REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

That sounds pretty watertight.
It is not that simple. The Commission may insist that the EPAs meets the requirements of Article XXIV of the GATT
– and Article XXIV doesn’t explicitly provide for special treatment of poorer countries. This doesn’t stop the
Commission from agreeing to provide special and differential treatment, but it must be prepared to defend that in
the WTO and the agreement could be struck down if another WTO Member challenged it.
“Making trade
arrangements
between ACP-EU
compatible with the
rules of World Trade
Organisation will
seriously undermine
sustainable
development in small
islands’ states, least
developed countries
and developing
countries in the ACP
region. National
parliaments further
have no say in what
governments commit
to in trade
agreements under
the WTO regime and
therefore national
sovereignty is
undermined.”
(Forum of Non-State
Actions, [Fonsa], 2002)
Surely the Commission would defend the need for special and differential treatment in this case?
The Europeans have a long tradition of great rhetoric about trade and development, and a very bad track
record of supporting measures that are meaningful. Ever since the WTO was created in 1995 poor countries
have complained that their needs are ignored. They say they didn’t understand most of the agreements they
were pressured to sign during the Uruguay Round of negotiations that created the WTO, and they can’t afford
to implement them. They have asked to revisit many of those agreements and for more time to implement others.
But promises to consider their concerns in the so-called Doha ‘Development’ Round have come to nothing, with
most of the deadlines being ignored. For similar reasons ACP governments have steadfastly resisted negotiations
on ‘new issues’ that the rich WTO Members, especially European Union, have demanded on behalf of their
transnational corporations.
Is the European Commission likely to give these words any more meaning than it does at the WTO?
The Commission’s behaviour at the WTO suggests that it won’t and that the fine words in the Cotonou Agreement
are just window dressing.
When Article 37.7 refers to WTO rules ‘then prevailing’ does it mean when Cotonou was signed in
2000 or when the EPA negotiations end?
That is being heavily contested, because the rules under Article XXIV are the subject of vigorous negotiations
in the WTO. The ACP has proposed a transition period of 18 years and more flexibility. The European
Commission and others say it is not necessary to change the rules, because current provisions give enough
flexibility. It is very unlikely that these negotiations will be over by 31 December 2007. If they are, there is no
chance that the changes being sought by the ACP will have been approved.
Aren’t the ACP and European Union meant to defend these Agreements jointly at the WTO?
The Cotonou Agreement requires them to ‘closely cooperate and collaborate in the WTO with a view to
defending the arrangements reached, in particular with regard to the degree of flexibility available’. The
Commission says this means defending a longer transition period on the grounds of exceptional circumstances.
The ACP and Commission also have a broader obligation to ‘strengthen their cooperation … by establishing
full and coordinated participation in the relevant international fora and agreements’; it is difficult to imagine how,
given they are on opposite sides on most issues at the WTO.
What does WTO-compatibility mean for Pacific Islands that aren’t members of the WTO?
That is a really serious concern. Only 3 of the 14 Pacific ACP States – Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands - are
currently WTO Members. Three more are negotiating to join – Vanuatu, Samoa and Tonga – and the first two
of those have reservations. That’s still less than half the total number of Pacific Islands involved in the Cotonou
negotiations. None of the rest is ever likely to join. Several African and Caribbean States are in the same
situation. But that doesn’t make any difference to the requirement for WTO compatibility. The WTO rules bind any
of its Members who enter into a new regional trade agreement on goods and/or services with another State,
even one that is not a WTO Member. So if non-WTO States become parties to an Economic Partnership
Agreement they end up being bound to implement the WTO rules. This has lead some to say they might as well
join the WTO, even if that will cripple them, so they have a voice at the table – yet that voice hasn’t helped the
ACP States that are already WTO Members. It is more sensible to treat this as a compelling reason for Pacific
Islands that are not WTO Members to steer clear of any Economic Partnership Agreement.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 29