REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

to do so would indicate that the state was dysfunctional and would justify the European Union withdrawing its
support.
Thus, the respect for national sovereignty that once took the form of an almost boundless trust in the
recipient governments is evolving into an approach guided by considerations of efficiency.
So the Commission would take over the role of sovereign ACP governments in designing policy?
More than that – it would insist on an agenda that it knew would radically transform economic, social and political
life in ACP countries and that was likely to provoke the downfall of governments that implemented it:
As far as the ACP States are concerned, the necessary changes and reforms will not be made
without a radical transformation of political and social structures. EU support measures for economic
policies and institutional reforms may have major political repercussions on these countries.
“What does one do if
the EU and the other
multilateral and
bilateral donors that
wish to dictate
economic policy are
wrong and the policies
that are being
suggested create only
social upheaval and
not the economic
good that is
promised?”
(Grynberg, 1997)
What were ‘sovereign’ ACP governments meant to do if people revolted against this agenda?
Hold firm, if they wanted to keep receiving aid from the European Union:
Experience of past cooperation has furthermore shown that this [EU] support is appropriate only
when certain conditions – primarily political – are met. Strengthening the political dialogue is now a
condition of increased effectiveness of all ACP/EU cooperation: a stronger political relationship
which allows essential issues such as good governance, democratisation and human rights to be
tackled in a less formalistic, franker and hence more efficient manner now seems to be absolutely
necessary if Europe wishes to give its cooperation policy a greater chance of success.
But this whole approach is a denial of democracy!
The Green Paper conceded that there was a tension between neoliberalism and democracy, because ‘the short
term social cost may disappoint voters’. When governments are faced with political and social instability and
persistent difficulties in implementing economic policies, they find it difficult to stay on track. But the dual process
of economic and political transformation must still proceed. The ‘incentive-based’ approach to aid means that
‘performance criteria for political and economic life would come into play alongside social and economic
indicators and levels of poverty’. ‘Selectiveness’ of aid should reflect not only countries’ needs but also their
‘institutional and policy choices’. In other words, governments that stand firm should be rewarded.
How could the European Union reconcile that approach with respect for state sovereignty?
Because it only pays lip service to sovereignty. The Green Paper treats the nation state as the major obstacle
to be overcome by narrowing the ACP governments’ policy space and removing their discretion. It even
suggested the EU, along with other donors, should consider ‘giving more strategic backing’ to securing political
change that limits the role of the state, including orchestrating support ‘on the ground’ to overcome the resistance
of élites.
Isn’t that a valid consideration in ACP countries that are governed by corrupt élites?
There is a world of difference between empowering the mass of people in ACP countries to determine their own
political and economic future, and former colonial powers imposing a self-interested economic policy agenda
through indirect economic rule.
Who would take responsibility when the Europeans’ plan for the ACP went wrong?
Tetteh Hormeku from Third World Network Africa remarks on how the European Union claimed the right to
dictate the agenda, but disavowed any responsibility for the consequences:
Lomé was unrealistic, but not for the reasons advanced by the Paper. It was unrealistic because it
expected countries to diversify, etc. within a framework through which … Europe sought to retain
these countries as providers of raw materials and overseas markets. Now it sought to ‘rectify’ those
failures to meet its changed strategic interests, with no responsibility for the new failures that will
result.
18
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement