REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

“It is not true that
ACP countries
‘requested’ the EPA:
‘A cow does not
choose to go
willingly to the
abattoir.”
(Alhaji Hassan
Somunu, Secretary
General of the
Organisation of African
Trade Union Unity,
2004)
Isn’t that inevitable when contesting sectors are grouped together as ‘non-State actors’?
At the EC Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) seminar held in Fiji in October 2004 a speaker from
ECREA likened it to putting together lions and fleas, tigers and mice, cats and dogs, giraffes and elephants,
snakes and pigeons and expecting them to work together effectively. The business sector won’t see eye to eye
with some NGOs, big NGOs will walk over the smaller ones, trade unions will resent being equated with NGOs,
and women’s groups will cry ‘foul’ when one group gets more than another. Their perspectives and priorities
are so different that it seems calculated to fail. There was one positive outcome – each group had the possibility
of becoming better acquainted with the needs and viewpoint of the other.
What role are the trade unions playing?
There is deep frustration among the unions with the consultation process and the impotence of Article 50 of the
Cotonou Agreement in which Pacific Islands government affirm their commitment to the ILO’s Core Labour
Standards. Governments in many of the Islands are reluctant to involve the trade unions actively in the process
and not one of them is actively promoting the ILO Core Standards. While the trade unions resent being lumped
in with NGOs they also lack the capacity to take the initiative themselves. In 2004 the South Pacific Council of
Trade Unions resolved ‘with the assistance from the CTU and NZCTU to seeking funding for and conducting
seminars on trade in each country to build the capacity for engagement with governments, NSAs and the
Pacific Island Forum Secretariat’. Even if that eventuates, the negotiations will be advanced before the trade
unions are able to engage effectively.
Is it possible to challenge the European Union directly about its agenda for the Pacific?
Every 6 months ACP-wide consultations with regional NGOs are held in Brussels. But that is more an
information gathering exercise than an opportunity to debate the European Union’s ‘development’ agenda.
Direct challenges to the Commission come primarily from the Brussels-based coalition of NGOs that was formed
to oppose the Economic Partnership Agreements. Occasionally there are discussions outside the EPA process
- such as the ECOSOC regional seminar in Fiji in October 2004. But that was a highly structured programme
‘full’ of talking heads presenting the European position. There was no room to challenge the Commission’s right
to impose its ‘development’ model on the Pacific. The Commission, in turn, expressed disappointment that the Fiji
government didn’t send any representatives to the meeting.
Wasn’t there any challenge to the Commission during the Economic and Social Committee seminar?
Yes. The following exchange between the Brussels-based Commission official (Mr Dihm) who works on the
Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement and the representative from ECREA injected a much-needed critical
perspective:
ECREA: “If someone wants to rob your house and they find the house protected by a few fierce
dogs, they go away and get some juicy pieces of meat and throw them over the fence. While the
dogs are busy with the meat, the robbers climb over the fence and rob the house.”
The image caught on and many speakers made use of it.
After Mr Dihm’s glowing presentation about Cotonou, ECREA’s story was repeated. He was
somewhat upset and replied:
“ We don’t want to rob your house. But we think your house is falling down. !!**!! Ahem! Ahem! I
mean your governments are telling us that your house is falling down and parts of it are on fire and
so we are coming to help you restore your house and look after it.”
It was too late. A number of speakers took up the phrase “we think your house is falling down” and
pursued the implications.
What was the outcome of the Economic and Social Committee meeting?
The Declaration was exceedingly moderate. It stressed the need for more information, expressed concern at
the limited consultation to date, called for more resources and emphasis on social dialogue, and hoped for better
from the mid-term review of the Cotonou Agreement. It welcomed Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations,
provided the special situation of small Pacific Island states was taken into account and trade liberalisation was not
treated as an end in itself - but as a means to foster development, establish regional markets and contribute to
poverty eradication. The Commission could have written it itself!
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 71