|
|
| |
| |
Editorial
01/2007 |
|
Miracles
The European Union is a miraculous institution. Rooted in the ashes of the Second World War, it accomplished peace and unprecedented prosperity. Western Europe became a rich region, which many people from poorer parts of the world even consider a kind of earthly paradise.
The EU has yet to make that sort of wonder happen in the Eastern European countries that have only recently acceded. No doubt, the prospect of membership helped to bring about reform and progress in many of them. Now, however, the EU is stuck in an expansion-induced crisis. It did not win approval for a new constitution, and thus failed to create the institutional base it would need to stay capable of action as a community of 25 countries. In the old member states, there is growing concern that the glory days might be over for good; and in the new member states, the fear is spreading of staying second-class partners in the long run.
For poor countries elsewhere, the EU has proved even less of a miracle-worker. Only few former colonies of EU members became prosperous. Official development assistance has made no difference in that respect, in spite of all the EU’s special efforts over decades to support countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). Founding members of the EU, after all, had shaped those countries’ history.
As far as world trade is concerned, the EU’s track record is particularly inglorious. Together with the United States – the other giant in the World Trade Organisation – it bears most of the responsibility for the Doha-Round talks on fair global rules having stalled. Negotiations were shelved last summer because the rich world refused to compromise, putting its own interests above the common weal.
As a consequence, world trade is now done according to the “spaghetti bowl” model. There is a multitude of bilateral and regional deals, and the complexity of rules is becoming ever more confusing. It is hard to tell who can trade what with whom on what conditions. Such complexity always puts weaker partners at a disadvantage. Strong competitors, after all, are better equipped to process floods of information. It is telling that both EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and US Trade Representative Susan Schwab favour bilateral agreements.
That is not to say, however, that regional integration was pointless. On the contrary. The EU is living proof of such policies working. Integration opens up additional opportunities for small economies; and coordinating demands boosts the international negotiating power of governments. Poor countries need to band together if they want to stand up to powerful ones.
In the year 2000, the EU promised the ACP countries economic partnership agreements (EPAs). It insists such deals are in the interest of the poor and include help, too. On the other hand, globalisation-sceptics sense deception. Politicians from the ACP countries rarely comment on the matter. Many still seem to be wrestling with the complexities of the issue. They would be ill-advised, however, to heed the NGO-led “Stop EPA” campaign, by rejecting the agenda out of hand. In all probability, that would also put an end to their efforts to strengthen cooperation with neighbouring countries.
Poor countries that form regional groupings should not expect miracles from donors. But they may do some magic themselves. Teaming up to demand fairness with one voice would be a promising start.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief of D+C Development and Cooperation/E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
|
|
