One of the charges levelled against the Common Market by its 'left' Labour opponents used to be that it followed economic policies designed to perpetuate the imperialist exploitation of the 'third world'. However this charge is not heard so much these days, since the EEC recently signed a new deal which makes important changes in the terms of the economic relationship with the third world. Indeed a prominent left Labourite, Minister for Overseas Development Judith Hart, was an active participant in these negotiations.
But has the imperialist Common Market changed its imperialist spots? Or is it just that the 'left' Labourites, never having understood properly what imperialism was in the first place, simply cannot recognise it in its latest guise?
When the Common Market was formed in 1956 a number of its members still had important colonial possessions-notably France and Belgium in Africa. These colonies provided their masters with many essential raw materials for their industries, and acted as important markets for their exports.
If these colonies had been left outside the EEC and their products subject to import duties, this would have placed a serious additional cost on French and Belgian capitalist industry. So an arrangement was made that these "territories' could be 'associated' with the Common Market -their products would not be subject to the external import duties of the EEC, and in return EEC products were to be freely admitted to the colonies.
In effect this was an agreement that the EEC quathes would exploit the colonial possessions in common. They would acquire equal rights to purchase raw materials from the colonies and export manufactured goods to them. The colonies, of course, remained stuck in their subject EXPLOITATION ble concession on the part of the colonial masters EEC and its third world 'associates' was govlike France to open the doors of their possessions to competition from other EEC partners But in fact this was already well under way with considerable German investment and exports flowing into France's African colonies.
As the ruling colonial power, it was France which had to provide the capital (both public and private) to furnish the essential facilities necessary for this trade road, railways, ports, etc.), while West German capital reaped its benefits. At the same time France's shortage of capital (which was needed to revamp backward French industry to compete in the EEC) made it difficult to do this job adequately, so that the inefficiencies of the colonial transport system added to the cost of the raw materials imported by France.
Thus, as part of this agreement for common EEC exploitation of the colonies, a deal was made to provide common financing of the projects essential to imperialist exploitation.
A so-called "European Development Fund" was set up to do this, with France and Germany putting up 35 per cent of the cash each and the remaining EEC partners 30 per cent between them. ougar Deino retined in the Carinean (Report)
Judith Hart-helped negotiate Lome deal By 1960 most of these former territories had become independent, but a new agreement was negotiated-the infamous 'Yaounde Convention', signed in 1962-which kept most of the newly 'independent' nations linked to the EEC economically on basically the same terms that they had been subject to as colonies. A new set up under the Yaounde Convention, but once again the money in it was earmarked for those projects necessary for imperialist economic world prices in the way that the oil producers exploitation.
From 1962 until the entry of Britain into At first glance it might seem like a considera-| the Common Market, the relations between the erned for the most part by the Yaounde Convention (although a few late-comers, who had not been former colonies of EEC members, were able to negotiate slightly better terms).
The entry of Britain, however, posed a new problem, for Britain brought with her a series of her own former colonies with whom she had maintained 'special ties'. Thus a new series of negotiations were opened between the EEC and all these countries both old associates and potential new associates from the Commonwealth-leading, after 20 months of bargaining, to the signing of the Lome Agreement in February of this year.
LOME AGREEMENT The Lome Agreement is certainly an important document. For it links all the countries of black Africa south of the Sahara, along with a number of former British Caribbean and Pacific possessions, with the economy of the EEC.
Superficially the terms of the agreement might appear to be favourable to the third world countries. As before, their products (with a few Ground nuts being harvested in Senegal for export to Europe named exceptions) are to be admitted to the EEC market without import duties. In sharp contrast to the Yaounde Convention, however, the third world countries are not required to offer any special treatment of EEC exports in exchange. A new 'Development Fund' has been set up, this time containing four billion dollars:
1969 to 1975.
It is these features which have so confused the Labour lefts, and led them to accept that the Lome Agreement represents a step forward in the position of the EEC's associates'. But the Lome Agreement does not contain a single provision that cuts across the dominant economic interests in the imperialist countries of the EEC.
DEVELOPMENT FUND' All the agricultural goods given free access to the EEC market from the signatories of the Lome Convention are ones on which the EEC economies depend and which they themselves do not produce. The prospect of a deluge of cheap industrial goods from Africa flooding European markets is just not on. As for the provisions of the "Development Fund', 10 per cent of this amount will go to making up for any fall in export earnings by the third world associates in the face of falling world commoIdity prices.
The allocation of money for this end is not and larger -"European Development Fund' was at all self-sacrificing, for the alternative would be mounting pressure from third world commodity producers to club together and keep up have done: something which would cost the Moreover most of these countries are in hock up to their neck to the bankers and governments the EEC, while it would not end imperialism, of the imperialist world, with close to a half of total government spending going to pay interest i on these loans. So this 10 per cent will very rapidly find its way back into imperialist pocKeES As far as the rest of the 'Development Fund' is concerned, the 'benefits' that flow from it which the Lome Agreement expresses For imperialist, multi-national capital will be able to move freely behind the tariff barriers erected by the third world associates, to reap all the benefits of the new Development Fund", and to take advantage of import tariffs and cheap local labour to reap much greater profits four times what was provided in the period from than it could have gleaned from staying at home. While a measure of industrialisation will thus be brought about, it will leave the economies of the third world totally under the thumb of the multi-nationals, and bring little to the impover ished masses of these countries-except higher prices for their manufactures necessitated by the super-profits of the multi-nationals and the protectionist duties on imports.
Whatever is 'new' in the EEC's 'new deal' for the third world simply reflects the new economic interests of impenalism at the present time. The individual West European capitalist powers are now too weak to maintain their imperialisms separately at the level which is needed. Lack of intrastructure, lack of 'aid", fear of neo-colonial producers using their bargaining power, all necessitate new mechanisms of imperialist domination. Under the Yaounde Agreement France, Germany and the other EEC (states organised themselves to ensure more *efficient imperialist exploitation. Under the Lome Convention the same task is carried out in the new conditions of the 1970s.
IMPERIALISM
But the leopard has not changed his spots. Right from the beginning one of the roles of the EEC was to ensure that the West European capiimperialist countries much more in the long run. talists could stand together as a bloc to increase their imperialist exploitation. The destruction of would gravely weaken the position of the Euro pean imperialist powers and help to shift the relation of forces against the imperialist system as a whole. It is just one more reason why socia lists opposed the EEC, work for its destruction and oppose Britain's membership of it.