REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

24
Common Cause: Australia/NZ & the EU
Are the European Union and Australia/NZ competing with each other in the Pacific?
At one, level they have very different interests in the Pacific.
For the European Union, the Cotonou Agreement is about renegotiating its relationship with Africa. It has little
interest in the Pacific, aside from fisheries. That could mean the Commission is prepared to strike a minimalist
deal with the Pacific ACP countries in a few areas of genuine mutual benefit. But if it did, it would also want to
minimise any ongoing aid obligations. Weighed against that, the Commission will want to avoid creating any ‘soft’
precedents for other negotiations, to advance its quest for binding international rules on investment and competition,
and to secure compromises that weaken the ACP bloc at the WTO.
Australia and NZ will be determined to make sure the European Union doesn’t steal a march on them,
politically and economically, in their only real sphere of influence. Any access the Europeans get, they will want
too. But they will not want to be limited to that if the European Commission settles for very little.
“The credibility of
reforms may be
increased if they are
locked-in with a
regional or
multilateral
agreement. … While
PICTA may not be
able to serve as the
lock-in mechanism,
this role could be
played by the EU,
Australia and New
Zealand in [Regional
Trade Agreements]
with the PICs.”
(Global Voyage, World
Bank, 2002)
So both major palyers are pursuing their own interests?
Yes. Sometimes their goals conflict. But fundamentally Australia/NZ and the Europeans are playing the same
game. Both PACER and the Cotonou Agreement reach beyond traditional free trade agreements to cover
broad economic policy, in the name of ‘economic integration’ and ‘economic and trade cooperation’. The power
imbalance they both enjoy will allow them to establish precedents that advance their own negotiating agendas,
while they protect any elements of concern to themselves. Both insist that reciprocity will benefit the Pacific
Islands more than the current preferential arrangements do – even though reciprocity gives them more extensive
market access to the Islands without having to make any additional concessions in return. Both are strong
advocates of the WTO as being good for poor countries and as WTO Members they can require any agreements
they negotiate to be WTO-compatible, effectively extending the reach of WTO rules to those Pacific Islands who
are not WTO members.
Is this shared agenda reflected in the PACER and Cotonou Agreements?
The rhetoric of PACER and Cotonou are strikingly similar. Both
- invoke the term ‘partnership’ despite the glaring inequalities of economic weight, aid dependency and
negotiating capacity between the major powers and the Pacific Islands;
- promise to address poverty, deliver sustainable development and facilitate the gradual integration of
Pacific Islands into the world economy through a model of trade liberalisation and structural adjustment
that has deepened poverty and debt in most poor countries, including in the Pacific;
- insist that the Pacific Island states will remain fully sovereign in determining their own future pathways,
while binding them to neoliberal policies that can be enforced by potentially crippling trade sanctions;
- promise a ‘stable and democratic political environment’ when those same policies are shown to have
created instability and conflict in numerous ACP countries; and
- promote good governance, while denying Members of Parliament, voters, trade unions, NGOs and
other critical voices the democratic right to reject the neoliberal ‘development’ agenda and choose their
own economically, socially and culturally appropriate development pathways.
Which is more arrogant towards the Pacific: Australia/NZ or the European Union?
Both the European Commission and Australia/NZ display the colonial arrogance of knowing what is best for the
Pacific Islands and claim that self-serving policies are really in the interests of their former colonies. But Australia
and NZ - especially Australia - seem to be more abrasive. The power politics of the PICTA/PACER process
were notoriously bad.
How are the European Union and Australia/NZ likely to reconcile their interests?
If the Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations did conclude in 2007, and the Islands still did not
accept that PACER had been triggered, Australia and NZ would probably treat any commitments that were
made to the EU on industrial and agricultural commodities, services, competition and intellectual property as the
floor from which to start their own negotiations in 2011. They would probably welcome any protection for
investments that Europe secures. But they would be nervous about any precedent on temporary entry for
50
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement