The past few weeks have seen a heated debate about the merits of an economic deal between the European Union and the East African Community, known as the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).

The debate also sucked in some European diplomats in the region; with all telling us how good the deal is; why our leaders should sign it and the consequences of not doing so.

Among senior East Africans however, there is no consensus. The most outspoken critic of the deal so far is former Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa. On the other side of proponents are the likes of Betty Maina, Principal Secretary at Kenya’s Ministry of Trade and East African Affairs.

Due to lack of consensus, the EAC heads of state meeting in Dar es Salaam agreed to stay the signing of this agreement and requested for a three-month extension.

Kenya and Rwanda had already signed the agreement then. The deadline for signing was supposed to be October 1 but the EU has already granted an extension.

Admittedly, there might be plausible reason to delay signing; if not for anything else, at least for inquiring into whether the EU we know today will still be the same tomorrow in the wake of Brexit and rising right wing parties across Europe.

What does the disagreement among our leaders tell us about the EAC as a community, our ability to act jointly and plan development?

From what some leaders have said and done, the deal tells us three things. First, that while every leader professes support for the EAC as a community with some even promoting the idea of a political federation “now,” at heart, most are still nationalists and looking out for their “local” rather than regional economy.

Correspondingly, the EAC seems a community only on paper rather than in the actions of its leaders. Finally, there seems to be a lack of collective development plan for the region and a disconnect between top leaders and their technocrats who negotiate deals.

Let us explain.

First, when one listens carefully, neither those who have signed nor those who haven’t put forth an “East African explanation.” They largely tell us what the deal does to their nations rather than to the EAC.

Yet, we are told, this is an EAC-EU economic partnership deal! So, if I may ask, “What makes it an EAC deal?”

Secondly, for the EPA deal to be effective, Burundi and South Sudan aren’t required to sign. This is because the EU sanctioned the former and wants her and the latter to put their houses in order before they can be re-embraced.

A casual observer would view this as fair, considering what’s happening in both countries. And, of course, EAC member states haven’t objected to this approach —except for Burundi, saying it won’t sign the agreement even when it wasn’t required too!

In broader terms however, there is no way EU can claim to be dealing with a “community” of six countries and then unilaterally decide who shouldn’t sign on the basis of bilateral disagreements. Since EU sanctioned Burundi as a sovereign state rather than as an EAC member, it’s belittling to the EAC as a “community” for the sanctions to be “imported” into the deal without its consent.

But it also tells us something about the ability of the EAC to effectively negotiate things as a respected, clear eyed and united bloc. Further, that leaders called for more time to read the agreement seems agreeable. However, when you consider that the agreement took over a decade to conclude, you wonder where leaders have been all this time and whether they are briefed by their technocrats who negotiate such deals.

But friends familiar with EAC affairs tell me that claiming “limited” knowledge about an important thing isn’t new nor isolated for even in the Burundi crisis, some leaders, when the conflict broke out, claimed they came to know about it late yet the EAC Secretariat had confidentially informed all heads of state about what was going on and what needed to be done.

And that our leaders aren’t consensually sure whether opening up the region’s market to European goods would be better than closing it for local industries to grow isn’t a sign they know or have a collective development vision for the region.

Christopher Kayumba, PhD. Senior Lecturer, School of Journalism and Communication, UR; Lead consultant, MGC Consult International Ltd. E-mail: [email protected]; twitter account: @Ckayumba