Economic relations between the EU and ACP countries have a long tradition. After Yaoundé
conventions in the 1960s, 1975 the first Lomé Agreement was established between ACP
countries and EC member states. Between 1975 and 2000 EU and ACP countries ran four
subsequent Lomé conventions replaced by Cotonou agreement now. Lomé was concerned to
be an agreement providing ACP countries better access to European markets in order to push
economic development and build up domestic production. The emergence of WTO in 1995
changed the regulatory framework for regional trade agreements in such a way, that Lomé IV
could not pass into a fifth version. In order to be compliant with WTO measures, a new
agreement was worked out 2000 in Cotonou. It came into power in 2002.
The complete establishment of that treaty it is still far from becoming reality, as a
considerable number of ACP countries have still not negotiated EPAs. A crucial issue in these
negotiations is the division of ACP countries in six groups for regional EPAs. This division
does not merge with other regional trade and political networks in Sub-Saharan Africa and
does not include all ACP countries.
With ‘good governance’ having emerged as a ‘vital’ issue in international politics and
especially in EU’s agenda, a relevant number of non-economic issues found their way into
Cotonou agreement. By linking trade agreements and development aid with the spread of
European or Western democracy ‘standards’ those different fields were brought into contact.
The major question of the following research shall be, whether EU trade policy towards ACP
countries is supposed to be an instrument serving the diffusion of human rights and democracy
or rather a ‘smoke screen’ for a hidden economic agenda.
This research will work with different approaches rooted in political science following the
basic assumption EU-ACP cooperation has always been a political relationship. In the
following theoretical chapter (neo-)realist interpretation will be put in contrast to Ian Manners’
‘normative’ power approach using Lisbeth Aggestam’s framework of role model theory.
Further on, the research chapter will discuss characteristic matters of EU-ACP relations and
put into focus chances and perils of conditional economic cooperation and development aid.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 ROLE MODEL THEORY
2.2 CONCURRENT THEORIES
2.2.1 EU AS A REALIST ACTOR
2.2.2 EU AS A NORMATIVE ACTOR
3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
3.1 THE NATURE OF EU-ACP RELATIONS
3.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR ACP COUNTRIES WITH FOCUS ON AFRICA
3.3 WTO COMPLIANCE AS A ‘REALIST’ ELEMENT
3.4 POLITICAL CONDITIONALITY AS A ‘NORMATIVE’ ELEMENT
4. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
The research examines whether the trade policy of the European Union towards African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries primarily serves as a genuine instrument for the diffusion of human rights and democracy, or if it functions as a superficial "normative" facade to mask underlying economic and strategic agendas.
- Analysis of the European Union as a "realist" versus a "normative" international actor.
- Evaluation of the transition from the Lomé Conventions to the Cotonou Agreement and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
- Investigation into the impact of WTO compliance requirements on EU-ACP trade relations.
- Assessment of political conditionality and its role in democratization and development aid.
- Critical review of the effectiveness and sincerity of the EU’s "partnership" discourse in practice.
Excerpt from the Book
3.4 POLITICAL CONDITIONALITY AS A ‘NORMATIVE’ ELEMENT
Cotonou agreement is accompanied by some paradigmatic shifts in EU-ACP relations. Alongside to WTO compliance, a major point is the political conditionality.
Combining economic agreements with genuine political topics is not a completely new feature of Cotonou agreement. The great change concerning Cotonou is that, “politics is now at the centre”90, at least regarding the ‘legal constitution’. In the framework of ‘aid’ emerging as a constantly more important issue one can clearly see the outcomes of linking ‘cooperation’ to non-economic topics. Basically the EU tries to enforce the democratization by providing aid to specific initiatives and campaigns in this field, but also by sanctioning violations91. Whereas the first part of this strategy appears to be a promising approach, Raffer criticizes that “all demands subsumed under political conditionality are fairly opaque, and the EU is largely free to decide what it considers a breach of obligations with regard to essential elements”92. This will obviously be the case, as Cotonou agreement text does not precisely define, when and how the principles of democracy and good governance are ignored and Article 96 (2b)93 allows the use of an immediate sanction with reference to Article 9 assessing that (t)he Parties refer to their international obligations and commitments concerning respect for human rights. They reiterate their deep attachment to human dignity and human rights, which are legitimate aspirations of individuals and peoples. Human rights are universal, indivisible and inter-related. The Parties undertake to promote and protect all fundamental freedoms and human rights, be they civil and political, or economic, social and cultural. In this context, the Parties reaffirm the equality of men and women.94
Apart a gender-related statement at the end, any kind of definite expression of the nature of ‘human rights’ or ‘fundamental freedoms’ is missing. ACP countries thus face a scenario where the EU might measure the fulfilment of these principles with bias-suspicious indicators like “the holding of elections”95 and by this enabling superficially democratic regimes to rule in an environment characterized as ‘“low-intensity’ democracy96.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the historical context of EU-ACP relations, the transition from Lomé to Cotonou, and the core research question regarding the EU’s true motivations.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Explores role model theory and contrasts (neo-)realist interpretations of power with Ian Manners' conceptualization of the EU as a normative power.
3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH: Examines the practical implementation of EU trade policies, focusing on regional EPAs, WTO compliance, and political conditionality in development aid.
4. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes findings to suggest that the EU often acts as a realist power, using normative rhetoric as a strategy to secure strategic economic and commercial interests.
Keywords
European Union, ACP countries, Cotonou Agreement, Economic Partnership Agreements, Normative power, Realism, Foreign policy, Development aid, Human rights, Democracy, Political conditionality, Trade policy, WTO compliance, Hegemony, Neo-Gramscian.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper evaluates the nature of European Union Africa policy, specifically investigating whether the EU acts as a "normative" promoter of democratic values or as a "realist" power pursuing strategic economic interests.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The study covers the evolution of EU-ACP trade agreements, the role of international organizations like the WTO, the application of political conditionality, and the critical tension between official rhetoric and concrete foreign policy outcomes.
What is the central research question?
The research asks whether EU trade policy toward ACP countries is a genuine instrument for spreading human rights and democracy, or if it serves as a "smoke screen" for hidden economic agendas.
Which scientific method is employed?
The author utilizes a theoretical framework based on role theory and (neo-)realist concepts, contrasting them against the "normative power" approach to analyze empirical findings within EU-ACP relations.
What specific topics are covered in the main section?
The main section details the shift from the Lomé Conventions to the Cotonou Agreement, the implications of regional EPAs for African nations, the necessity of WTO compliance, and the impact of political conditionality on governance.
Which key terms characterize this research?
Key terms include Normative Power, Realism, Cotonou Agreement, EPAs, Political Conditionality, and EU-ACP relations.
How does the author interpret the concept of "partnership" in the Cotonou Agreement?
The author argues that the term "partnership" is frequently used for rhetorical purposes, noting that the reality of the relationship has become so unequal that the label can be understood in an Orwellian sense.
What does the author conclude about the EU's role as a "normative power"?
The author concludes that the EU behaves like a realist actor seeking to expand its power and economic benefits, while using "normative" action as a secondary strategy only when it does not interfere with its primary strategic interests.
- Quote paper
- Christoph Vogel (Author), 2009, The Africa Policy of "Normative" Power EU Considering Cotonou Agreement and Promotion of EPAs, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/181556
