Image by Nationnews.com
The buzz issue in the Caribbean media in recent weeks is whether the CARIFORUM members will sign-on to the CARIFORUM/EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica, St. Vincent and maybe a couple others have been supportive of the EPA. President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana has been a vocal critic and in recent weeks, he has been able to entice St. Lucia, Grenada and a few others to join his choir. CARIFORUM to many looking on appear to be waffling on the deal, and looking stupid by the day.
The question which ordinary citizens must be puzzled about it what would have caused the about turn by so many Caribbean leaders? As recent as July 2008 in a joint communiqué issued after the CARICOM summit the leaders were ready to sign the EPA. In recent days we now hear that a meeting is planned to be held in Barbados after CARIFSTA to discuss a revised position? Could it be that the people have only just started to understand the ramifications of sign-off? Could it be that enough time was not provisioned between final EPA Agreement and sign-off? Could it be that…
The most insightful observation by a Caribbean leader concerning the EPA we attribute to President Jagdeo:
We have always resisted this. We thought that this would be problematic because they’re breaking the traditional ACP solidarity that we had, and you know with solidarity comes strength, especially with negotiations and secondly to argue for WTO compatibility, for small countries, developing countries in the world, he said.
This was contrary to the spirit of successive international agreements which argued that there should be special and differential treatment of these countries in international trade and economic international relations, Jagdeo added. Caribbean countries signed on primarily due to Europe’s significant negotiating power, which was no match for the Caribbean’s “tiny” economies, he argued.
If you combine the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of all the countries in our region, it would be less than the assets of a large bank in Europe, so you can imagine how unbalanced, how uneven the negotiations are because you’re not negotiating as two equal partners. They got their way because they’re essentially a bigger power and they can always threaten to cut off their markets…Source:IPS
BU family member Micro Mock Engineer has been bold enough to post feedback on the EPA agreement which we are surprised has not attracted responses. Here is a repost in case you missed it:
I have three broad concerns relating to the proposed EPA. Disclaimer: I have read the EPA document and background information provided by the CRNM, but this has been heavy going as I Am Not A Social Scientist (IAN ASS).
1) Many of CRNM’s and Cariforum’s activities have been financed by the European Commission (EC). The EC has also provided a significant amount of training in trade negotiations for our CRNM/Cariforum negotiating teams. Can you imagine going to war (… although in this case its more like Saul and the Israelites facing the Philistines at Socoh), and your opponents are bankrolling your campaign and training your army?
2) The agreement deals almost entirely with market access and “free and undistorted competition” between Cariforum and the EC, and treats to these in very specific terms. Conversely, the huge gap between our level of development and resources, and consequently our capacity to compete on a “level” playing field is only addressed in a very cursory manner (Articles 117 & 121). So… having acknowledged the “inherent asymmetries in respective levels of development of the Parties”, they tell us don’t worry… level the playing field… we’ll teach you how to compete with us afterwards. 142 pages on trade liberalisation and open market access, and 1 page acknowledging our disadvantage and making vague promises.
3) At the end of last year, the ACP council of Ministers issued the following statement on the EPA negotiations: “The ACP Council of Ministers deplores the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear on the ACP States by the European Commission to initial the interim trade arrangements, contrary to the spirit of the ACP-EU partnership.” To date, with the exception of Cariforum, all other ACP states have either refused to sign or have initialed INTERIM agreements. At a time when even our lead negotiators acknowledge the EPA’s many shortcomings, wouldnt it be appropriate for us to show some level of solidarity with the larger group?
Anonymous, you say “It’s not fair to say that the CRNM did not expend time and effort to educate”. According to this official EC press release, EC and Cariforum initialed the “final” EPA on December 16 2007:
When was the EPA document first made available for public discussion?
95 responses so far ↓
Anonymous // August 25, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“Anonymous, you say “It’s not fair to say that the CRNM did not expend time and effort to educate”. According to this official EC press release, EC and Cariforum initialed the “final” EPA on December 16 2007:”
*****************************************
That’s true. To reach to the final EPA there was a long negotiation process. This process was consultative with key representatives from each sector.
Questionnaires were sent out, opinions were sought, seminars and conferences took place.
This is always the case in this type of consultative process. When the calls are made for key actors to be involved, they very often ignore the call. Then when they realize that the process has gone ahead without them, they typically respond the way most of them are responding now.
