Proposition 52K0393

Proposition de résolution relative à la position de la Belgique concernant la date butoir des négociations des Accords de Partenariat économique (APE) entre l'Union européenne et les pays ACP.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 20, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

ACP-EU Convention ACP countries Lomé Convention World Trade Organisation resolution of parliament development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• André Flahaut (PS | SP) voted to adopt.
• Maya Detiège (Vooruit) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 13, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations of 4 December 2007 examined the proposal for a resolution by Ms. Wiaux, Boulet et Dieu and Ms. Wiaux. De Vriendt, Brotcorne, relating, among other things, to the postponement of the signing of the APE. Boulet, the lead author of the resolution, would like to recall that she had drafted it after meeting with delegations from ACP countries and representatives of NGOs.

According to Ms. Boulet, the signing of the agreements will weaken the agriculture of the ACP countries and deprive them of customs duties essential to their budgets. In the face of what she calls the European Commission’s untransigience, Ms. Boulet believes that only the postponement of the signature will allow WTO to obtain the extension of the current trade regime and the establishment of alternative formulas. It recalls in this regard the statements of European Commissioner Michel who recently acknowledged that some ACP regions were not sufficiently prepared to sign the agreements. It considers that the integration of the six zones is a prerequisite for opening markets to European products.

Despite adhering to the objectives of the resolution submitted, Ms. Muylle and Mr. Deseyn will propose, through a comprehensive amendment, to replace the text with that of the long-debated and unanimously adopted resolution in the Senate committee on November 8. by Mr. Moriau, on his part, proposes that a working group meet under the huitaine to reach a consensus. Although open to both advanced solutions, Mr. Brotcorne, the co-signatory of the resolution, considers it more refined and updated and reminds that bicameralism must not obey the independence of each assembly. A consultation is therefore indicated.

In view of the recent and consensual character of the Senate vote, the rapporteur considers that consistency should be given priority. Although he does not share the reference to the 0.7% rate to be allocated to development aid, Mr. Van den Eynde wants the overall amendment of CD&V to be submitted to debate.

By voting, which you will find the details in the written report, the proposal of Mr. Moriau and a sub-amendment by Ms Vautmans and your rapporteur are rejected. The committee having decided to take as the basis of discussion the overall and single amendment of Ms. Muylle and Mr. Deseyn, this will be adopted by six votes for and five abstentions; the amendments no. 3 to 9 of Mr. Brotcorne and Mrs. Wiaux become therefore without object.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as the rapporteur, whom I would like to thank for his report, has already pointed out, this proposal for a resolution aims to focus the trade relations between the European Union and the ACP countries more on the development of the ACP countries, especially when negotiating economic partnership agreements and regional relations of ACP countries.

We all know that the WTO exemption rule expires on 1 January 2008. This means that we should no longer discriminate positively against other developing countries. Now this is done by offering a more favourable trade regime. If we continue to maintain the Cotonou regime, we will end up in illegality, because our trade rules have not been adapted to the non-discriminatory nature of the WTO principles.

Now that we all know that we will not meet the deadline of 1 January 2008 for most regions, we must ask ourselves what scenario we want to follow. Open Vld is convinced that the strategy that the European Commission follows is the right one. The European Commission wants to ensure that at least an interim agreement is concluded with countries with which no EPA has yet been concluded, especially for goods. This agreement must be in line with the WTO rules.

Let’s be clear: even Open Vld would have preferred a full EPA. We believe that the conclusion of a full EPA should remain the final goal. However, depending on the circumstances, we must first offer the ACP countries an alternative to the general system of preferences and the related tariffs. For this reason, we supported the amendment of the colleagues of CD&V that replaces the original resolution with a consensus text that had already been approved in the Senate. There is no point in chasing an illusion. Delay is not an option, at least if we do not want to provoke compensation from the WTO that could have very negative consequences, both for European countries and for ACP countries.

For Open Vld, those interim agreements on goods are ⁇ not the end point. After all, the real goal remains to integrate the ACP countries into world trade. That is precisely why these Economic Partnership Agreements are an important instrument because they must be accompanied by a whole package of measures that stimulate trade, such as Aid for Trade.

The first problem of the ACP countries is not the accession to the European Union. Rather, it seems that these countries have too little to offer in the European market and in the global market in general.

Cotonou’s favourable trade regime has been in place for three decades. One finding is shocking: the share of the ACP countries in the total imports of the European Union from developing countries has decreased over the 30 years.

So let it be clear: the interim agreements are not the end point. The EPAs are not the end point. We urgently need to invest more in aid for trade and infrastructure. We must help ensure that the ACP countries also have something to offer to the world and that they can enjoy the economic growth in their own country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain an amendment, but I do not know if it makes sense.

You can do it now.

We have chosen today to submit an amendment again to the plenary session which was rejected in the committee. However, I remain convinced – together with colleagues Muylle, Crucke and Jeholet – that our amendment makes sense. In fact, we request to remove, in the dispositive point 3, the subsection that begins with “also for those ACP countries” and ends with “sign”.

Why Why ? On 1 January, the WTO exemption for European trade will expire. The EPAs that will ensure that the new trade relations take place in accordance with the WTO rules are not yet completed. Therefore, the European Union chose to conclude WTO-compliant joint agreements on trade in goods between the European Union and the ACP countries. The original text of the resolution indicates that ACP countries can still import duty-free goods into the European Union even without those joint agreements. This violates the non-discriminatory nature of the WTO principles and will have negative consequences for ACP countries. Therefore, together with Mrs. Muylle, Mr. Crucke and Mr. Jeholet, I have submitted an amendment to remove this paragraph, in fact to protect our ACP countries.

The floor is yielded to Ms. Boulet, who will also defend her amendments in her speech.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very precise report on the state of our discussions.

Dear colleagues, I know that the topic of economic partnership agreements is probably not the topic you are most interested in at the moment. You’re ⁇ crazy about the idea of having a government before Christmas and New Year’s holidays. Nevertheless, when we point the tip of our nose beyond our borders, we realize that the world continues to turn and that important steps have been made.

For ACP countries, the stage of economic partnership agreements is crucial and cannot be considered lightly. The conclusions of the last EU-ACP summit last week highlighted this.

The Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific constitute the economic and trade component of the Cotonou Agreement signed in 2000. These agreements provide for the liberalization of trade relations according to the principle of reciprocity between the six regions and the European Union, in compliance with the rules established by the WTO.

In the Cotonou Agreements, it is explicitly stated that development is the primary objective of the ACP-EU trade agreements and that negotiations must be conducted in accordance with the principle of partnership. The EAPs are defined as an instrument for strengthening the regional integration chosen by the ACP countries, promoting the development of South-South trade, attracting investments, diversifying economies and improving the conditions of access to the European market.

Other elements should also be taken into account in the definition of APEs. Each region should be able to participate in negotiations at its own pace and ensure full participation of state and non-state actors in a fully transparent negotiation process. It is also essential that such agreements are not concluded at the expense of fundamental rights, natural resources and food sovereignty.

The EAPs, therefore, aim, in the long run, to establish free trade between African countries and the EU but it is clear that African economies are far from being prepared, given their level of development and the low competitiveness of their products. The risk of destroying an economic community under construction in one of the world’s poorest regions is therefore high if one does not take care to take the time to integrate all its components.

The EU-Africa summit, which ended Sunday in Lisbon, highlighted the striking difficulties of African countries to respect the slow pace imposed by the Commission. José Manuel Barroso spoke of a historic meeting. The term he used probably finds its justification in the fact that African countries opposed the establishment of the EAP in a very large majority. The President of the European Commission has therefore had to deal with this reality and he is considering postponing the negotiations on EPAs as early as February 2008.

The Africans were therefore probably able to bend the meeting in the direction they had chosen. This was confirmed to us yesterday by our Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, who added that we are clearly moving towards a transitional regime. We need to know the nature.

In fact, the EU had told the WTO that it would comply with the rules laid down by the WTO on 31 December 2007 and that it would not. But since 2002, civil society and African states have continuously called on Europe to consider other alternatives or, more prosaically, to grant an additional deadline for their ratification, which Europe has never wanted to hear about.

This does not mean that APEs fall into depletion after this deadline, be assured! The European Commission will then have the duty to provide for another system or to maintain the Cotonou Agreements, which we prefer, if the EPAs are not signed. It will therefore be to consider a regime that responds to the willingness to treat African countries from equal to equal, as indicated in the new statement last week.

Our role today is to support African countries that have requested the postponement of the signing of the EPA. The Africans said they feared that the interim agreements already signed by the forceps would last, in which case their revolt would be futile, unless the policies of each European state come to the rescue of their African friends.

In Lisbon, Nicolas Sarkozy has already positioned himself in this direction by accusing Brussels of delivering Africans to the brutality of trade and suffocating the poorest countries, at the risk of triggering a feeling of injustice that will explode the world.

In the Foreign Affairs Committee, the proposal of Ecolo, Groen!, PS and CDH was replaced by a proposal from the Senate. We do not consider it to be completely unacceptable, since it has been co-signed by all. We are simply disappointed that it replaces a resolution proposal that was more precise, more ambitious and that had been drafted by us. We therefore decided to reintroduce amendments that would make the positioning of the House a little more clear. There are four and they are quite short.

