以後殖民主義檢視二十一世紀歐盟與非加太國家的跨區域經濟夥伴關係

Abstract

回顧過往探討發展政策的文獻，可以發現使用後殖民主義作為視角的文獻相當稀少，這是因為後殖民研究與發展研究在本質上差異甚大的緣故。本論文旨在結合兩種研究，使用後殖民主義來檢視發展政策。而全球發展領域中重要行為者之一歐盟，其對非洲、加勒比海與太平洋國家的發展政策可謂歷史悠久，而2000年後雙方簽訂的《科多努協定》（Conotou Agreement）又以經濟夥伴關係協定作為重點之一。因此本文以歐盟對非加太國家的經濟夥伴關係作為檢視對象。 本論文第二章以後殖民主義和發展研究之匯流作為闡釋重點。把後殖民主義三大家薩依德（E. Said）、史碧娃克（G. C. Spivak）與巴巴（H. Bhabha）的重要概念放進發展研究。第三章則從歐盟對非加太國家的發展合作政策切入，介紹雙方簽訂的《科多努協定》，此章小結則用後殖民主義檢視延續傳統與變遷之處。第四及第五章則進入西非國家經濟共同體與太平洋區域的案例，皆用後殖民主義針對經濟夥伴關係協定談判的過程進行檢視。第六章則先比較歐盟和兩個區域的談判過程後，再針對歐盟推動與非加太國家經濟夥伴關係協定之政策提出結論。 本論文認為歐盟對非加太國家的發展合作政策中，仍存在許多後殖民主義欲批評的地方，不論是從大原則的角度或從具體政策來看，都會發現其欲普遍化源自西方文化的概念之做法，或在談判經濟夥伴關係協定的過程中，存在著二分、切割他我的思維、對於政策對象的需求無感，或是利用區域的劃分來進行雜揉化策略等。因此，後殖民主義應該持續對歐盟對非加太國家的發展合作政策提供建議，以避免論述暴力在一片祥和中重複地出現而未受注意。

The current framework of the development cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries is the Cotonou Agreement. It focuses on the Economic Partnership Agreements, EPAs. Therefore, this thesis takes the EPAs between the EU and the ACP countries as the object of study, taking the perspective of postcolonialism, which is not often seen in development studies. Chapter 2 focuses on the convergence of postcolonialism and development studies. Chapter 3 deals with the Cotonou Agreement and offers a postcolonialist analysis of the principles in the Agreement as a broad picture before entering the EPAs. Chapter 4 and 5 are the case studies on the Economic Community of West African States and the Pacific Islands Forum. Both focus on the postcolonialist analysis of the negotiation process of the EPAs. The final chapter concludes with overall remarks on the analysis. The development policy of the EU tries to universalize those principles whose origins are in the western cultures. Even when the thesis goes deeper and more specific into the negotiation of the EPAs, it finds out dichotomies still exist, the EU hasn't been open enough to listen to its partners, and uses the hybridization strategy to divide and rule the ACP countries. Thus, the postcolonialists should stay alert to the discourses of the EU’s development policy and only then can they prevent the discursive violence from repeating itself unnoticed.