|
Europe's global role challenged at the ACP/EU JPA |
 |
 |
 |
 Parliamentarians from Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and Europe have met this week in Wiesbaden (Germany) to discuss various aspects of the so called ACP-EU “partnership”.
This “partnership” has been set up through various agreements (Lomé, Cotonou) during the second half of the XXth century. It is often seen as a European attempt to establish good relations with its former colonies. Aid packages and trade preferences provided by Europeans to ACP countries in the context of this “partnership” have helped in positioning Europe as an essential player in Africa. Europeans have used this position both politically and economically.
Indeed it seems that the European influence in Africa makes it very difficult for Africans to refuse European interventions. Even in cases when African and European interests diverge, it appears that Europeans often get their way due to their ability to negotiate and their economic strength. As a consequence, negotiations on the implementation of the aid and trade aspects of this “partnership” often lead to aid programmes serving EU interests mainly or unfair trade agreements.
Parliamentarians from ACP states find this inability to negotiate fair deals with Europe less and less acceptable. “We have no flexibility. The Commission arrives with a Country Strategy Paper and we have to accept it. The Commission arrives with a governance profile and we have to accept it. We are lost in this process.” said Omar Abdi Said, member of the parliament of Djibouti, in a meeting organised in Wiesbaden by Eurostep together with other NGOs of the Concord Cotonou Working Group.
Criticism raised by Parliamentarians on the role of the European Commission in the programming of the 10th European Development Fund (aid programme for the years 2008 to 2013) seem to have been exacerbated by the fact that most of these elected representatives have been kept out of the process. “National parliaments are being asked to accept and promote the Country Strategy Papers while they were excluded from the programming process. This is a real irony.” commented Abdou Abdourhamano member of the parliament of Niger.
This very closed and untrasparent process, which in some cases seem to have allowed the European Commission to impose aid priorities to ACP states, is also raising real concerns among European parliamentarians. “Since the Country Strategy Papers will not be implemented at the beginning of 2008 due to delays in the ratification of the EDF, the Commission could take this opportunity to reopen the discussions on the strategic documents to ensure that the diversity of views within ACP countries is better represented within these plans that are supposed to be owned” noted Vittorio Agnoletto, Italian member of the European Parliament.
However reopening the talks would mean that the priorities pushed on the European side would have to be adapted to ACP concerns, which would not please everybody within the European Commission. “I am absolutely against the idea of reopening the Country Strategy Papers even if it's true that all the foreseen consultations with national Parliaments and civil society in ACP Countries did not take place” said the Commissioner for Development Louis Michel.
While the ACP-EU “partnership” has been built on democratic principles, accountability and respect for the right of ACP countries to own their development strategies, it seems that the strong negotiating position of the Europeans is being used to promote their short term interests sometimes at the expense of ACPs. This tendency is illustrated in the latest report of the Alliance 2015 , which demonstrates among other cases, how the European Commission refuses to support the education sector in Madagascar, while the government in Antanarivo is begging for assistance to its education system. The Commission in this case is favouring a traditional investment in the transport sector.
It is not the first time that the “partnership” is turned into a tool to serve EU’s interests. This trend can be observed for a couple of years already. The new element however is the increasing presence of new donors in the ACPs. Indeed ACP officials parliamentarians and government officials keep on referring to the alternatives to EU aid brought by China, India, Brazil and others. New donors such as “Venezuela and Cuba are accepting to support certain sectors that the Europeans or other donors refuse to support” according to Sir Louis Hilton Straker, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Commerce, and Trade of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
This is a new situation for ACP countries. Economic and security conditionalities on European aid might be further questioned by the ACP group, which will now increasingly be provided with alternatives to aid coming from the former coloniser. We should hope that this new donor competition will push Europeans to rethink certain aspects of their aid to and trade with the ACPs with a view to build a genuine balanced partnership.
Florent Sebban reports from Wiesbaden
26/06/2007
|