I can attest to the several levels and layers of consultation as well as training that the EU paid for.
Furthermore, I dont think anyone ever said that this EPA was a silver bullet.
ROK // August 26, 2008 at 12:29 am
Three questions that require answers to the EPA:
1. What is the rush? Did the date come as a command from the Most High?
2. Why is the EU pushing our Governments to sign without consultations, when consultations are an integral part of the EU processes in Europe?
3. Are we being used? We don’t have much more than 20Million people in CARIFORUM. Is it that lucrative? What is the attraction?
Questions for our Government:
1. What is encouraging you to sign and what is the anxiety?
2. Since you know that we will be disadvantaged and that it is a bad deal, why would you want to sign
David // August 26, 2008 at 12:50 am
Can the knowledgeable among us about the EPA tell us why it was necessary to breakout the ACP countries into subregions? The Caribbean is a small economic space and we are struggling with the logic of the decision by the EU. To our way of thinking it has to be the EU that requested this arrangment because there is no advantage we can see why the Caribbean would want to negotiate as a fraction of the ACP.
The other point we want clarification is to understand the logic of tossing out the idea that small developing states like the Caribbean should not get protection in a global economy. Isn’t that why we are developing states? The reality is that when compared to developed states of EU we will always be struggling. It sounds nice for people to say we need to improve and become more productive and competitive but when compared to to the developed models of the EU what is the reality?
The People's Democratic Congress // August 26, 2008 at 2:51 am
Generally, we hate to really engage in personal ad hominem attacks on any individuals in this country, from within any forum in which we are participants, and esp. without just cause or reason, fundamentally because we think it is far better to deal with ideas, issues and facts of a non-personal progressive rational nature. But, we think for now we will little relax that principle, in order to castigate one Chris Sinckler, who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business of Barbados, and who sometimes appears to be the biggest booby in this increasingly wayward and backward DLP Government.
For, it was this same Chris Sinckler, as a consequence of losing NOT once, but twice to Ishmael Roett, as the DLP’s Candidate in the St. Michael Central Constituency in back to back general elections – in 1994 and 1999, that had been made to suffer the indignity of being rghtly portrayed, then, as a political loser and as being quite unelectable, so much so that around that time it was bandied about in the local press that he, Mr. Sinckler, said he was finished with electoral politics in Barbados. So, yes, so bitter and frustrated was the man at having lost those elections that he probably came to that position!!
Nevertheless, it was NOT all the surprising to many people in Barbados how thereafter those losses how noticeable and so often Mr. Sinckler was in the local news as the executive director of the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) – which is located on Welches Main Road in St. Michael – talking on the behalf of that organization about esp. global and regional trade and development issues. Hence, here it was that Mr Sinckler was busy casting himself in this independent non-partisan political mould, and, too, seeking refuge from those serious electoral beatings – to the extent of NOT participating in the 2003 elections.
But, by being so political, all the while, too, it was becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Sinckler was earmarking and positioning himself to be a DLP candidate once again in another general election ahead – which would have turned out to be January, 2008. Many people even began comparing him to Dr. Don Blackman, because of their belief that Mr. Sinckler would use “big words” like Don on the platform, even in the 2003 election, but which – to us – was really a miniaturization of the goodly Dr. Don Blackman.
In the mean time, though, perhaps about a couple of years ago, it had been realized that Mr. Chris Sinckler had graduated from the University of the West Indiees, Cave Hill Campus, with a Masters Degree in International Trade Policy or in some other related discipline. And, it was seen by many politically minded people how he went on to be General Secretary of the Democratic Labour Party in August, 2007, but NOT before he himself had realized that his party had a real chance to win the next election. So, therefore, it was crass opportunism in reality to resurrect the old political electoral self, and be the DLP’s Candidate in the contest for St. Michael North West Constituency in the 2008 General Election, which he did go on to win primarily because so many thousands of voters throughout the country had wanted a change of government, and therefore St. Michael North West was a seat in which the national swing against the then BLP Government was so strong that the BLP would have lost that seat from the very word “go”. Clearly, Mr Sinckler did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, personally, spectacular to win that seat!!!!
But lo and behold, in a short time after winning his seat and after his party would have won the Government, who would think that this same person, who is definitely on course to becoming the worst minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business this country has ever had, would have been so naive and asinine as to think that our beloved Barbados should become the laughing stock of the region in regard of comments that would have been attributed to him – and that no doubt would have been read by so many acrosss the CARICOM sub-region – in the Nation Newpaper of Wednesday, August 20, 2008, to the effect that Barbados WILL BE SIGNING this CARIFORUM/ EU EPA on September 2 2008, WITH or WITHOUT (sic) other CARICOM countries. Is this agreement NOT a CARIFORUM/EU EPA? Why would NOT a unified position on the EPA have been sought after, at all costs, concerning the diplomatic engagements and negotiations of these CARIFORUM countries with the EU, rather than having still these apparent “untenable inconsistencies” among CARIFORUM members? Certainly, those utterances were among some of the most appalling and absurd statements any serious Minister of Foreign Affairs of Barbados could have made at any point in time with regard to Barbados’ possible participation in any kind of multi-lateral arrangement.
Moreover, this said Minister was further reported as saying, in this said back page Nation News story, that Barbados had NOT to date received any official notification from any government in the CARICOM or the CARIFORUM grouping – which included the Dominican Republic, and that would have formally indicated that they will NOT be present at the signing or that they will NOT sign the agreement. So, before first finding out – at a special meeting of CARIFORUM Heads – what were the real positions of these different CARIFORUM countries on the EPA, Mr Sinckler arrogated unto himself the task of ungainy saying something that no doubt will haunt him so much in the future, as that it WILL be seen that there will be NO signing ceremony on September 2, 2008 in Barbados. So, Mr Sinckler with his hare-brained, speaking-out-of-turn self wanted, so it appeared, Barbados to rush headlong into a perceptibly strong opposing current that is being pushed by some countries ( Guyana, Grenada, St. Lucia, etc ), that they want to delay signing – meaning that they would sign ONLY after enough time has been gone through, with careful and sufficient studying of this agreement ( whatever that is).
Really and truly, Mr Sinckler’s supposed intellectual credentials in international trade policy matters are NOT being felt palpably, as if he really knew that he owes a big duty to fellow Barbadians, first and foremost, and on the basis of his supposed immense knowledge of international trade issues, to properly and boldly represent them, and then any other CARIFORUM countries in these EPA negotiations, and as if he knew too he owes a great duty to Barbadians who would have sacrificed much to see that he would have got a half-baked so-called university education, to critically appraise for the harmful effects on these said Barbadians of their country joining onto this EPA, rather than his genuflecting to the relevant Europeans. How laughable, indeed, Mr. Sinckler, you political racoon!!
But, we get the distinct but ominous feeling that Mr. Sinckler is really absolutely NOT operating in the interest of the nation or in the interest of the masses and middle classes of people of Barbados, but in the interests of a few thousands esp. the elite of the merchant/business classes in this country and the esp. the government – many of whom, in the former case, clearly WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO VOTE FOR HIM – given the mainly working class make up of this constituency, so that he could have gotten into parliament and promoted and look out for big business’ own affairs in St. Michael North West. Surely, he is NOT operating in the interests of the St. Micheal North West Constituents when he could be reported as saying – with out any explanation whatsoever in the press – that Barbados – by signing this agreement – would be acting in its OWN interest. Mr. Sinckler is surely being intellectually dishonest when he talks like that!! FOR, HE REALLY DOES NOT MEAN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS when it is clear there have been NO PUBLIC OF BARBADOS SCRUTINY OR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS EPA; when there have been NO NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE ON THIS EPA; when THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT MADE ANY INPUTS INTO THIS EPA; and when there is clearly NO YARDSTICK TO MEASURE HOW THE NATION FEELS ABOUT IT. So, Mr. Sinckler is really TALKING ABSOLUTE STUPID TRASH ABOUT AN EPA BEING IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS!! WHAT A TRASH TALKING MINISTER!!
If there is any thing that this trash talking mud slinging political sales man has really proved, is this, that the time has really come for him to really FIRE HIMSELF from that position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business, since it is clear he is NOT the best and most capable person within the DLP top brass that is suited – intellectually or otherwise – for that Ministry.
Finally, matters such as this EPA are too crucial to the future of ALL BARBADIANS AND THEIR EFFECTS TO BE SO TRIFLED AND TINKERED WITH BY ONE PARTY FAR LESS A MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT WHOSE REAL LOVE AND COMMITMENT FOR CONSTITUENTS REMAIN EVER SO QUESTIONABLE.
