Discussion topics and tension abound these days in Europe: Crisis of migrants, Greek Crisis, “Brexit”, unemployment above 10%, sluggish growth, repeated strikes, questioning of Schengen space, scourge of terrorism, conflicts with Russia, Turkey and so on. It is undeniable that colonial Europe go through a bad time and it is known, people with loss of energy have easy nervousness such as their threat to block discussions on TAFTA (Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) also known as TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) or in French PTCI (Partenariat transatlantique sur le commerce et l’investissement). It is true that during the Cold War, the Europeans were pampered by Uncle SAM. Militarily, they were assisted in their defense against the Soviet empire and the economic weight of the assistance greatly supported by the US. On the commercial side also, the US is obliged to channel much of their trade with Africa via their representatives in Europe. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, points of reference have moved and the center of gravity of the world trade has shifted to Asia. So, for fear of being overwhelmed, the US had to adapt their policies by focusing their all-out efforts on the Asian region which allowed them to sign the recently TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) with eleven other countries Pacific Rim. Some Europeans considered this US shift, which contrasts with the past, as a treason and continue to voice their anger and frustration that they express more or less in a cryptic manner. They argue being afraid, when TAFTA is concluded, of the flooding of European market with the US chlorinated chicken. European consumers already scalded from so many health problems of food, are very receptive to the kind of creepy messages to which they react on edge. But this rejection of the innovation is not new in itself and has already been observed there a century ago when we came to chlorinate water for drinking. Today is the WHO which prescribes and all countries submit to water chlorination without problems. So, the European behavior is it merely a reaction to a powerful competitor because they are losing ground without knowing what to do to catch up? Some information would tend to support this view. First, it is no coincidence that the European recriminations regarding TTIP are mainly related to the agri-food sector. Indeed, for widely known considerations, agri-food sectors in Latin America and Asia are well advanced and have developed expertise they export around the world, what makes them escape the influence of some ill defined European standards. By cons, African countries, French speaking in particular, are still living under the stranglehold of French standards, a kind of yoke designed to attach them firmly to Europe via France. In these circumstances, the conclusion of a TAFTA would let Europeans be perceived as favoring commercial transactions according to US standards and there would be every reason for Africa in doing the same. This would probably be a fatal blow to the monopoly that colonial Europe continued to own for centuries on the African agribusiness sector. It is therefore likely that the discussions between the US and Europe drag on about TTIP without any conclusion on the horizon. Loopholes that may allow European saving time, where the EU has become Master, abound. The EU is gaining time for years now about the Greek debt in postponing every time the deadline to apply the appropriate solution (debt reduction) on which there is a global consensus. The EU also continues to postpone the imperative to sit on rational bases all its food standards in putting forward its precautionary principle every time they suspect that their competitiveness is undermined by the other powers of agribusiness world. With Africa, the UE plays to make preferential trade agreements with the unacknowledged purpose to win time. This is the case for ALECA (Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement) between the EU and Morocco. Under the agreement, Morocco should align its regulation on that of the European Union, in the food industry with regards this article, to enable a more open EU market, and therefore exporting more of its fresh and processed products. To this end, the Moroccan regulation of food safety and related texts perfectly fit the views of EU food law that apply to the agribusiness including the controversial precautionary principle. The enactment of the new law 28-07 in 2010 has further strengthened this convergence. Despite this, the trade balance of Morocco vis-à-vis the EU has continued to deteriorate. Interviewed some time ago about this, the leaders of the EU mission in Morocco have simply responded that needed more effort and more patience for ALECA to yield results. However, the implementation of convergence, which is costly to the state and businesses, was supposed to be accompanied by a significant reduction of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and other trade barriers for a better customs transit of our products export to the European market. The paradox, or the conjuring trick, is “with convergence” or not, many of our products are rejected for reasons outside the Codex Alimentarius. Indeed, most of the time, goods are rejected in relation to non-compliance with a criterion or another falling within the EU regulatory maze. It should be recalled that the Codex Alimentarius is the repository that the WTO uses to motivate his positions on agri food disputes between states. But apparently, this system is not good enough, or well enough, to allow the EU to lock, if and when they wish, doors of EU market for denying entries of African products without having to render account anybody. And what applies to the Moroccan ALECA “today will apply to another” African ALECA” tomorrow. The colonial Europe really needs to realize that the time has come for it to make a serious effort to break free of his procrastination which has lasted for too long in the eyes of its business partners worldwide.
The commercial decline of colonial Europe
