REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

3
African, Caribbean & Pacific Solidarity
What did/do the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries have in common?
Mainly, the historical fact that they are former colonies of the European powers, where coercion was routine,
repression was frequent and brutality was justified as advancing ‘civilisation’ and ‘development’. They also
carry the continued economic, political and social legacy of colonial regimes whose:
- political system was undemocratic and fostered privileged and corrupt elites;
- bureaucracy was dominated by expatriates and tailored to meet the administrative needs of the metropole;
- legal system was rudimentary and combined Empire’s law with a degraded form of indigenous law;
- economy exploited natural resources and people to maximise profits for colonial industrialists and
investors;
“The African
state’s sorry
performance in
achieving
democratic
reform and
governance has
some of its roots
in emulating the
tactics of its
former colonial
masters.”
(Tandon and Lin,
SEATINI, 1999)
- system of individual property rights and ownership gave control of key resources to colonists or local
élites;
- suppression of indigenous culture, language, spirituality and social systems was designed to destroy
their capacity for authentic self-determination.
When and why was the Group of ACP States formed?
The ACP Grouping was created by the Georgetown Agreement in 1975, at the time Lomé I came into effect. It
includes all ACP States who are parties to Lomé, so its membership has grown over time. The Group’s main role
is to coordinate ACP activities that involve the European Union. But there were also broader aspirations. Back
in 1975 Third World states that had secured their political independence wanted a New International Economic
Order that would deliver them economic independence. The Preamble to the Georgetown Agreement talked of
their ‘united and concerted endeavours’ to accelerate, consolidate and strengthen the process of solidarity
among developing countries. The Lomé Convention was seen as one tool to advance their aspirations and the
New International Economic Order.
How did the ACP’s role develop over time?
The ACP Group provided a unified voice for its Members each time the Lomé Convention was reviewed, and
it monitored and pressured the Europeans in-between times. However, the push for a New International
Economic Order was sunk by the debt crisis in the later 1970s. The end of the Cold War, followed by the creation
of the World Trade Organisation in 1995, heralded a very different economic order – that of neoliberal
globalisation. The ACP assumed an increasingly critical role by giving voice to the concerns and demands ACP
Members, many of whom had no representative in Geneva. This was most visible at the WTO Ministerial
Meeting in Cancun in 2003, where the ACP stood firm against demands, led by the European Commission, to
negotiate on a range of ‘new issues’ (investment, competition policy, trade facilitation, and transparency in
government procurement). This has fuelled speculation that the Commission would like to use the Cotonou
negotiations to break down ACP solidarity and remove the rationale for the Group’s existence.
How does the ACP operate as a Group?
A Council of Ministers from each ACP State meets twice a year. A Committee of (Brussels-based) Ambassadors
reports to the Ministers. Both these bodies elect their own executive bureaux of six members – four from Africa,
one each from the Caribbean and the Pacific. Decisions are made by consensus, although the Ministers can
vote in special circumstances. An ACP Secretariat is based in Brussels; each ACP State contributes, but it is
largely funded by the European Union. It is considered by many to be very inefficient, with member governments
and their local ambassadors influencing even the most mundane decisions.
How significant a role have the Pacific Island States played in the ACP process?
That has depended on the individuals involved and the positions they held in the ACP structure. Because there
was no Pacific Islands diplomatic presence in Geneva until 2004, the ‘P’ has been virtually invisible in the ACP’s
activities at the WTO. The new Geneva-based Pacific Islands Forum representative still finds it difficult to assert
an active role in ACP deliberations. For the first time a Pacific Island representative, Sir John Kaputin from PNG,
has been elected as the Secretary General of the ACP. He took office in January 2005 and will preside over the
critical period of trade negotiations and discussions on the next - 10th - European Development Fund.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 15