting outcomes: the African states split, some agreeing to these arrangement and others rejecting them, ending up with some of the African regional organisations imploding. Partial, provisional agreements were reached, indicating to the WTO that everyone is planning to play by the rules. The phase of the full, definitive agreements (over and above agreements on trade in goods) is about to begin.
According to the information available, it was fortunately only limited damage that was caused by the disagreements among the African countries. European import systems have been partially amended but most partner countries have retained their special benefits, either because they have agreed to the principle of partial reciprocity in the long-term, or because they are on the United Nations list of the least developed countries, virtually all of which have free access to the market. In reality, only three African countries are now facing EU trade tariffs due to the lack of any provisional agreement, namely Congo-Brazzaville, Kenya and Gabon. But oil accounts for most of Congo-Brazzaville's and Kenya's exports, and export duty is not levied on oil (quite the opposite, countries would pay to import oil).
Prioritising development. The purely trade phase should therefore be considered as over. Peter Mandelson has done his job and it is now for the EU development commissioner, Louis Michel, to take the stage. The new phase should see the return of the true dimension of EU-African relations: when push comes to shove, it is not trade policy that is at the heart of the talks, but development policy. In terms of the form the talks should take, it is no longer a question of the EU imposing directions and deadlines in order to avoid breaking WTO rules. Now, the EU will come forward with ideas and guidelines, but its negotiating partners are free to make the choices they see fit. The Commission will not, of course, renounce the basic principles of the new economic partnership agreements under consideration, and it hopes to convince African countries that these EPAs will benefit them. It is absolutely essential to get over the hurdle of ideology; the Commission believes that regional organisations are the basis of development in Africa and that the creation of expanded economic areas and bigger markets is vital. Such groups are not a recent invention - some go back a very long way. One of these groups already has its own six-nation currency (the CFA franc).
In my column next week, I will discuss indications of the Commission's latest ideas on this next round of talks. Not forgetting the gulf between theoretical formulations and the situation on the ground because at the end of the day, the outcome will be contingent on the real political and economic situation in Africa, which is undergoing a sea-change and the waters are still choppy.
(F.R.)