REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

38
Swimming Upstream
Would the Pacific governments’ strategy be workable if the Europeans are prepared to agree?
No. Their proposals still put markets, competition and profits at the centre and assume that development flows as
the benefits trickle down to the masses at the bottom. Pacific people cannot survive, let alone thrive, under those
conditions. Markets, trade and exchange are essential elements of social life. But when they are the primary
determinants of social relations, community, environment, culture, wellbeing and self-determination it is time to
say ‘no’. The challenge then is to generate a viable, more acceptable alternative.
“First say no to
negotiations but
failing that we
should stop them
from being ratified.
Campaigns are not
won on intellectual
input but on the
strength of
mobilisation.”
(Tetteh Hormeku,
TWN Africa 2004)
Is that possibility being discussed in other parts of the ACP?
There is real concern, especially among social movements and NGOs, that governments have backed
themselves into a corner because they have no idea what else to do. Moses Teke from TRADES CENTRE in
Harare has pointed out that the European Commission has a coherent position to which it is intractably
committed; the ACP has a sense of what they don’t want, but no clear and agreed alternative:
The outcome of the negotiations again indicate the failure of ACP to determine their own development
ideology, take initiatives and assert sovereignty in national economic policy formulation and
implementation. … The Lomé Convention has become an instrument through which ACP countries
are further locked into a development ideology that is not suitable to their development concerns.
Isn’t it unrealistic to say ‘no’?
Is it more realistic for Pacific Island governments to sign agreements and make commitments which they know
they don’t have the capacity to implement and that will create human suffering, social unrest and political
instability if they try? At present, the only ‘WTO-compatible’ agreement that commits them to this agenda is
PICTA, and that can and should be renegotiated. If they lock themselves into further agreements with other,
powerful governments the only policy choices available to them will be more of the same.
Does the Cotonou Agreement allow the Pacific Islands to say no to the European Union?
There is no obligation to sign anything with the European Union. The Least Developed Countries (Kiribati,
Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) would be eligible for the Everything But Arms option. The
remainder of ‘developing’ countries could opt for the European Union’s revised General System of Preferences.
These are not perfect and do not provide long-term security; but they don’t carry the costs that are likely to
accompany a Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement. The European Union may well try to cut back aid to the
Pacific in return. That will be a major test of its development rhetoric. But aid is likely to dwindle anyway as
Europe refocuses its attention elsewhere.
Where would that leave the prospect of negotiations with Australia and NZ under PACER?
Most Pacific Islands governments now recognise that their future cannot lie within the framework that was foisted
on them through PACER. That can be reversed but only if governments collectively resolve to withdraw from
the agreement. Australia and NZ cannot afford to turn their backs on the region – nor should the region want
them to. But their agenda will become progressively more dominant if the Pacific Island governments do not
assert themselves now.
Won’t the Pacific face new problems if preferences and aid disappear without replacements?
Again,is it better for Pacific Islands to begin absorbing some of those costs now or when they have gone further
down a path of neoliberal globalisation that few of their governments seems to believe is genuinely good for their
country and their people? It comes down to an exercise of sovereign responsibility.
Isn’t it unrealistic to pretend that the small dependent Pacific Islands have any real sovereignty?
Sovereignty is not some abstract notion that empowers élites to run their countries to serve their own interests,
bank balances and egos. The sovereign authority of governments comes from their people. Governments
cannot ‘simply’ give that away without a mandate to do so. That is what good governance really means. The
Biketawa Declaration set out very clearly a set of foundational principles for participatory democracy that trade
negotiations sweep aside. Increasingly, these trade agreements even contradict the fundamental principles,
values and responsibilities that are embodied in national constitutions.
74
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement