Report of Delegation to 5th Session of African, Carribbean, Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 31 March - 3 April 2003:
The African, Carribbean, Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) met as scheduled Brazzaville, Republic of Congo from March 31 to April 3 2003. As the meeting due to have been held in the European Parliament in November 2002 did not take place for reasons explained in our last report, the meeting in Brazzaville was styled the Fifth Session of the ACP-EU JPA. As usual this session was preceded by meetings of the ACP, of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure, and on this occasion by inaugural sessions of three new Standing Committees - on Political Affairs, on Economic Development, Finance and Trade and on Social Affairs and the Environment. The delegation consisted of Dr. Rob Davies and Ms Ntshadi Tsheole (ANC) and Ms Berenice Sono (DA). We were accompanied by Mr Saul Pelle of the South African Embassy to the EU in Brussels and Ms Nosisi Potelwa of the South African Embassy in Kinshasa (who is responsible for relations with the Republic of the Congo). Other staff made available by the embassy in Kinshasa provided logistical support.
After the drama resulting in the failure to convene the JPA in Brussels last November, the Brazzaville meeting was a largely routine and fairly low key occasion. Attendance on the part of European Parliamentarians was not good and, in fact, the European side was only just quorate. Apparently, there were clashes with other meetings of some of the main groups in the European Parliament.The ACP co-President, Mr Adrien Houngbedji, also did not attend due to elections in Benin. Mr Angelo Beda of Sudan, one of the ACP vice Presidents, stood in for Mr Houngbedji on this occasion. Ms Ntshadi Tsheole also stood in as rapporteur for the Working Group on Rules of Procedure for Mr Edgar-Yves Monnou, who was absent for the same reason.
The convening of the Committees, which took place before the convening of the plenary was largely procedural. We are a full member of the Standing Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade. The committees are due to convene for their first substantial working sessions in July. In order to avoid a re-run of the issue that led to the aborting of the November 2002 JPA - the determination of the majority of European Parliamentarians to exclude certain members of the Zimbabwean delegation from the European Parliamentary premises - the Committees will meet at ACP House in Brussels. Apparently for the same reason a long standing proposal that sessions of the JPA in Europe be held in the capital of the country holding the rotating Council Presidency will now be activated, and the next session, which will probably take place between 13th and 16th October 2003, will be in Rome.
The JPA coincided with the full entry into force of the Cotonou agreement on April 1st, following ratification by all European member states and sufficient ACP countries. Two ACP delegations that had still not ratified were denied voting rights at the JPA in terms of provisions of the agreement.
The Brazzaville JPA also took place against the background of the US-led war on Iraq. Both co-Presidents referred to the war in their opening speeches: Mr Beda of the ACP strongly condemned the US assault while Ms Glenys Kinnock of the EU side spoke in much more subdued terms, calling for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people to be paramount. While there were strong feelings among many MEPs, it was evident that there were also sharp divisions on the EU side on this issue. We were informed that the European Parliament had, in fact, been unable to agree on any position on war on Iraq. Mindful of this, the Joint Bureau agreed on a statement put to the JPA at the start of proceedings. This was very general, lamenting the loss of life on all sides. A moment of silence was also held. Many delegates, however, felt this was insufficient and the Bureau agreed to allow a debate. All ACP participants and a large majority of MEPs who spoke in this debate were strongly against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We took the floor to condemn the subordination of principles of multi-lateralism and international law to an approach that "might is right". We called for support for the continuing struggle for multi-lateralism and for the European Union to assert itself as a real alternative. We also called for vigilance to ensure that issues in ACP-EU relations were not marginalized by real concerns about the reconstruction of Iraq.
Ms Maj Britt Theorin of Sweden gave an input arguing that the invasion was an illegal action in terms of international law. Only Mr Martin Callan of the British Conservatives spoke in favour of the war. It was agreed not to try to adopt a resolution - which would in any case have encountered procedural difficulties in terms of deadlines for tabling resolutions. Instead, the JPA adopted a Declaration. The gist of this indicated that "a large majority" of the JPA "considers the war against Iraq to be in breach of international law" and "cannot be justified", but also noted that "a small minority strongly opposes this view".
Reports on the Cotonou negotiations (largely dealt with in statements by Development Commissioner, Poul Nielson, the Greek Presidency and the ACP council as well as in follow up debates and questions) point to a number of unresolved procedural issues as well as substantive differences in a highly uneven and unequal negotiating process. The Cotonou agreement provides for the negotiations to begin with a process involving the EU and the whole of the ACP before breaking up into negotiations for regionally based Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) involving separate ACP sub-regions scheduled to begin in September 2003. The ACP has indicated that it wants the "all ACP" phase to culminate in a framework agreement that would shape EPA negotiations (e.g. providing for a common approach to least developed countries) and preserve a degree of unity among the ACP. The EU, however, is much less keen on a substantial framework agreement and appears to be eager to embark on EPA negotiations with those ACP countries and regions that have indicated a readiness to begin. The issue of ACP unity is a critical one. Several speakers referred to the "humpty dumpty" nature of the ACP - once it is broken it will not be able to be put together again. Although there was more time available for discussion on the Cotonou and WTO negotiations than had been scheduled in Brussels, the delay in convening the Committees has meant that the JPA has yet to establish processes for systematic monitoring and engagement with these critical issues.
An interesting bilateral issue reported to the JPA is that Cuba has applied to join Cotonou without any pre-conditions. Cuba, already a member of the Georgetown agreement constituting the ACP, had previously found itself facing strong demands from the EU on issues of multi-party democracy.
Commissioner Nielson told the JPA that the Commission would recommend that the European Council agree to admit Cuba saying this would enhance the EU's cooperation programme and also create a basis for more effective political dialogue.
Many of the draft resolutions on thematic issues were the same as those tabled at the abortive Brussels meeting and dealt with issues like the International Criminal Court, Nepad, WSSD, coffee, sugar, rice, tuna and monitoring the WTO negotiations (the latter tabled by ourselves). These resolutions were all passed with little difficulty.
Resolutions on ACP regions and Europe (the latter focusing on floods and environmental management rather than political matters) were likewise fairly routine. The Zimbabwe question, however, was once again the subject of heated debate. The major European groups remained strongly critical of the Zimbabwean government and called for the firm application of EU sanctions against the country. A feature of the debate was that a minority of ACP delegations also joined in this criticism. They included delegates from Zambia and Botswana. The latter referred to a refugee center in his constituency, which he said was "full to capacity", and urged an investigation by SADC into the "serious problems" in Zimbabwe. Also notable in this respect was a strongly critical input from the representative of St Vincent and the Grenadines, who had been strongly supportive of the Zimbabwean government position at the Brussels meeting.
Four different resolutions on Zimbabwe were finally put to the vote. One, tabled jointly by the European socialist and conservative groups, was strongly critical and called for an intensification of sanctions. Another tabled by the Greens, with support from some opposition delegates from ACP countries, was similar but somewhat softer. The Zimbabwean delegation alone tabled a resolution arguing that the difficulties facing the country were entirely the product of the failure by Britain to honour its Lancaster House commitments. The fourth resolution, tabled by the United left group, regretted that a lack of respect for joint decision making had led to the cancellation of the Brussels meeting, called for dialogue between ACP and EU on problems relating to democracy and human rights, acknowledged the land issue and called for efforts to "break the deadlock" in the political situation in Zimbabwe. We, along with most of the ACP, supported the last resolution but none commanded the majority in both houses necessary to be adopted - after different groups called for split votes on each of them. We did not speak in the debate, but after the EU President noted that the JPA had no position on Zimbabwe suggested that the matter be referred to the Political Affairs Committee for a thorough debate on the issues as well as possible ways to assist the people of Zimbabwe to promote development and democracy in their country. This suggestion appeared to command broad support.
An interesting procedural issue arose during the debate on Zimbabwe. An opposition parliamentarian from Mozambique asked for the floor, and also signed one of the motions. The ACP co-chair ruled that he could speak if the leader of the Mozambique delegation agreed. The leader of their delegation said she had no objection if the rules provided for this, but the JPA should understand that he did not speak on behalf of the Mozambican delegation. This caused major confusion, which could not be resolved at the time. The role and status of opposition party members on ACP delegations, which have only one vote, has been referred to the Working Group on Rules of Procedure for further processing.
On the Friday after the JPA, as we were waiting for the return flight, we crossed the river and visited Kinshasa. This enabled us to pay a courtesy call on the embassy, and also to visit the South African military contingent attached to the United Nations Mission to the DRC (Monuc). The visit to the Monuc contingent by parliamentarians was, we believe, much appreciated by the troops we were able to meet.
The delegation feels, finally, obliged to make a brief comment on the original travel arrangements. We were initially sent via Luanda (with a 16 hour stopover) and Ponte Noire. Until noticed by us, no visas were obtained for Angola. Ntshadi Tsheole and Berenice Sono found themselves hassled at Ponte Noire, where no arrangements had been made for receiving delegates to the JPA. This detour led to the two Members arriving late for the ACP plenary. We subsequently discovered that there are several direct flights both to Brazzaville and Kinshasa, and in fact returned on these routes. While we appreciate the need for Parliament to economise on air travel costs by using air miles, we would also urge that decisions on routing should also take account of conditions on the ground, and that sending delegations on such round about routes should be avoided if possible.