PDC
Yardbroom // August 26, 2008 at 4:33 am
Would it be too much to ask for a “detailed response,” from individual leaders of Caribbean countries, as to why they are in favour of the EPA. Citizens of CARIFORUM can then evaluate their responses – those leaders in agreement – when comparing them to the position of President Bharrat Jagedo of Guyana and other leaders who agree with him.
The interval between pro EPA and anti EPA expositions can be used by citizens to study the relevant documentation, have an informed debate and arrive at a decision.
This would not necessarily produce total agreement, but at least citizens would be better informed of a decision taken on their behalf. They would also know the thinking which underpins their respective Government’s analysis.
Bush tea // August 26, 2008 at 6:01 am
David,
This initiative is simply the thrust of the EU big business complex seeking to establish markets as part of their global competitiveness.
Somewhat like the ‘Bizzies’ of EU using the Owings and Gline Clarkes of the EU Headquarters to force their EPA ‘flyovers’ down the throats of this region.
….and true to form there are people like ru4real to come with childish, illogical reasons why we should sign on…. and selling perceived benefits to those gullible enough to listen to them.
Intelligent leaders sign contracts which result in desirable outcomes for their people. We have to be careful that like the ABC flyovers, the EPA is not providing benefits mostly for the proponents and to our supposed representatives -at the expense of the rest of us.
David // August 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
@PDC
As far as we are aware there is no requirement to sign on to the EPA as a group i.e CARICOM.
The scout // August 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
It just shows that there is no unity among the leaders in the region. What Caricom What. Just a lotta long talk and wasted money.
Technician // August 26, 2008 at 6:50 am
To divide and rule is their own plan…….
David // August 26, 2008 at 7:45 am
Can,t find the link at the moment but Dereck Walcott the St,Lucian Nobel Prize winner has accused Caribbean leaders of prostituting the region.
He made his comment at a panel discussion at Carifesta. We found the comment interesting because BU commenters have been quoting the good man.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 26, 2008 at 7:49 am
“Questionnaires were sent out, opinions were sought, seminars and conferences took place. This is always the case in this type of consultative process. When the calls are made for key actors to be involved, they very often ignore the call.”
—————————————
Yes Anonymous, like many other “key actors”, I received my share of invitations to meetings and my opinions were sought, but these could only be considered token gestures given the lack of public disclosure (us plebs were not allowed to review the draft EPA until it had already been “agreed” and initialed and we kept nuff noise) and disproportionate allocation of time assigned to engaging stakeholders on what is a highly complex matter.
ROK asked “What’s the rush”?”. The ‘big gun’ the EU held to our heads, is that if we don’t sign the EPA agreement they will apply new GSP tariffs to our exports (… under the Lome Convention and its successor Contonou Agreement, exports from ACP states are granted preferential access to the EU). However the question we need to ask ourselves is whether the fallout from new GSP tariffs will be more damaging in the long run than the negative social/economic impact and increased marginalisation that is likely to come with the signing of the EPA in its present state. Ironically, the primary objectives of Lome, Contonou and even these new EPA’s are sustainable development and the elimination of poverty – it would appear that the European philosophy for achieving these objectives is to ‘integrate’ our small economies into theirs… cleverly packaged re-colonialisation… they’re practicing the politics of inclusion.
Here’s another ‘rush’ question to add to yours ROK… why would we be rushing to include issues like competition, procurement and investment policies which have been successfully excluded (for the time being) at the WTO negotiation level on the grounds that they restricted development policy options? Surely we stand on good ground by insisting that these be similarly excluded until they are EITHER resolved at that level OR Cariform is ready to discuss/implement them.
David, you said that there is no requirement for Cariforum to sign on to the EPA as a group. It’s worse than that… by design, we are actually signing on as INDIVIDUAL countries whereas the EU is signing on as a group. Cariforum is just a construct created by the EU for negotiating convenience… it includes non-Caricom and non-CSME states… furthermore, CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).
