Lome Convention: Facade to Economic Cooperation?
Narud Fowder
"The ACP countries cannot simply rely on Europe for their economic development. They have to start producing their own food and aim for self-sufficiency. They should also increase trade links among themselves.”Every year the Commission of the European Community organises and finances an international seminar on the EEC/ACP relationships for nationals of developing countries in conjunction with the English Speaking Union of the Commonwealth. The seminar held in March at Brussels this year was attended by nationals of at least 20 ACP countries. Topics discussed included multinationals in the ACP countries, the European Development Fund, the Common Agricultural Policy, Lome III and trade promotion amongst others.
Narud Fowder, research scholar, Paisley College of Technology, Scotland, offers another view of the Lome convention.
As a participant in the EEC/ACP seminar, I was determined that the seminar should not be a public relations exercise for the EEC Commission. The Head of the Human Resources Unit of the Directorate General for Development was called on to give his assurance to this effect. In his words, the objective of the seminar, from the Commission's standpoint, is to get a feedback from ACP nations on the achievements of the Lome Convention.
The synthesis drawn from this feedback, would allegedly help the EEC officials to adopt a more HUMANITARIAN APPROACH to our problems. The talk of the day in the corridors of the Berlaymont Building was how cultural understanding and cooperation would promote economic, social and political cooperation between the EEC and ACP countries. We were invited to adopt a very open and critical approach, which quite a few of us did, but this proved to be like banging our heads against the wall.
Officials of the EEC ("Eurocrats') are anxious to defend their empire. Although they do openly disagree with each other on issues that directly affect them or their country, they instantaneously act as a solid block when confronted with an ACP attack on certain issues affecting the Third World. The resources they have at their disposal during negotiations with the ACP Secretariat are clearly more sophisticated than the latter can dream of.
The officials of the ACP Secretariat openly admit that they are not competing with the Eurocrats, they cannot and they will not, for they are simply interested in negotiating a 'better deal'! Can we realistically negotiate a 'better deal' from such a weak position? Can we match the competence and efficiency of the Eurocrats, who have a monopoly of human resources and information, in negotiating a 'better deal' for Europe? After all, what is a 'better deal' as a Eurocrat privately admitted that the Commission's decisions are finalised well before the negotiations even take place! Are these negotiations not simply a show to the outside world? Besides, the institutional structures of the EEC are inherently a barrier to the parity of EEC/ACP relationships. FROM LOME II TO LOME III The precarious road to Lome III is characterised by a clear shift of emphasis by the EEC away from projects and programmes towards POLICY. Fanciful ideas such as 'Policy Dialogue Approach', and 'Global Approach' were thrown at us during the seminar.
In Lome I and Lome II, it was in the EEC's interests to encourage the ACP countries to concentrate on their tradi tional exports in order to ensure cheap supplies of food and raw materials in Europe. Guaranteed prices and quotas, the stabex system and the different forms of aid under the European Development Fund were the main incentives to stimulate production. For many ACP countries such incentives did work, and at the cost of increasing economic dependence on Europe.
Benin sponsors of a gari project visit CID following the signing of a joint venture agreement.
But those ACP countries that did too well are to be penalised because they are supposedly competing too severely against the EEC. For example, the sweet sugar of Mauritius has now turned sour for the Europeans. The EEC, wary of being swamped by Mauritian textiles, interpreted the Lome convention in their own terms in order to impose quota restrictions on this product. Penalties against such countries are implicitly believed to be fair by the Officials of the Directorate General for Development.
What the ACP countries are today is a product of colonialism and more so of neo-colonialism. The Lome Convention further helped to distort the economic and social structures of the ACP countries. The Lome convention was at the outset viewed as a passport to development via free trade with Europe. Free trade was used as a facade in the agreement, and no wonder trade between the EEC and ACP has fallen in both real and absolute terms during the past 10 years. BURDEN So with the net fall in the volume of trade between the two camps and before the Lome convention becomes devoid of any meaning about trade promotion, the EEC has to do something. This was spelt out clearly by the officials in the seminar: The ACP countries cannot simply rely on Europe for their economic development. They have to start producing their own food and aim for self sufficiency. They should also increase trade links among themselves-South-South Relations..
There is no objection in terms of economic merit to this change of emphasis by the EEC. But what is most distasteful about it are the motives behind this change of policy. Some Eurocrats and European politicians openly admit that some ACP countries have become a burden to Europe - here direct references are made to sugar, textiles and beef producing countries.
The sooner Europe gets rid of them somehow the better. Thus the EDF is increasingly channelled to diversifi- cation policies that would directly reduce exports of these products. Secondly, once an ACP country starts exporting industrial goods towards Europe, this would be viewed with contempt by the EEC. How can the infant grow into an adolescent!
The EEC's new policy directive in this case is greater trade among ACP trade countries themselves. Implicitly it seems here that the access to the lucrative European markets for industrial goods are being reserved for European producers, while ACP industrialists would have to sell their products within the ACP framework. Is the Lome convention not increasingly becoming a facade to economic and social cooperation between the EEC and ACP countries?
Was it not pure hypocrisy on the part of the Deputy Directorate-General for Development to talk about Trade Promotion between the EEC and ACP countries? Trade Promotion for who? In whose interests? How many African industrialists have a significant share of the European market for a particular manufactured good? Mauritius was the first and only case so far! But this was not acceptable to Europe. And all kinds of regulations and barriers are at work all the time to prevent developing countries from coming out of their shell of underdevelopment. THE FUTURE OF LOME The negotiations for Lome III are dragging on and on, and are no less than a facade to the whole procedure. Most of the shots are called by the EEC. Since the Community has already made up its mind about Lome III, it would be foolish for ACP nationals to expect any major improvement in the new deal. Instead the outcome of the so called negotiations are bound to increase the sourness of the relationship between the two contracting partners. Those ACP exports that lubricate the European economy would obviously be maintained. While those that pose a threat to the system would be curtailed. Aid through the EDF would fall in real terms as in Lome II. The divide and rule strategy is now being adopted by the EEC. The Community is determined to ensure that financial assistance is given to those ACP countries that are committed to free free trade that would benefit Europeans and European Multinationals most.
With the plurality of views and differences among the ACP countries. this strategy has helped to loosen the shaky bond of unity that holds the ACP countries together. PARTNERS The future of Lome is very bleak. It was hypocritical on the part of the officials of the ACP secretariat to believe otherwise. EEC has always looked down upon the ACP countries as second class trading partners.
Whilst opening its doors wide to Greece and soon to Spain and Portugal, the veil of protectionism against ACP exports has been lowered down The future of those ACP coun tries that depend on agriculture would seriously be undermined, as the new community of 12 would be almost self sufficient in food, and would also become a very significant exporter of food to the Third World.
The lessons that can be drawn from 10 years of Lome indicate that the so-called Open Doors of Trade of Europe would not take us to the promised land. We expected too much of Europe which has too little to give without any strings. The solutions to our problems do not lie in Europe. We would be crying for the moon if we were to expect Europe to redress the gross imbalance that exists between the EEC and ACP nations.
Let us look behind this facade to economic and social cooperation between the EEC and the developing countries. And in facing the harsh realities, we would be able to work out our own solutions. The pill would be very bitter at first but the cure would initially expose the real wound that i to be treated.
As a starting point, let us then settle the minor differences that exist among the ACP nations. This would help us to promote greater trade, and economic and social cooperation among the ACP states. The sad truth is that some ACP governments would be most reluctant to move along this new path because the economic and political interests of the favoured few would be jeopardised.
