By Amandla Wadzingaire
The Cotonou Agreement was first signed in 2000 in Cotonou, Benin between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the European Union (EU); it is the predecessor to Lomé Agreement I, II,III, IV and Lomé IV bis. The transition from the Lomé Conventions to the Cotonou Agreement involved more than just a change of name. The Cotonou Agreement provides a number of innovative approaches to cooperation regarded as the three pillars, which aim to address more effectively trade cooperation, development cooperation and political cooperation of the ACP countries. Zimbabwe is a signatory to this Agreement as part of its pursuance of its national interests in support of the North-South cooperation development agenda.
Unlike its predecessor, the Lomé Agreements which were essentially trade and economic cooperation agreements; the Cotonou Agreement, expanded the ACP-EU cooperation into the political sphere, explicitly giving cognisance to issues of governance and respect for human rights as inseparable from economic development. This political aspect of the agreement was further strengthened, particularly through Article 96. Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement spells out that;
‘essential elements regarding human rights, democratic principles, rule of law, and fundamental elements regarding good governance……is obligatory to member states and appropriate measures are to be taken where necessary when flouted.’
With its emphasis on political cooperation as one of its major pillars, the Cotonou Agreement supportsthe respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law that both parties are committed to respect as enshrined in Article 96 of the agreement. Article 96 also has the scope for monitoring ACP member states democratisation processes and reforms to improve governance.
One of the pillars of the political cooperation aspect between the two blocs allows suspending aid in cases of repeated violations of human rights and Article 96authorises sanctions in cases where political dialogue fails. This has been used regularly by the EU as a response to coups d’états, election violence or violations of human rights in Fiji Islands (2000 and 2007), Zimbabwe (2002), the Central African Republic (2003), Guinea-Bissau (2004 and 2011), Togo (2004), Madagascar (2020) and Burundi (2015). Despite the above, certain provisions of the Article 96 on political cooperation have never been applied, for instance in the context were sexual and reproductive rights is mentioned, the issue constitutes a real weakness of the partnership agreement. In Africa, rights of the LGBT community have not been fully recognised; it is a conversation that multiple African states do not wish to engage in particular.
Furthermore, Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement provides for initiating trade restrictions, export and import bans as part of its appropriate measures on the third pillar of political cooperation. Zimbabwe, together with Burundi are among the countries that were put under economic sanctions and trade bans by the EU for bad governance and abuse of human rights especially during elections. For several years this has affected Zimbabwe and Burundi’s trade relations with the other ACP and EU member states, thereby failing to fully exploit the benefits of the Cotonou Agreement.
A major critique of the Cotonou Agreement is the framework’s suitability to tackle the current challenges facing the global world, the Agreement does not make provisions to respond to the dynamicchallenges that the world is grappling with, which include; the COVID 19 pandemic, Africa’s resource wars, migration, refugee situation and the fight against global warming and climate change. The Cotonou Agreement also does not address the challenges of achieving the Agenda 2063 framework for Africa in particular and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in general.
As such, the major critique of the Cotonou Agreement among development economists is that it is structured like a classical model for development;yet it is a tool for exploitation and does not effectively offer solutions to challenges affecting the global South cooperation with the global North. As such, it is this paper’s conclusion that the Cotonou Agreement cannot address the challenges of the ACP member countries effectively, despite the addition of a political pillar to the Agreement as enshrined in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement.
Writer: Amandla Wadzingaire – University of Zimbabwe Masters Student studying towards a Masters in International Trade and Diplomacy (MITD) with the Department of Politics and Governance, UZ, 2021.—