The People's Democratic Congress // August 26, 2008 at 7:57 am
To David,
Yes, true, based on the rationalization of Mr. Baldwin Spencer that individual countries will sign the EPA, as individual countries in their own individual capacities within the CARIFORUM grouping and NOT as a grouping (Tuesday, August 12, 2008, Daily Nation). What would you expect, David, there is absolutely NO CARICOM state, and there is a democratic EU state with constituent states still having the right to sign on in their individual capacities. There are individual states within CARICOM, with their own individual political and legal jurisdictions, BUT NO CARICOM state like there is very much A EU state with its own substantial political and legal jurisdiction . NO wonder CARICOM is on the verge of being seriously marginalized within the context of greater regional and international intergration initiatives
But, that is really NOT our point. Our point is that by Mr. Sinckler saying WITH or WITHOUT oth CARICOM countries meant he was so strong headed about signing this thing on September 2 2008, that he appeared to be very reckless and indifferent as to whether there was logic behind the issues countries like Guyana, Grenada, St. Lucia, etc, were raising about the difficulties in signing the EPA at that stage; that he appeared to be very reckless and indifferent as to whether there should have, first, been arrived at a unified common position on the EPA by CARIFORUM countries SIGNING the SAME agreement, both in its letter and its spirit, without there being the POSSIBILITY that some other CARIFORUM countries could sign a SLIGHTLY different agreement, with the agreement of the EU, that much, first, before ungainly saying what he had to say about Barbados signing this agreement WITH or WITHOUT other CARICOM countries; and, last, he appeared to be very reckless and insensitive to the fact of Barbados appearing – with his very dogmatic statement – to want to drag some other countries along into signing this agreement, without recognizing the validity of their own problems and then later on having to eat humble pie – that this DLP government WAS AWARE of some new initiatives in relation to securing a consensus within CARICOM on the signing of the EPA (pg 6, Friday, August 22, 2008 Weekend Nation).
Finally, the truth is that Mr Sinckler has spectacularly failed to provide any genuine leadership on this EPA issue, whereas Mr. Jagdeo and some others have been doing so. Mr. SINKler, RESIGN do!!
PDC
David // August 26, 2008 at 8:43 am
As a corollary to what MME commented the EU legisture has already enacted laws to delist CARIFORUM members from the EPA if they don’t sign-off.
Juris // August 26, 2008 at 8:51 am
Jagdeo’s comments reflect the essential nature of contracting, the side with the heavier bargaining power gets most of what it wants. Does he think re-negotiation will change anything? Or is he prepared to go ahead without any agreement? No skin off the EU’s nose, in such a case. Are the others of the same belief? Or just following the multitude?
Global Voices Online » Barbados: To Sign or Not To Sign // August 26, 2008 at 9:29 am
[...] the CARIFORUM members will sign-on to the CARIFORUM/EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)”: Barbados Underground examines a few of the issues. Posted by Janine Mendes-Franco Print Version Share [...]
STEADY // August 26, 2008 at 11:31 am
OH Dear! here we go again. In the midst of a another useful discussion on EPAs out jump the buffoons at the PDC to launch and unwarrented attack on the Minister of Foreign Trade. Now exactly what does losing two elections to Mr. Roett have to do with the EPA.
Are we to understand that PDC which campaigned on a platform of the abolitition of all taxes, should be now placed to be critisizing a young Barbadian man for advancing himself by getting a university masters.
Maybe then all of the young Barbadians who go to university to get advance degrees in specialized areas should just forget because according to the PDC they may like Chris Sinckler just be getting a “half baked” education. worst yet they maybe just “political opportunists” waiting in the wings to grab a seat in parlament.
Wow! if ever you could read foolishness PDC is good at writing. I for one am proud that we in Barbados have a trade minister that is not only qualified but is independent enough to read and agreement and analyze it for himself and the government and come to a independent judgement.
Now that is clearly unlike some of the people who lead governments across the region who can’t come to a simple decision not even if they lives depended on it.
As far as i recall last December 16th while PDC was busy doing nothing to assist the education of the masses of people of this country – (whom they claim to love so much) about the EPA, our governments were busy agreeing to initial the final negotiating text.
Let see who was there calling the shots. President Jagdeo of Guyana this supposed “Champion” of the don’t sign crowd, was upfront and very vocal on the reasons why we should sign off on the agreement. The text was available to him and his entire government. He must of read it and so knew that all the issues he is complaining about now are the same ones that were there then. What did he do? he instructed the RNM to sign off the final draft.
Several NGOs in the region including many in Guyana asked him to reconsider his view and he dismissed them as “humbugs” and misguided activists. He asked that they give the agreement chance to work first and then we can make adjustments after.
Then CARICOM has a big meeting of Trade officials including Guyana’s minister of trade in the Bahamas at which a full review of the EPA was discussed and again not one country including GUYANA objected to the signing of the EPA. In fact very distinctively the Guyana trade minister Dr. Henry Jefferies indicated that the region had to “stop wasting time” and get on with signing trhe agreement.
