|
|
EPA and the hurry to put Africa back
on the colonial plantation
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
It should be remembered that no sooner did we put slavery to
rest than we quickly helped to put in place colonialism. It has
been, at least, half a century now since the symbolic death of
colonialism.
It should also be remembered that Europe gave up institutions
like slavery and colonialism not only because of the agency of a
moral force, but also because as economic models, they could not
be sustained in their old forms.
As a concept, colonialism is still potent as neo-colonialism. So
now, the EU wants to grab back by stealth the essence and
advantages it lost when the old form came to an end. This is
what EPA (Economic Partnership Agreements) is all about.
With the EPA, the EU can bring back the good old days of the
colonial relationship: when Europe was assured of ready markets
for surplus goods and cheap raw material sources for its
factories.
Why Africa should want the above relationship is the perplexing
point. And why, in the face of centuries of experiences with
Europe, freed colonies should now want to consider a plantation
life that guarantees continued dependency and underdevelopment
is the amazing notion.
But not surprising, and if history has any bearing on the
matter, the notion has happened before. And it happened because
Africa has a penchant for self-destructive acts; witness our
participations in the twin institutions of slavery and
colonialism.
The EPA concept is a warmed up version of the ACP (African,
Caribbean and Pacific) countries - EU arrangement. It is a
system of tariff preferences which will allow former colonies
access to the European markets under the assurances of price
stability for their agricultural and mining products.
The EPA, the would-be successor to the ACP, is touted as being
more generous because of the uniform feature of "reciprocity
and non-discriminatory" assurances it offers.
In reality it is a scheme to create free trade zones between
participants, with Europe being the lead trade partner as
always. It was to have come into force by the end of 2008, but
has been held up for further negotiations by foot dragging,
conscience stricken potential members from the Third World.
There is no hiding the fact that when Europe brought into being
the ACP agreement, at the Lome Convention of 1975, it did so to
preserve for itself supplies of raw material from its former
colonies. As countries like China and India make inroads into
these markets, the need to preserve them as birthright has
arisen and become more urgent. In this respect the ACP and EPA
do not differ.
It is argued by promoters that by offering “reciprocity and
non-discriminatory,” features, the EU is
following the dictates of the WTO and thus the arrangement has some moral
sanction. WTO rules require that all countries that are at the
same level of economic development, like those in the ACP, are
offered the same privileges under the EPA.
The intention may seem noble until you note that the majority of
poor countries affected by the “non-discriminatory”
part of the rule is to be found in Africa; already a desirable market
for dumping goods, a venue for cheap resources, and a continent that
offers nothing of threat to European manufacturers. In effect,
the WTO requirement comes
with no negative consequence for Europe and, therefore, not a costly
preposition for the EU to desire.
The plot is sweetened further, especially by the “reciprocity” part. In
order to avoid the discriminatory clause, the partners will be
expected to grant “EU originating imports of goods duty free
access into their markets. This will be similar to the duty free access
granted by the EU on selected goods from those countries under
the expired Lomé Agreement,” as explained by the ECA in a paper
on the subject.
The above condition is God-sent for the EU since it provides the
most potent cover
under which the new version of colonialism can be initiated;
while, at the same time, allowing a trade context within which
potential competitors can be discouraged.
For the EU, this "reciprocity"
agreement is a perfect milieu for painless exploits. But
for the African members, it is only a drug for dulling the senses before
the excruciating practices of exploitation.
And it will all happen under no threat of war between the
nations of Europe, as happened prior to the Berlin Conference of
1884, This time around, the EPA, mercifully and peacefully, will allow
Africa to bring the spoils to countries in Europe from the newly re-commissioned
colonial territories.
Then there is another sham
that the EPA offers. The EU intention for regional
approach to recruitment of members is described as having the potential to
help "deepen relationship" among countries within an area. Having initiated and perfected
“the divide and conquer" strategy that benefited Europe in the
past,
why would anyone believe it should want anything else now?
Still thls approach, for a strategy, is a win-win situation, but only
for the EU.
Should the regional, collective approach work, the EPA would be
signed anyway. And should it not work, individual
countries will still sign up. But the best part is a
perception of moral victory will accrue to the gang from
Europe since the offer, at least, has been made.
For fear of losing the raw material markets with Europe, plus
the possibility of missing out on
subventions that come with the attachment; subventions that
some African countries have depended
on for years to meet their local budgets, the EPA will be
signed.
The signing will not be done
because of the welfare of your neighbor country as promised by
the regional approach.
Continental and regional unity has been preached by various
African politicians since 1963 and it has yet to
attain the urgency to alleviate poverty in Africa. So the EU
thinking, that
its offer of regional approach has efficacy within the short time frame allowed
for
the EPA signing, is spurious and dishonest assumption.
As Africa has done in the past, the EU can
count on some within the continent to opt for the
agreements even if the offer were to put them on a slave ship!
Under slavery or colonialism, there were active participants. In
coups that destroyed the national will, there were no shortages
in recruitment among professionals and intellectuals for the
destructive causes. And under the EPA, there will be no lack of
participants among this class of Africans.
Walter Rodney observation on International Trade in his book
(How Europe Underdeveloped Africa) was that “Europeans took the
initiative and went to other parts of the world...What was
called international trade was nothing but the extension
overseas of European interests.”
There may have been a softening of European hold on trade with
the coming of China, Japan and the Asian Tigers.
Even so, Europe may want the “firmness” back, at least in
Africa. And it is doing so under the guise of the EPA.
Poor
Africa has a special
relationship of being the “hewers of wood and drawers of water”
for Europe as Nkrumah said. This relationship, he said, has
assured constant relocation of wealth from the continent to
Europe. This will be truer with the situation of the EPA.
Nkrumah described independence as “only the prelude to a new and
more involved struggle for the right to conduct our own economic
and social affairs…. unhampered by crushing and humiliating
neo-colonial controls and interference.”
The EPA, contrary to opinions held by its promoters, will
dictate to Africa. It will not help Africa develop. Rather, it
will further retard the industrial capacity on a continent where
used items from abroad already have more value than locally
manufactured ones.
Unfortunately, the EPA will come to pass – signed, sealed and delivered for
the disadvantage of the future of Africa.
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher
www.ghanadot.com,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2009
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
|
