Patrick Burnett and Firoze Manji

Why should anyone be interested in the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) currently being negotiated between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries?

Behind the herd of acronyms, obscure economic jargon and polite euphemisms, lies a pernicious programme that threatens to subjugate the economies of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the needs of European capital. Schatan once wrote of world debt that ‘In a political dimension [this has meant] a true territorial conquest of the South by the North, without any apparent military conflict ... but in the name of the sacrosanct concepts of ‘development’ and ‘interdependence’.’[1] Those word resonate equally with respect to EPAs.

With little public profile and fanfare, EPA negotiations have been underway since September 2002 and must be completed by the end of 2006. In their purest form EPAs would essentially be free trade agreements that would comply with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. They would involve the elimination of import duties and taxes, and exclude no economic sector from the coverage of the free trade area and include agreements on trade in services and trade related areas.

Behind the use of positive-sounding words like “partnership” and “development”, critics contend that the EU – the most important trading partner of ACP countries – has little interest in a trade partnership that would support and strengthen the integration process in Africa. Rather, it is merely hammering home a brutal free trade regime through EPAs whereby ACP countries remain a market for European products and a source of cheap raw materials and labour.

Fears are that an unfettered focus on free trade without taking into account the essentially unequal relationship between the more developed EU and less developed ACP countries would result in more inequalities, not less. The Stop EPA campaign notes: “The overwhelming emphasis on liberalisation in the EPA negotiations proves that these negotiations are about expanding Europe's access to ACP markets, rather than about ACP countries’ development.” ACP countries would have to suffer the consequences of this drive for profit. Fragile markets would be flooded with cheaper European goods and the resulting knock-on effect would lead to higher unemployment and subsequent social decline.

EPAs would impact on every area of life in ACP countries. As the authors of articles in this edition of Pambazuka News make clear, EPAs in their current form would be catastrophic for the development of ACP countries. They would result not in development, but underdevelopment; not in partnership but in domination; not in integration but in fragmentation. Put bluntly, the looting would continue.

This special issue is dedicated to raising public awareness of the real nature of EPAs and to raise consciousness of what our governments are doing in our name

[1] J Schatan. World Debt: Who is to Pay? Zed Books, London 1987.

Articles in this edition

1. Economic Partnership Agreements and putting development first

EPAs mark a historic turning point in the history of trade agreements. But, writes Charles Abugre, any new trade agreement must help ACP countries to improve and diversify what they produce and export. This will require a radical rewrite of EPAs as they currently stand.

2. Economic Partnership Agreements or Broken Partnerships? The Case of West Africa

The language might be the same but the divide between what the European Union and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries want from Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) is huge, explains Bibiane Mbaye. The EU has largely bulldozed its way through the negotiations so far. “Not only has not a single commitment in favour of an agreement benefiting development been made by the EC, but additionally, the EC is actually using the EPAs to obtain what it has not been able to obtain multilaterally,” writes Mbaye.

3. Growing resistance to EPAs

Current EPA negotiations must be stopped, says Liz Dodd. These trade negotiations contain little for ACP countries and could actually increase poverty in some of the poorest countries in the world. Dodd explains that the EU is making grossly unfair demands over EPAs and is forcing controversial 'new' issues through the back door. EPAs are further undermining regional integration.

4. Learning the rules: The WTO and EPAs

EPA negotiations have been underway since September 2002 and must be completed by the end of 2006. On 25 July 2005, at a meeting of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Negotiating Group on Rules, WTO members will debate the introduction of flexibilities and special treatment for developing countries into rules governing regional trade agreements (RTAs). This is a crucial area for the ACP group of countries with regards negotiations over EPAs, writes Christina Weller.

5. Meeting Africa’s human development needs and the failure of EPAs

Far from being a development tool, Demba Moussa Dembele argues that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) seek to take control of the continent’s resources and undermine its drive toward autonomous economic and social development. The result would be the transformation of Africa into a playground of multinational corporations. Trade and Africa’s ‘integration’ into the global economy must not be allowed to take place on terms dictated by Europe, Dembele concludes.

