Kola Ibrahim argues that the new economic partnership agreements that are being proposed by the EU are driven by the old unequal economic relationships.

The new plan of the European Union to have economic agreements with her former colonies has not received much attention in terms of critical analysis especially by the civil society groups and trade union movements. However, those who have spoken on it have given some explanations on why it must be rejected. The issue is what alternative is available if the agreement is rejected. It should also be stated that as the negotiation of the agreement is going on, the WTO is also renegotiating with African countries in order to force the pill of economic enslavement that was earlier rejected at the Cancun Round in 2005. According to the letters of the agreement, African countries are to be given "preferential treatment" to European market for some of their agricultural products without restriction while the third world countries will also have to "gradually" open up their market for European business. Definitely, this market includes education, health and public utilities. Many African leaders have vaguely complained about the agreements but there is a consensus that the agreement will represent an advantage for the third world countries.

The agreement represents another way of rapaciously and legally exploiting the resources of the third world countries especially Africa where most of the population are living in absolute poverty. In the first place, the goods to be exported to European countries are mostly agricultural produce with little local content and market value while European countries will bring in finished goods which are high valued. This definitely means the continuous underdevelopment of the third world countries. Therefore, there will continuously be wide technology gap, increased trade imbalance and capital flight from the countries.

Secondly, most poor African farmers lack the infrastructure facilities to produce agricultural goods at cheaper cost as the transport system are archaic, modern storage system unavailable, farm equipments inaccessible while credit facilities are rare for tens of millions of poor farmers. This will mean that African countries will receive little pie of the market while local farms in Europe will massively and cheaply produce as a result of favourable technological and economic situations thus lowering prices in the market which will only benefit the big farmers who produce at cheap prices. Thirdly, as against what is being portrayed, the European countries will continue to subsidize their local farmers, especially the big business farms, which will mean economic disaster for the African countries most of whom depend on agricultural export for revenue.

Furthermore, the agreement gives right of access to European business in African countries. This means that there will not special treatments or consideration for government owned firms while social services should be open to competition without any special spending. It implies that state-owned firms will be under funded thus leading to their being bought over at the stock market or through wholesale privatization (that is to the European multinationals) while education, health, water, electricity, transportation will be totally commercialized and privatized for the market to have access. All this is meant to make labour cheap and flexible for exploitation. This process will result in retrenchment, high cost of accessing social services, rotting away of social services as a result of under funding and fall in living standards. It is a return to full scale neo-liberalism. All this is meant to give European firms a preferential access to African market at token as against the threat from other economic centres especially China, South East Asia and US. This is the real kernel of the agreement.

However, it is the rich big business of Europe that will enjoy this plan to rapaciously exploit the working poor of Africa. For instance, it is the rich farms (mostly owned by big multinationals in beverage industries) that are enjoying the subsidies being given by the European governments from the state resources that should have been used to provide better living for the poor in their countries. According to a 2005 report from Seattle to Brussels Network, titled "the European Corporate Trade Agenda", 15 percent of French farms (that is big business farms) received 60 percent of the European Commission's subsidies to France while 70 percent of small farmers received just 17 percent of the subsidies. It goes further to show that 70 percents of the EU subsidies goes to just 20 percent largest farms in Europe. These subsidies are in the final analysis going to the pockets of the big multinational firms such as beer and beverage companies that have big farms. These companies are also extensions of the world capitalist business with links to bigger firms through stock trading, bank loans and credits, etc. In fact, Oxfam reported that "farm income in UK has declined by more than 40 percent while France has lost half of its (small) farmers over the past 20 years".

Therefore, the so-called subsidies and economic agreements being negotiated by the European countries are basically on behalf of big business and not in the interest of the whole European working class. In fact, the movement of European big farms and industrial production to some third world countries is being used to drive down wages in developed countries as European working class are threatened with retrenchment employment movement and industrial relocation. Therefore, the imbalance trade agreement that favours privatization, commercialization and trade liberalization will neither favour the European working class as much as the poor people of Africa. Two third of the world trade is concentrated in just 500 big multinationals while the top 200 companies that account for one quarter of the world economic activities employ just 1 percent of the global workforce meaning that the rest are employed mostly by governments. Therefore, further attempt at handing over the economy to the big business through trade liberalization will lead to retrenchment and further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich few.

On the other hands, the African leaders are not much enthusiastic to confront this imperialist agenda because they depend on them for survival. For instance, most African leaders are sustained in power by big business in their various countries through political support and provision of liquidity from which most of these leaders get their “rents" through direct looting of the treasury or promotion of policies that will favour their personal economic interests. In fact, most African leaders have been integrated into big business with most of them coming from the private sector while most of their advisers and legislators are either businessmen or IMF/World Bank trained intellectuals who are seconded to the African leaders to give prescriptions of neo-liberal policies that will favour the multinational vampires that are the backbones of these multilateral financial institutions. Through shares, stock trading, merger, "strategic partnership", etc, local businessmen and politicians are linked to the world business; therefore, the local leaders cannot challenge it.

Also, career advancement for these IMF/WB advisers depends on how much they are able to ensure the implementation of these policies. For instance, the multilateral institutions have promoted the former ministers of finance and education in Nigeria, Okonjo Iweala and Oby Ezekwesili, after they have ensured the implementation of the neo-liberal economic pills of privatization, deregulation, commercialization and debt buyback fraud. Moreover, these leaders have practically nothing to lose in the agreement. For instance, most of the government subsidies to farmers through bank loans and fertilizers only go to the big farms that are owned for instance in Nigeria by ex-generals and politicians in power. With a smooth connection to the local and international markets they definitely have a lot to gain as they will have increased access to the European market at the expense of millions of local farmers and working people who will bear the brunt of economic enslavement and neo-liberal exchange for big business profits.

Therefore, the Economic Partnership Agreement is nothing but another attempt to colonize the African countries and indeed the third world countries in close collaboration with the local leaders and businessmen. A genuine agreement to help Africa and her poor people will mean massive development of infrastructures, technology and industrial capacities of the African countries by Europe with no strings attached. This will help Africa to develop its massive human, natural and materials potentials while the trade between various countries will be dictated by mutual interest to provide basic needs for the working poor. Capitalist businessmen, multinational vampires and their local collaborators cannot carry out this task who are ready to milk the poor dry in search of maximum profit; it lies in the hands of the working people of Africa, third world and indeed Europe by building a radical working people's party that will struggle for power and create a socialist economic planning where the massive resources of the society will be nationalized under the democratic control of the working and poor people themselves which will provide the resources for the massive development of the third world countries while laying the basis for a genuine trade and aid among nations. Leaving the fate of the working and poor people in the hands of the rich moneybag politicians is the tragedy of all time.

Many free trade agreements have been signed and enacted into law by capitalist governments at the back of the working people. This is because the working people in Africa and other third world countries do not have political platform of their own. This is why a radical, working class party is needed to champion the interests of the poor working people. The first task in this direction is to build a left alliance among labour activists, radical organizations, civil societies against this ruinous capitalist onslaught and demand for abrogation of all imperialist free trade agreements. This will mean building struggle movements at the grass root, local national and international levels against this agreement as a basis for the formation of a working class political platform. It is unfortunate that many official trade unions bureaucrats in many third world countries have accepted neo-liberal ideology. They only raise fingers when pressures from the rank-and-file workers threaten their positions. This places heavy duties on genuine working class activists to build a genuine alternative - through day to day interventions in the struggle of the working people for better deal - firstly within the trade union movements as a basis for building working class political platforms.

* Kola Ibrahim is a student activist from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, email: [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected]