The lomé convention: Towards perpetuation of dependence or promotion of interdependence?

Abstract

The conclusion on 28 February 1975 of the Lome Convention between (the original forty-six risen to sixty) African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states, and the nine European Economic Community (EEC) nations has no doubt been an important event in world development cooperation. This Convention was intended to symbolise a new era in relations between industrialised countries of Western Europe and the Third World an era in which there would be a real cooperative partnership between the two parties. Hence Lome has been hailed by many observers as a prime example of successful North-South cooperation. The scheme is much more comprehensive than either the Yaounde Conventions of 1963 and 1969, or the Arusha Convention of 1969 covering as it does a greater number of issues and for the first time bringing together into a single negotiating bloc a group of developing countries with widely differing cultural, geographical, and political backgrounds. The Lome Convention has, however, provoked a varied reaction'ranging from the positive and laudatory to the negative and critical.' Its merits and demerits have been a subject of continuing debate among scholars in recent years, some of them commenting favourably on the benefits that will accrue to the ACP countries from 'the willingness of EEC member states to pursue policies helpful to these countries.' William Zartman describes Lome as 'a welcome development', and as the latest step in a slow historical process from colonial domination towards mutual cooperation and equality.' Isebill Gruhn similarly sees Lome as a progressive document which constitutes an 'inching towards interdependence'.2 While attempting to offer a balanced evaluation of the Lome regime, Ellen FreyWouters would tend toreflect this view in her recent study when she emphatically concludes that the Lome Convention 'is more than an enlargement of old colonial links' as it 'marks a step forward toward a new system of relations' between the EEC and ACP countries. This relationship, she remarks, 'can no longer be characterised as neocolonialist.'3 On the other hand, a growing number of critical scholars have sought to mute such enthusiasm by arguing that whilst Lome may appear to be progressive to the