Now it was agreed at that meeting that each country would do its internal reviews and national consultations on/of the agreement determine their poisitions on whether to sign or not and come back to the Heads of Government meeting in eraly July and agree a way forward for the agreement.
To the best of my knowledge no country objected to that course of action. I also understand that the new government did its internal assessment, and independent review conducted by economist from the UWI and had a national consultation at sherbourne conference centre which i know as a matter of fact was advertised on both TV and radio and in the press.
I attended that session but i am not sure if PDC sent anybody. But of course you would have to read the agreement first in order to go there in order to properly participate. The Agreement as far as i am aware is all over trhe place on the RNM, EU, CARICOM, OXFAM Government, ACP and several other websites. Anybody who is seriously interested in learning about the EPAs could go there and get information.
Equally the minister delivered a ministerial statement on EPAs in Parliament as recent to three week ago as well as making the assessments documents of the house. Indeed he has spoken about this agreement more often than any other single issue over the past six months. And from reading and listening to all that he has said it is patently unfair for anyone to say that he has not indicated what the pros and cons are about the agreement. But it serves some people’s objective to ignore these facts.
But back to Jagdeo and the regional leaders.
So the leaders come to Antigua for the Heads meeting and the EPA is discussed. And after six months, and before it nearly four years out jumps the President of Guyana and says he is not signing the agreement before analysing it and having national consultations. He then says at the the opening ceremony of the Heads meeting that the region should sign a “goods” only agreement and forget about services.
Amazing. Do any of you know what that means? its means that Guyana which stands to benefit greatest from the duty free access to the EU market for its rum, rice and sugar, would get the lion share of the benefits from a “goods” only agreement while Barbados, St. Vincent etc who rely more on services would get nothing or very little. WOW! Thats the great “champion” of the don’t signers there for you. In whose interests is Mr. Jagdeo acting? Is my trade minister to follow that lead? NOT FOR HELL. He has to look after the interest of Barbados and from all assessments signing this agreement is in Barbados’ best interests.
And where was this Jagdeo when his trade minister was pushing countries to sign. Indeed why all of a sudden did Jagdeo now discover that this agreement is the worst thing ever.. Did he not know al of this when he himself was upfront with Owen Arthur pushing the other leaders to approve the text of the agreement in December?
And why has i taken him and Guyana so long between February and now to get his consultation done and his assessments complete? Can you guys see that Jagdeo is playing games. He wants something from the EU and is playing this agreement to get it. The problem is that he will lead a whole region down the line and then he will sign the agreement in its current. Then his country’s products will get into Europe and get the benfits while the rest of the region will be scrambling to get their act together. Guyana , as a HIPC country (highly indebted poor country) benefits from grant financing, debt relief, massive amounts of development aid and concessionary loans at very low interest rates. Barbados does not get any of that or certainly none of it of any significance.
We have to cut our through like any major developing countries or even developed country. Nobody cuts Barbados any slack. Our leaders therefore have to ensure that anywhere we can find advantages we must take it. Our leaders have to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages and make a decision in the best interests of the whole country not one part at the exclusion of the other. but the whole country.
And according to the minister and from my own reading and analysis of the agreement while they are some areas which we would love to have changed in the text, these do not over weigh the positive aspects of the agreement. So what should Barbados do? PDC follow the blind lead of countries that are acting in their own self interest at the expense of the interests of the people of Barbados?
So Jagdoe goes to the Heads and says he wants time to do consultations. Yet between the end of the first week in July, and the middle of August not a meeting. Not a consultation and a word from Guyana or its government. And when asked by the media on the second week of august why he has not had the consultation yet he replies that Guyana got CARIFESTA to host and will do it after. Carifesta is in the last week of August. What happened for the whole of July and into the first two weeks of August. Is Jagdeo really serious?
Now on his request the Heads in their communique indicated that “ALL” countries were commited to signing the agreement at the date to be announce. Guyana would do its consultations and be ready for September.
That was the agreement of the Heads according to the Secretariat press release.
So Barbados which is the country asked to host the signing and with authority from the HEADS of Government agrees a date with the EU for the signing which ALL countries agree to. And so as i under stand it arrangements were being put in place to have the signing on the 2nd of September.
