EU attempt to erase sovereignty of 79 countries, reminiscent of WWII
By Janet Kari
1 “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. – John 16:1-4a
16 Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so God can heal you. When a believing person prays, great things happen. – James 5:16 (New Century Version)
The actions of the European Union (EU), through its New Partnership Agreement (NPA) with 79 independent sovereign nations from the African continent, Caribbean, and Pacific islands (known as the Organization of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States – OACPS) should remind many historians of the reasons the world went to war with Germany after it invaded Poland. In the year 2000, the EU and the 79 member states signed a 20-year trade agreement known as the Cotonou Agreement of Cooperation. It expired in 2019′ it has taken three years of negotiations and creation of councils and other manipulative actions to get to the NPA. Many people in the 79 countries sat on the edge of their chairs as the votes were being cast.
Citizens and other sympathizers are concerned because the NPA has been created and will by the signing of the 79 led to a political takeover, where decisions about their people will be made in European capitals. If this appears to be familiar, it is because it is, this is how many of the 79 countries were managed as colonies. The NPA is a 20-year political and legally binding document that in essence the signees will be signing away their respective country’s freedom and sovereign statuses.
By their signatures, the countries among the 79, will bind their countries to vote at all international forums as a block with instructions coming from the EU. And thus, the 27-member EU will transform into a 108-member voting bloc, coming second to the G-77 and China; although the G77seldom votes as a bloc.
On Wednesday this week, four members of the 79 jumped high and gave their NO vote. These were Jamaica, Namibia, Nigeria, and South Africa. Prior to the No vote on Wednesday, Namibia highlighted an 8-point rationale for its objection to the NPA in its current form. These are:
1. The Treaty does not have a glossary of terms or a definitions section, to ensure that all parties have the same understanding of terms, which may pose a problem in the implementation and evaluation phase;
2. The NPA refers to over eighty (80) regional and international treaties/strategies/initiatives and programmes that may not be legally-binding agreements or processes, and our country may not necessarily be a party to. Having these provisions in the legally-binding New Partnership Agreement may elevate non-binding agreements/strategies/ initiatives, programmes and processes to a legally-binding position or a treaty status;
3. The New Partnership Agreement refers to commitment to the full and effective implementation of FUTURE outcomes of Beijing and ICPD review conferences that may bind Parties to future processes and outcomes that cannot be predicted at the present moment;
4. In Article 49 of the African Protocol, the draft New Partnership Agreement calls for the destruction of (ivory) stockpiles in the context of combating wildlife trafficking under CITES, a position that contradicts Namibia’s national position as well as the SADC Common Position on the matter;
5. The EU Party unilaterally removed the provisions for declarations in Article 6 of the New Partnership Agreement, even after negotiations were closed. It is normal practice when concluding international treaties, that provision for declarations would be made in the text, so that a State may make a declaration about its understanding of a matter contained in or the interpretation of a particular provision in a treaty. The purpose of the interpretative declarations of this kind would be to clarify the meaning of certain provisions of, or the entire treaty;
6. The New Partnership Agreement does not include a provision/clause/article for reservations;
7. Additional aspects of the NPA also raised concerns, in particular Article 97, which states that “No treaty, agreement or arrangement of any kind between one or more Member States of the European Union and one or more OACPS Members shall impede the implementation of this Agreement.”
8. Article 101, particularly Sub-Article 7 provides that appropriate measures” shall be taken against a country that is fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.
Based on these observations the Republic of Namibia Government informed the EU at the beginning of the negotiations, that Namibia would not sign the draft NPA in its current form, if the identified concerns were not addressed. Come Wednesday November 15, 2023, during voting time, Namibia cast its No vote.
The executive director of Christian Council International (CCI) Henk Jan van Schothorst, told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) that the 20-year ACP-EU Agreement slated to be signed, imposes demands on African, Caribbean and Pacific states, such as legalising abortion, decriminalising same-sex intimacy, and introduction of comprehensive sex education for children. These are contrary to traditional moral values with the 79-member states. These value themes are categorized as human rights by the NPA.
Keen observers of human rights point out and in bold letters that the EU and its allies are very, very undemocratic; they are as manipulative as they are exploitative.
The actions of the EU are contrary to the pillars of human rights: overpowering sovereign nation states. What they plan to achieve in the NPA is not different from what the world went to war with Germany in World War Two when Germany invaded Poland. In 2023, the EU attempted to invade the 79 Member States of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Sovereign States.
As we went to press, our fervent prayers were that the Malawi delegate and those from the remaining ACP countries, would pile up on the NO to NPA aisle, and give the NPA a resounding Death by No Vote sentence (DNV),until all parties contribute to all its elements, and are pleased with it, to own it; and without and entity taking over the sovereign rights of any nation or interfering with the ACP countries chosen and preferred traditions.
m
