It has been, at least, half a century since
independence in many of the states in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
That was to be, at least, the symbolic
end of colonialism for us. But it should be
remembered that no sooner did we put slavery to
rest than we quickly helped to put in its place
colonialism, the mother of neo-colonialism.
Europe gave up the institutions of slavery and
colonialism not because of the agency of a moral
force but also because, as economic models, the
two institutions could not be sustained in their
old forms.
This must also be remembered.
But to get back what was lost under colonialism
at independence, the EU has now resorted to this
EPA proposal (Economic Partnership Agreements)
with Africa.
In practical form, the EPA is today's
neo-colonialism; the adjunct of colonialism, and
probably, the sliest and most potent form of the
old institution of colonialism itself.
The EPA aims to bring back the good old days of
the colonial relationship; when Europe was
assured of ready, cheap raw material from Africa
in exchange for her surplus manufactured goods.
Why Africa should want the above marketing
relationship with its old colonial masters is a
perplexing point. But why Africa hasn't figured
out yet its history is silly.
If
history has any bearing on African affairs, this
EPA issue and its undergirding notions will be
put in place sooner than later, and of all
actors by the nations of Africa themselves.
No surprise here, participation in the twin
institutions of slavery and colonialism has not
taught the needed lessons. Thus, this EPA
proposal would not either.
This is the tragic part of our history.
The EPA is an arrangement of tariff preferences
offered to former African colonies for access to
European markets.
It is purported to offer price stability
for agricultural and mining products from these
countries.
But we have been this way before; a warmed-up
version of the ACP (African, Caribbean, and
Pacific countries)' act offered in 2000 with the
Cotonou Agreement that was designated as “the
most comprehensive partnership agreement” by the
EU,
The uniform feature of both the ACP and EPA is
the "reciprocity and non-discriminatory"
assurances they offered.
Both packages have been touted as
generous for the former colonies.
But note, as always, Europe, the principal
trading partner, is at the helm as she
was under colonialism.
The EPA was to start at the end of 2008.
But conscience-stricken potential members
from the Third World were foot-dragging.
They remembered too well the Lome
Convention of 1975 before Cotonou and the
preferences for supplies of raw material that
Europe had sought for itself in that package.
But since 1975, the demand for natural resources
had expanded.
China, India, and Japan had become urgent
competitors in the acquisition of raw materials.
Europe has had the preferred access to raw
products from Africa because of her colonies.
But now under the growing threat of competition
from outsiders, they are offering the EPA,
promoting it as a moral force following the
dictates of the WTO.
So, by offering the EPA as a “reciprocity
and non-discriminatory practice”, the EU now
thinks it has conformed to a universal sanction.
But this approach to moral certainty is muddled.
The WTO rules require that all countries
that are at the same level of economic
development must be offered the same trade
privileges as offered under the EPA.
However,
how equal in economic power are all these poor
former colonies when compared with the countries
of Europe that they are in partnership?
The intention here does not seem noble since most of the target countries
in the partnership are poor
African countries.
The “non-discriminatory” part of the WTO rule
looms large here if we should consider the fact
that Africa is already a desirable marketplace
for dumping Europe's manufactured goods.
But Africa offers no manufactured product as a
threat to European manufacturers.
In effect, the WTO requirement is being used by
the EPA to furthermore exploit, the very essence
of which is that it i’s a trading format for
unequal partners.
The disparity is so obvious here. To avoid
discrimination, the African partners in the EPA
will be expected to grant its EU partners
"originating imports of goods duty-free access
into their markets, the same as granted by the
EU on selected goods under the expired Lomé
Agreement.”
Europe will have access to markets in Africa for
all her products.
With this in place, the EPA opens the
door for neo-colonialism and the “reciprocity”
arrangement then creates a barrier for growing
competition from other competitors in the same
market space.
The term “reciprocity” with Europe, in the EPA,
then becomes a fanciful word.
But for the third-world and African
members, the same becomes a drug for dulling the
senses. The notion that they have a trading
right with Europe would be all that matters. and
the implicit threat of losing their weaker
manufacturing base to Europe will be overlooked.
The overall effect will be the same effect after
the Berlin Conference of 1884 was signed, in
that it will prevent friction among the EU
partners while holding competitors, say from
Asia, back.
And who would be sensible enough in Africa to
blame Europe this time?
On the surface, the EPA arrangement is being
pushed aggressively, a win-win deal, for all
potential members.
No one in Africa is prevented from
joining the EPA; either individually or in
groups.
Should the offer work, the perception of
moral victory goes to Europe since it made the
offer in the first place.
The African partners on the other hand get
branded in the eyes of the world fears as
hapless.
It is, therefore,
predictable
that African countries will eventually sign the
EPA.
Losing the raw material market access in Europe
or a portion of it is one unbearable reason.
And there is also the silent possibility
of missing out on yearly budget subventions that
some African countries receive and have come to
expect from Europe over the years as another
pressure point.
Not signing the EPA will mean endangering all
the above.
The Europeans know this.
They will use the possible predicaments
to divide all.
Those who do not join may lose their
markets to others on the continent in due
course.
And each country will be suspicious of
the other. Africa will, therefore,
continue to remain divided and weak - a perfect
arrangement for the EU overall.
The EU can count on many on the continent to opt
for the EPA agreement, even if the offer brings
up the perception of a colonial arrangement.
Trading with Africa will continue in their
favor.
Walter Rodney wrote in his book (How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa) 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.”
And as Kwame Nkrumah warned, Africans have been
the “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for
Europe. And it was this relationship, he said,
that kept Africa poor and assured the constant
transfer of wealth from this continent to that
of Europe. The case will not be different under
the EPA.
Nkrumah warned that independence was 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.”
This statement made a lot of sense back then and
it should still do.
On a continent where used items from abroad
already have more value than locally
manufactured ones. the EPA, contrary to opinions
held by its promoters, will impair further
Africa’s ability to grow its industrial capacity
- the only true base for fast development.
But unfortunately, the EPA will come to pass –
signed, sealed, and delivered to disadvantage
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 on a website, email a copy of the web
page to
publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at
all.