The first amendment calls for the postponement of the signature, so this is our way of supporting the demand of African countries.

The second calls for the maintenance of a trade regime based on symmetry and fairness as mentioned in the Cotonou Agreement, as well as respect for the principle of food sovereignty. This is, in fact, essential in order to enable ACP countries to implement EPAs at their own pace, without jeopardising the necessary regional cohesion mentioned in those agreements.

Finally, the last two amendments emphasize the need for greater transparency in negotiations, involving the European Parliament and national parliaments and keeping them informed, within a reasonable time, of the outcome of the negotiations.

Therefore, it is these four amendments that we ask you to support, in which case we will vote in favour of the resolution.

Madame Boulet, let me congratulate you on your first “real” intervention in the Chamber!

(The applause )

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is obvious that the resolution we are proposing, regardless of the quality of the text contained therein, especially because it comes from the Senate, must draw our attention. Indeed, we are at the heart of what is an essential lever of the cooperation between the North and the South. This is the time to focus on how we can work effectively to ⁇ the Millennium Goals.

The EPAs were a way to ⁇ this goal. I would like, rather than hold on to the precise terms of the resolution that is submitted to us, to say in what way for the CDH – and for others too I imagine – this document is important. I will make three observations.

The first observation. Trade and development policies must be consistent. It does not appear that the EAPs, as they were proposed to ACP countries, offered such coherence.

The interest of the resolution is precisely to demand that the European Union seek alternatives to EPAs and that in any case, maximum flexibility be granted in the framework of negotiations. Everyone must be given time to be able to negotiate in perfect knowledge of cause and, if possible, with equal weapons.

If our Parliament votes this resolution, it will confirm that it has heard the African states. Recall that, most recently, the Secretariat-General of the African Union, by the voice of its representative invited to the Committee of Opinion of the European Union, has expressed exactly this request.

It seems to me that African states were heard in Lisbon. They asked the European Union to give them time. Although the conclusions of the summit as they are drafted may seem ambiguous, it is obvious that in speaking, Mr. Barroso, on behalf of the Commission, pledged to continue the debate and to resume negotiations in February next year. In this perspective, given this ambiguity but also our willingness to support the position of mr. Barroso, our resolution remains – I think – quite up-to-date.

That is why my group will not support the amendment that aims to destroy the resolution by removing its Article 3. In fact, this article seems to me still topical because it concerns especially the least developed countries of the countries concerned.

I come to my second observation. I think everyone is now aware that the European Union’s trade policy cannot harm the interests of the ACP countries and in particular the least developed countries.

In this sense, it should be recalled the crucial importance of agriculture if one wants to act validly in favour of poverty reduction and achieving the Millennium Goals.

We all know that the right to food is a fundamental human right. It is therefore normal and essential that the policies of the European Union, in particular with respect to Africa, including the Union’s trade policy, aim to strengthen this right. I would like to say that the recognition of the human right to food imposes on states the obligation to both respect, protect and facilitate access to food. However, it seems to me that States that have recognized this right show some inconsistency when adopting trade policies that will have negative consequences, which is the case for EPAs.

The EPAs can obviously not be used to flood African markets with low-cost European products, thus annihilating any idea of food sovereignty, local development and also industrialization of these regions. This is truly the basis for local development that is indispensable if we want to ⁇ the Millennium Goals and allow these regions to really take care of themselves.

And if, as European Commissioner Mendelson said, the EAPs are a good opportunity to integrate Africa into globalization, the countries concerned and even, among them, the richest of them, namely South Africa, have criticized the principle at the base of the EAPs which, to recall, is to dismantle tariff protections, to establish a perfect competition between the European and African economies which, in fact, are totally unequal. It must be said: EPAs are likely to contribute to accentuating economic imbalance rather than encouraging recovery. This is not really the type of north-south development we want to support.

The third observation. At a time when the European construction is about to take a further step in the coming hours with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, we Europeans should remember that when we established our Economic Union in Six, Twelve and then with other Member States, we first made sure to protect ourselves through customs barriers in order to ensure our economy a stable and sustainable development.

Today, one would like to make us believe that this type of model is no longer valid in a globalized or globalized society. Africa ⁇ cannot accept this kind of situation. It is necessary to remind the Commission, to remind each of our EU countries that, for Belgium and following the example of the construction of the European Union, regional integration is a prerequisite. In the specific case of the resolution that concerns us, the regional integration of the six ACP zones (Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific) must be a precondition for any opening to European goods. If one starts on the basis of these premises, then the objectives pursued for greater fairness in the trade relations between the North and the South will have been achieved, which is not yet the case today.

