ABSTRACT
Following the conclusion of the Lomé IV mid-term negotiations, the European Union (EU) launched a so-called ‘Green Paper’ containing the EU’s ideas and proposals for a successor to the Lomé Treaties (EC 1996). The most radical proposal in the paper was the idea to split the African countries into a number of sub-regional groups and make separate trade agreements with them. Later, the agreements became known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). In retrospect, it is striking to observe that there were no reflections on security issues in general or any reflections as to whether some elements in a future trade agreement between the EU and the ACPs could have security implications. It is striking because, during the 1990s security issues attracted considerable attention not only from the Commission but from the Council of Ministers, too. As early as in 1993, the Commission started to scrutinize the new security challenges facing African countries in the wake of the end of the cold war (Landgraf 1998). At several Council meetings during the decade, the ministers discussed the security issue and in a number of meetings, declarations were issued stating the EU’s concern for the lack of stability in many African countries. It was the case at the European Council meeting in Madrid in 1995 and it was also the case in 1997 when a ‘Common Position’ was issued making it clear that conflict prevention was an EU priority (Landgraf 1998: 110). In the Council’s mandate for the negotiations on the establishment of EPAs, it appears that there was the same lack of reflection on the possible security implications of EPAs (cf. Council of the EU 1998). During the negotiations on EPAs, the focus seems to have been exclusively on the economic aspects of this new initiative. It is confirmed very clearly by the note issued by the Council’s General Secretariat on 15 May 2007. First of all, it states that EPAs are instruments for development. Next, ‘the Council emphasizes the close interdependency between trade policy, development policy, economic development, food security, good governance, democracy, rule of law and legal security and calls on the parties to strengthen coherence between these areas’ (Council of the EU 2007: 2). It is the argument of the chapter that security was not included in the negotiations as a separate issue between the EU and the ACPs because of the
departmentalization or the segregation of policy-making within the EU. Separation or compartmentalization of policy sectors implies that policy-making to a considerable degree takes place within rather narrow policy fields without much cross-sector contact and inspiration. Specifically, it is the argument that discussions and policy-making on security-related issues have taken place mainly within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and thus within the realm of the Council of Ministers. However, it has not only been within the Council that these discussions have taken place. The European Commission (EC)’s General Directorate for Development (DG Development) has increasingly committed itself to the debate arguing that there is a close link between stability and development. General Directorate for Trade (DG Trade) has the sole responsibility for conducting the negotiations on trade and thus, it holds the EU responsibility for conducting the negotiations with the ACPs on EPAs (Baldwin 2006). It is the specific argument in this chapter because of the departmentalization of policymaking, DG Trade deals with nothing but trade-related issues or more precisely with nothing but trade plus development-related issues. Therefore, the question of security has not been addressed in spite of the fact that the rest of the EU machinery has been involved in reflections and policy-making on such topics. Before embarking on the analysis, the next section presents the analytical framework focussing on the question of departmentalization of the EU’s policymaking and the consequent lack of coherence and coordination between the different EU sub-policy fields. It is followed by a brief presentation of the three policy debates which have characterized the EU’s relationship to Africa in the post-cold war era. The empirical analysis falls into three sections. First, special attention is given to the initiatives launched within the framework of the CFSP and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). It is followed by a separate analysis of the development assistance policy. Finally, the policy debate on EPAs is presented with an emphasis on scrutinizing a number of secondary sources in order to check if they contain any references to security-related issues. The conclusion returns to the core question of the chapter.
