In the years following the Second World War, an American employee who flew away for a month off in Europe could, on his way home, realize that he had saved money, compared to what he would have spent if he had stayed at home. America was then responsible for 50% of world trade. Many things have changed in the meantime, but the institutions of then, IMF and World Bank among others, are still the pillars that support the international exchange of a world that is no longer the same. The GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), renamed WTO (World Trade Organization) by the 1995 Marrakesh Agreement, is one of those multilateral treaties set up in the forties of the past century. The latter is mandated by the Power of Settlement of Commercial Disputes between States. At the time, America, the first power on all levels, had to be assured, in the event of a third-party dispute brought before the latter, that it had enough good cards to win a dispute hands down. This insurance, on which Americans have relied to promote global trade liberalization, is apparently out of date today. As evidence, this March’s USTR report states : “the WTO is undermining our country’s ability to act in its national interest … First among those concerns is that the WTO dispute settlement system has appropriated to itself powers that the WTO Members never intended to give it.”
The recriminations are deep, come from far and are illustrated, among others, in the agri-food sectors. For the settlement of disputes relating to these products, the WTO refers to the standards of the Codex Alimentarius. For several considerations, treated here and there in various articles of this blog, the EU has, as Bloc, ensured the control over norms codification within the workings of the Codex where they never forget to create loopholes, like the sacrosanct “Precautionary Principle“, which they do not hesitate to use as a Veto whenever they fear to be inferior in scientific terms.
Seen in this light, the EU has made itself invincible by the clever use of Codex rules. The other countries could not do anything against that. If we add to this the fact that the EU speaks on behalf of “28 + 1”, while each country has one voice, it is easy to imagine that standards (tools necessary for the WTO) must be blessed by EU if they are to succeed before any multilateral commission. This also irritates considerably and not only Americans. And, this is one of the reasons that led to the failure of the Doha Round and the difficult situation in which the WTO is now, ready to implode.
The foregoing helps to understand to a large extent the dependence of many African countries on the single European market. Indeed, many standards that allow access to the EU are carefully designed for this unique market. But to sell in other global markets, African operators must prepare under other rules and that’s where the shoe pinches. Indeed, the risk is to see their products, the next attempt to export to the “Bloc-European” market, refused for a reason “out of suspicion”. When the EU market, which absorbs seventy percent of your production, closes in front of you, it is indeed a mortal risk that nobody wants to take. Especially as the African operators go in scattered ranks (see below) and are therefore more vulnerable. The net result is a de facto and uncompromising monopoly of the EU over the wealth of the African continent.
As long as the EU seeks to remain firmly attached to what it considers to be its own (African market), for which it has developed a visceral attachment for centuries, there is little that we can do ourselves as African citizens to unravel this conundrum. But, the current standoff between the enemy brothers, EU and US, about the rules of trade, may bring a beginning solution. For considerations that the Americans have explained, they have introduced a new tax on steel and aluminum imports that will penalize EU exports to the big US market. America has also put in place exemption formulas for operators and / or individual countries that wish to do so. But the EU is keen on a definitive, immediate and unrequited exemption for all Bloc countries, which Americans are reluctant to grant them. The possibility of seeing this provisionally delayed taxation for the moment seems to be favored. As there is no precedent for this imbroglio, it is difficult to guess what will be next. Used to treating small African countries as it sees fit, the EU has finally found an opponent this time.
However, the most striking fact of the international scene today is the signature last Wednesday in Kigali (Rwanda), by 80% of the States (44) of our Continent, of a historic agreement, concerning the establishment of an African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). This goes in the direction of the adage that “One is never better served than by oneself”. Soon, this will allow for a “Bloc-to-Bloc” dialogue with the EU to remedy the current flagrant asymmetry that governs trade between our countries and those on the northern shore of the Mediterranean. In the meantime, it will be necessary to put in place the human and technical instruments to establish the credibility we need vis-à-vis our neighbors to the North. This will provide the robust expertise needed to defend the quality of our processed foods and their export profitably, for our operators and consumers, in the globalized market. The AEFS (www.aefs.africa) will, we hope all, be called upon to play a role in this aim for the strengthening of African-African expertise.
Needless to say, the aforementioned Trans-African Free Trade Project, a courageous and unprecedented initiative, is a unique opportunity that our leaders must seize to satisfy the Spanish saying: « la suerte golpea la puerta una vez, no debes dejarla escaparn » (Luck knocks on the door once, you should not let it escape).
