Safari So Goody?

pete quentin, 10 December 2007

Last weekend saw the EU-Africa summit held in Lisbon amid much controversy. Africa’s leaders came to Europe for a brief political safari, but one of the EU’s very own ‘Big Five’ game animals was to elude them. As promised Brown did not attend, apparently to avoid a “media circus” which would have distracted from attempts to negotiate trading relations, to the benefit of all EU and African nations. “Media Circus” avoided. Well, almost…

…despite Clare Short’s best efforts. She managed to simultaneously offend Brown’s replacement (Baroness Amos, former leader of the House of Lords) and accuse the government of disrespect bordering on racism. David Miliband emphasised Amos’ former role as International Development secretary and her “knowledge about Africa as a whole, not just Zimbabwe” in contrast with (also former International Development secretary) Clare Short’s cynical observation that Amos is black: “I don’t see any other reason for sending her”. One suggestion is that Brown actually wanted to avoid a media circus, akin to the kind of attention you would draw by accusing your own party of naming a replacement who was under qualified but simply ticked all the correct boxes. Or perhaps Brown really was incredibly busy burying his head in the Afghan desert, shouting out a timetable for “bringing the boys home” to distract from accusations that he is failing to make a stand against the abhorrent violation of human rights in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
None within the EU deny Mugabe’s appalling record of human rights abuses, but disagreements concern whether Europe has a responsibility to exert pressure to ensure changes are made. As such these negotiations between Africa and the EU have exposed many flaws in the political characters of those involved.
The EU cannot simply suspend moral judgement. With its constant assertions that increased sovereignty of a united Europe would give members more political weight on the world stage, it sets a dangerous precedence to employ “don’t mention the war” tactics invoked to avoid the uncomfortable topic of human rights violations in Zimbabwe. It should be noted that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel did use the summit as a platform to identify specific human rights violations under Mugabe’s rule, including the restrictions on the free press and the intimidation of political opponents. However, Merkel’s was a minority voice. José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission openly condemned Brown’s decision not to attend, urging that “an international leader must be prepared to meet some people your mother wouldn’t want you to meet”.
The EU is anxious to negotiate trade relations with Africa because of increasing competition from China. A crucial difference between European and Chinese conditions for “doing business” is that China will not preach moral values, or hold African nations to a higher ethical code. Realistically, neither can the EU, but it will try with negotiations cloaked in ethical language e.g. “liberalised markets” and “promoting free trade”.
Given the importance of securing trade with Africa, the Lisbon summit provided an opportunity for the EU to demonstrate its ability to operate on the world stage, conducting a “successful, productive summit” to improve trade relations between the EU and African nations. At least that was the plan. The reality of the event itself was somewhat less productive. According to the Guardian, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson’s attempts to instigate new Economic Partnership Agreements are now effectively “dead”. The EPA’s are intended to create a “level-playing field for developing countries” as ordered by the World Trade Organisation. The EU has proposed to reduce tariffs on African exports and offer duty free imports in return for liberalising African markets. Safari so goody, perhaps the advantages of fair trade and liberated economies could challenge despots, such as Mugabe without the need for the sort of high brow moralising that is dividing European nations. Perhaps the EU was right to lift the travel ban an enable Mugabe to attend, all in the name of a greater good which short-sighted politicians simply failed to perceive.
It all sounds quite encouraging. However, African markets would be liberated to face crippling competition from European markets. The level-playing field would not generate the conditions for fair play. Mandelson has complained that such criticism “misrepresents EPA’s as ‘market-grabbing’ by the EU”, such as President of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konaré’s less favourable interpretation that European negotiations are employed as tactics of “divide and rule”.
In light of Konaré’s criticisms, the moral deliberation of EU countries prior to the Lisbon summit seem superficial to say the least, given that the EU proposal was itself morally dubious. China’s conditions are much clearer. With its lack of moral provisos, the offer of Chinese trade effectively comes “no strings attached”. Discussing options for trade with Africa not only involves finding a way to hold Mugabe and-the-like to an adequate moral standing but also the continued need for an EU that meets its own lofty standards.
By Claire Daley