This is what the resolution that is submitted to our vote invites us, invites Belgium and invites, in the meantime, all its European partners.

As already cited by several speakers, the Committee on Foreign Relations last week discussed a draft resolution on economic partnerships. The draft resolution was submitted by colleague Boulet of Ecolo, for which I appreciate.

However, from our group, I myself submitted an amendment aimed at amending the entire text of the resolution, in the sense that the text would correspond to the text approved by the Senate several weeks ago in the plenary session of 8 November.

Colleagues, with this, our group does not want to undermine the autonomy of the Chamber, but we want to clearly signal that adopting resolutions can not be a goal in itself, but that if they are thoroughly prepared and discussed, and sound unisono, they have more impact than resolutions from the Chamber and Senate on the same subject but with a different political message.

This resolution is a good example of this. The CD&V Group in the Senate, together with the other democratic parties and civil society, has drawn up a draft resolution to give a clear signal to the government just before the vote in the EU Council of Ministers on 19 and 20 November.

We have therefore managed to have the consensus text approved in time and in that sense Mr. Boulet’s proposal was no longer up to date and it seemed appropriate for us that the Chamber would give the same signal in the substance, hence my amendment.

It was also clearly stated during the discussion that it would be possible today – whatever has happened – that the colleagues of the various political groups could put their own emphasis on this.

With this, colleagues, I come to the bottom of the matter. As far as my group is concerned, we advocate that the European Commission should adopt a more flexible attitude towards the ACP countries in the EPA negotiations and that it should take more into account the development dimension of the different countries and regions. To date, the preferential agreements did not meet the WTO standards. The WTO exemption, however, expires at the end of this year. Meanwhile, it is clear that not all regional agreements will be concluded in time and that the Commission has opted to conclude bilateral agreements.

We advocate not to undermine regional, economic integration in the ACP countries by concluding such bilateral agreements promptly. The system as predicted does not function as predicted. It is therefore necessary to seek a new type of agreement that is wider and has both a political and a developmental dimension. Regional integration should be at the heart of this. Regional integration will contribute to stimulating trade, economic growth and social development and is therefore also a driving force for peace and stability. There are two conditions for further development.

Also positively, in the resolution we advocate that, in the course of this negotiation, we continue to stick to the growth path to 0.7% of GNI. Developing countries should be able to take steps in a liberalized market, but many ASC countries still do not have sufficient capacity to do so.

“We will develop this equal partnership, based on the effective membership of our society, to ⁇ significant results in the light of our fundamental commitments, namely the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, the establishment of a robust peace and security architecture in Africa, the strengthening of investment, growth and prosperity through regional integration and closer economic relations, the promotion of good public affairs and human rights management and the creation of opportunities to shape global governance in an open and multilateral framework.”

These words are those of the Lisbon Declaration following the European Union/Africa Summit.

Those who are accustomed to the diplomatic language will understand that, behind these words, there is a profound rejection of African countries, given both the terms and substantive elements contained in the draft APE Economic Partnership Agreement. The words of Senegalese President Wade were clear during the closing press conference of the summit: "The African States reject the APE. We are no longer talking about apes. They were rejected. It is finished. When we meet, we will talk. The European Union will present EPAs; we will present something else.” It can hardly be clearer.

The resolution proposal that the PS, Ecolo and the CDH had filed went in this direction by not saying no to the APE but by requesting that the deadline of 31 December 2007 be postponed. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the exit of the summit: "We will again see if Europe can show itself more flexible," she told the press, adding that the date of December 31 was not engraved in marble.

Nevertheless, here, in this House, several parties (CD&V, MR and Open Vld) have preferred to abide by the minimum achievements embedded in a resolution, adopted almost unanimously in the Senate on November 8 last. But being blind is not wanting to see that since then, some things have changed, first of all, the EU/Africa summit.

Furthermore, what was a “minimum minimorum” in the Senate could not even be extended on other points than the deadline of 31 December 2007.

But for us, the concise resolution adopted in the Senate does not allow us to highlight some fundamental issues of these partnership agreements. No, we have preferred to sweep the proposal of resolution deposited on the banks of this Chamber with a back of the hand to replace the one adopted in the Senate, arguing for its balance and consensus. This is a missed opportunity. This is more than a shame, I would even say incomprehensible, unacceptable. At the same time the desire to remind that trade does not automatically bring development, at the same time the desire to remind the European Commission that such regional integration of the six ACP zones is a precondition for any opening to European goods, at the same time the desire to remind the Commission that negotiating a service agreement is not mandatory in the light of WTO rules.