6. Negotiating a fair deal: Are trade agreements with the EU beneficial to women?

Gender issues are conspicuous by their absence from the 'hard' areas of EPA negotiations, such as trade and regional cooperation. In order to estimate the likely impact of future trade agreements on poor women and men, a more systematic approach to trade policy negotiations and to capacity building in ACP countries is required, writes Karin Ulmer.

7. Predictions for the economic partnership agreements negotiations: EU=1, ACP=0

Richard Kamidza is not optimistic about the outcome of EPAs, arguing that they will ultimately undermine Africa’s economies. Kamidza explains that negotiations are taking place in the context of a skewed relationship between Africa and Europe that already hinders development prospects. This means that the EU is unlikely to face strong opposition to its desire to fast track EPA negotiations.

8. Trade terms: A guide to EPAs

AND...Subscriber letters on the G8 and Pan-African Postcard. Subscribers please note that Pambazuka News will return to its usual format from next week.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Pambazuka News would like to extend our thanks to Christian Aid, who supported the production of this edition.

The interview with Prof Issa Shivji is in many respects straight outright which, is what I think, lacks within the African leadership as they dine and wine around diplomatic polemics while the ordinary people suffer from the outcome of indecision by its leadership. The comment by Prof Shivji sends strong signals that Africans are intelligent and know exactly where problems emanate: "….It is African leaders who like poodles dance to the tune; the African people in their villages have little time to engage in such dances." Might I add that not only do villagers not have time but will not be given the chance to meet, let alone to attend to some of the arenas when Africa is openly sold to the G8 markets and mortgaged.

Basically the Professor was making a comment on the hopes Africa may entertain, if any, on the forthcoming G8 summit in Scotland. The title under which it appeared in Pambazuka News was as given above and adopted by me for this critique. The title of this brief expose is therefore to the credit of the Pambazuka editor.

What really could come out of the G8 summit which African leaders can keep hoping about without learning to look unto themselves and their peoples? Again, I find the comment of Prof Shivji quite intriguing if not a ridicule to African leadership: "Isn't it a cruel irony that a leader of a country that followed Bush into destroying a developing country (Iraq) and that has increased its arms sales to Africa fourfold in the last four years should be spearheading the fight against African poverty. If this is not cynicism, what is it?"

The Professor eludes Africa's leadership problem to lack of vision and failure to distinguish between the devil and his messenger which ultimately always ends up with the same mission, which is, aid with unbearable interest rates and strict conditions which cripple efficiency. Coupled with rampant growth in unethical accounting practices that beset African political governance, the G8 is never willing to provide expertise to help put packages to fruition and induct their African counterparts to carry on with continuity. It also could be argued in contrast that the G8 would not dare do anything like continuity assurance for fear that they may be labeled with the same brand that is historically remembered as imperialism.

If for over two decades the imperial empire was able to show cases of shining independent former colonies which they had supervised that may put most of the vocal African voices to silence. The G8 suffers from the same problems she accuses African leadership of - 'talk without action' because of corruption. The G8 s corruption is of being very imperialistic in nature and behaviour, finding joy in babying a child for ever and not allowing him/her to grow into maturity to take her/his own decisions. While it is true that leadership has ordinarily become corrupt on the African continent, the G8 unless otherwise, should design financial assistance packages based on partnership rather than on a slave-master plan which yokes someone into everlasting debt because the repayments plus interest rates are far too high.

But why though, does African political leadership spend more money on guns and why too does the G8 partnership not impose sanctions on the sale of ams to less developed nations who are recipients of development loans? If the G8 are able to address limitation of arms manufacture by those countries and companies, why not talk of tying the world into a similar protocol on buying of arms by the less developed; so that resources are spent on humanitarian and infrastructure for democratic development? As a practical business man I have found that the G8 work favourable terms among themselves, while adopting different protocols that cripple African capacity to deliver.

Having been colonial masters of Africa, many in the G8 owe Africa much and should either play ball straight or just stop covering by arranging another ploy to watch Africa go deeper into debt and the crisis of failing to feed herself. I believe that the propensity for corruption has grown as an emulation of world leadership who have manipulated situations to fit their economic gains.

I suppose the honest position is to say to Africa, you will not get better from getting loans but will improve from your will power to control and use efficiently the little you have and bargain for bigger gains on an efficiently managed economy.