|
The African Union (AU) may be criticised from many
angles for lack of decisiveness and firm stances on
a number of issues. Though its “Declarations and
Decisions” issued after the conclusion of its summit
earlier this month rightfully devotes significant
attention to security matters, despite the
talk-shop’s theme concerning industrialisation,
concrete commitments remain troublingly limited.
Recognising the myriad of difficulties in mobilising
such a diverse and relatively limitedly funded body
to constructively engage in such politically
controversial conflicts, as is the case with most
slow-to-react multilateral organisations, the
continued lack of firmness on predicaments that
disproportionately involve East Africa is not
surprising.
However, one area in which its position as a
fragmented body with lofty goals is an asset is in
its stance on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
its member states are meant to be entering into with
Europe before this year’s deadline. If the AU had
the capacity and motivation to strongly advocate
continent-wide signings at present, it would be
disruptive and damaging to many of its members.
Fortunately, its lack of commitment to EPAs is
exactly the correct position to take on the
negotiations as they currently stand.
The outcome predominately of the 2000 Contonou
Agreement, EPAs essentially are frameworks for
African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to
reciprocally open markets with European countries.
While the Caribbean countries have concluded their
EPAs, probably do in large part to their less
drastic changes needed due to previous openness as
dictated by closer adherence to a variety of
international agreements, the case for African
countries to benefit is not so strong.
Critics of the agreements cite asymmetric benefits
and preparedness to open markets when compared to
the richer European countries that have fewer
barriers to remove and more flexibility as well as
political capital and capacity to do so. No doubt an
accelerated onslaught of European companies and
products without nuanced regulations would result in
some weakened government autonomy with diminished
ability to choose country-specific development
strategies and painful restructuring of local
markets that would devastate some infant industries.
The impetus for EPAs presents a telling
demonstration of the lopsided gains between the poor
southern countries and developed north. There is
huge pressure on European governments to end
non-reciprocal and discriminating trade agreements
that are incompatible with World Trade Organisation
(WTO) rules. Though many of the African nations
involved in negotiations are not members of the
trade policing club, they do need to worry that
waivers granted for some of the preferential
agreements entered into with the Europeans expire
this year to coincide with the original deadline for
EPAs.
It would be comfortable for many African countries
to maintain the status quo situation that has
remained with revisions since needed trade
privileges were established in the 1975 Lomé
Convention, the largest north-south arrangement at
its inception. Products have entered Europe with
lower tariffs than the corresponding imports from
the north. The arrangement benefits African
industries, but also grants European consumers
cheaper products, something to be considered as a
benefit to African nations if EPAs do come into
affect.
But, as borne out by the extremely different
strategies the two blocs have taken in navigating
the process, the current form of EPAs do not take
into account the development needs of African
countries. Rather many commentators see the opaque
process as one of bullying and lack of attention to
specific and dire needs of developing nations.
A European Union (EU) report titled “Partnership
under Pressure” chastises the European Commission
(EC), the body mandated to pursue the process with
the six ACP blocs, for “using economic and political
power to force its own vision”. This report makes a
number of good points that apply to a number of
rich-poor processes where a heavy-handed approach is
taken to exact concessions from governments that
lack capacity to stand firm on positions critical to
their development agendas.
The EC should be recognised for playing a
destructive role in relations by threatening to make
crucial aid conditional on signing EPAs rather than
compensation for positive steps forward. This is
especially the case considering Western countries
have been notoriously unreliable on aid promises in
the past. Moreover, the refusals to re-examine
deadlines and grant timely responses to alternative
proposals, one from the East (Ethiopia’s bloc) and
Southern region, are out of line with the
constructive role the EC should be playing in the
process.
The AU should be appreciated for its more holistic
approach to the process in attempting to correctly
gauge costs of adjustment, need to work towards
building African supply capacities and trade-related
infrastructure to realise benefits from EPAs and
push for flexibilities of coverage and transition
periods. These considerations will help to enrich
EPAs to work for the countries adhering to them.
Of course, the African countries do need to do their
part, especially considering the necessity and
potential benefits related to inter-relations with
other trade issues and the many WTO accession bids.
While calls for the need for impact assessments
before EPAs may be appreciated are correct,
countries need to commit to their completion for
their own benefit and so as not to be seen as delay
tactics. Further, African countries should be
creative and cooperative to get the most out of EPAs
as in many cases they present potential benefits
when making the needed transition from overly
centralised economies.
While the AU is right to be suspicious of EPAs and
needs to help in working for their construction to
be in the interests of member nations, it, along
with regional blocs and individual countries, should
do their fare share of preparation. |