Finally, and given the urgency, my dear colleagues, it seems to me indispensable, regardless of the text voted by this assembly, that the government hears this double message: first, it is imperative to postpone the date of 31 December and, secondly, it must be made clear to the Commission that in no case will Belgium accept that an ACP country is sanctioned in any way for not signing an economic partnership agreement on that date.

As a conclusion, let me make a final comment in the form of a message also to the European Commission. This has been observed by many observers: the negotiations conducted by Commissioners Michel and Mendelson give “the appearance” – this is the word used – of a certain chaos, ⁇ in recent weeks. One conclusion that can be drawn at this stage is that the main objectives of the EAP are not achieved: regional integration of the ACP is no longer foreseeable quickly, the financial prospects allowing the ACP to accompany economic turmoil related to the – even progressive – opening of borders to the European Union are not clearly established.

Finally, the only objective achieved by the Commission is the signing of the multiple economic partnership agreements including the WTO timetable. In the light of the signed agreements, it can also be found that all the flexibility offered by the WTO rules will not have been used. This finding clearly shows the predominance in these negotiations of commercial aspects to the detriment of development objectives.

In view of all its positions adopted in this matter for many years, the Belgian government cannot accept that such a hierarchy is adopted at European level. This was also the message of the submitted resolution.

I have three obvious points in mind.

First, no one will question the evolution of the world and trade relations. Among these developments are the Africa-Europe relations, the Cotonou Agreements – whose expiration date on December 31, 2007 is approaching – which some dislike – and the WTO rules that apply to all. Some, ⁇ more than others, will recall it as early as January 1, 2008. When I say “some more than others,” it is certain that certain ACP countries have experienced, surely and fortunately, a different development. The fact that a number of different levels of development must be taken into account is also obvious. It must be done in a sensible and progressive manner, knowing that a development is not imprinted by a theory but is made by a reality of the ground. This is what everyone is trying to work for.

Was it for this reason that the report had to be delayed? We answer clearly no! It is also for this reason that it seemed consistent for us to vote on the amendment proposed by Mrs. Muylle, namely the resolution adopted by the Senate. But it’s not just for that: Dear colleagues, a defensive message in this matter would not be good for neither the ACP nor for Europe.

It is not because the subject is difficult that we must be afraid of a number of frictions, differences, a will, of course, to succeed in the evolution but also to have a result at the key.

Secondly, a number of agreements have been signed. Of course, this is not an APE, but 15 interim agreements. These 15 interim agreements are not the application of what some thought to be liberalism at all levels. These are agreements in which the European market is open, without customs duties, without quotas and in which the signatories African countries open their markets, for some over a period of 25 years.

This is called progressivity, this is called taking into account differences, this is called allowing a growing, regulated, regular and constant development. Moreover, if budgetary resources are allocated to ⁇ this, I think that the 15 signatories were not forced to sign. But they did so because they adhere to the rules of competition and know that only this competition, through liberalism, will allow them to develop. This is the opposite of some conservatism.

Europe may bear a certain number of responsibilities, but not the responsibility to endure all evils. When we met this week with colleagues from Rwanda, they told us that what currently floods African markets are products "made in China" or "made in India" and not "made in Europe". It is a completely different path but it exists, it is present, it does not ask to negotiate or not to negotiate, it is on the ground, at the expense of the markets and local production!

Europe has chosen another path, but this path must also be firm if we really want to reach what I call progress.

Third, Mrs. Boulet, the postponement would have been a non-development bonus, a bonus for those who do not want to make an effort. I’m not saying that they are many, but I think that a number of them should also be reminded of their obligations. It is not the derogatory systems that will enable commercial and global rules to function more positively.

Madame Boulet, since you talked about Mr. Sarkozy, I will remind you what he said the day after the signing of these agreements, the day after these Europe-Africa meetings. To a journalist who asked him if he supported Mr. Wade, the President of Senegal who pleaded for a postponement, Mr. Sarkozy did not respond positively, but recalled "that we must avoid splashing Africa of its raw materials, that not all African countries are ready to accept a liberalism that would have the effect of no longer being able to produce anything at all."

Taking the example of Burkina Faso, the largest producer of cotton, which buys in euros and sells in dollars, the French president stressed the need not to suffocate such countries, pledged to leave a way of protection on a market where the brutality of trade deprives them of any possibility to get out of it. “I am for globalization, but not for a spoliation of countries that have nothing anymore,” he said.

It is in this sense, Madame Boulet, that we are registering within the MR and that is why we will effectively vote this resolution.