Is not reasonable to therefore expect that all CARICOM countries would have been notified of this date? And would it not be reasonable to expect that if countries are not prepared to sign off on the agreement that these same countries which gave Barbados the go ahead to arrange a date for signing, should officially notify Barbados that they are not prepared to go ahead?
Now if the trade minister holds a press conference on the signing date would it not be correct and right and sensible and fair for him, in response to a question from the press to indicate that he has not received official word from any country that they are not signing.
Would it not be resonable for Barbados to conclude that short of any communication from countries to the contrary that the signing is going ahead even as political leaders try to find a solution to the swirling media comments?
Of course it is. Government and governance relations are not conducted in the media or on hersay they are conducted through official decisions that are communicated to principals.
So the Trade minister was dead on in his comments and in the way he has handle this issue of the EPA signing. As he said at the press conference quoted in the press – Barbados is not wringing anybody’s hand to sign an agreement they are unconfortable with. It is their sovereign right to determine whether they can or cannot in keeping with there country’s best interests. But, their can’t send conflicting signals to my trade minister and expect him to read minds. They cant say go ahead and set a date and then without officially communicating with our government get in the media and issue conflicting statements of whether they are going to sign or not. Within the space of one week the PM of St. Lucia went from stating categorically that St. Lucia will be signing the EPA on the 2nd or September to saying that St. Lucia is rethinking its positions. Up to now he has not said that he definitely said St. Lucia wont sign on that date.
So PDC you can lay off the trade minster. If you have issues with Chris Sinckler find some other issue to talk about cause on this issue the minister has been clear and consistent. When he came he said he had issues with the EPA negotiations and would have to review the final agreement (which until then he had not seen a final copy) before commiting Barbados to signing.
He immediately ordered a review of the agreement not just internal, but external and independent too. He i assume would also have done his own analysis of the text and form his own conclusions. His ministry then had a national consultation on the EPA and when this was finished the minister did a ministerial statement in parliament as he said he would.
All of those assessments bar none have concluded that while they are some areas of concern with some provisions of the agreement on the totality the agreement will do barbados more good than harm.
So the minister has done what all leaders must do he has made a decision. Now you dont have to agree that is your right and you should challenge him on his reasoning and logic, but can’t come this blog trying to give the impression that the minister has sold out the interests of Barbados on basis that a few Caribbean leaders who refuse to do their work and lead from the front cant make a decision to save their lives.
Barbados has always led from the front in CARICOM and this time is no different. When we can go with an issue we do, when we cant we dont and we say why we cant. But we make decisions we dont vacilate.
I thank the Minister for his strong Leadership on this issue. At least he knows what he is doing.
ROK // August 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Steady should take a leaf from his/her own name and be steady and consistent. I am not sure that the Minister who stalked the halls of the EU and and the highways of Africa trying to stop the EPAs and is now on a bandwagon to get the Caribbean to sign the CARIFORUM EPA, is delivering strong leadership; The irony of politics. Somehow, to me, that lacks a principled stance.
However, what I want to throw out, especially in support of our Nobel Laureate, is that all this is about European (or imperialists) expansionism. Yes they want to take what we have and attach it to theirs; that is expansionism.
When Columbus and all the other explorers sailed to look for new lands, that was expansionism in action. Columbus is sailing again.
If you base your observations on the theory of expansionism, you can’t go wrong. Why the secrecy? Why the rush? Why the individualism and not the region? Why this little region trying to go it alone rather than as the ACP?
Pure and simple corruption. These people think they can buy us out by way of secret deals with politicians who cannot resist and they are using the Caribbean to throw in the face of the Pacific and Africa to get them to sign.
So use your commonsense. If they buy out CARIFORUM and wave it in the face of the Pacific and Africa, theycan better get them to sign. Not only that, it would be cost effective.
Don’t worry to come saying “what secret deals?” because we are not privy to exactly what our Governments are signing away. You can’t get a straight answer from nobody. We get documents which are supposed to be the new agreement but they are no different from what went before.
The language of the EPAs are so complex that the average person needs interpreters because if you don’t understand the difference in the language of commitment and only simple acknowledgement, then you will not know what to expect and you may expect the wrong thing.
Since 2000 our Governments committed to the participation of Civil Society but Mr. Arthur’s idea of CS participation was the private sector, not even the unions, except that the unions so powerful they cannot be kept out of international issues. Joke!
Since Government did not honour these commitments the EU came in the revised Treaty and entranched it even further by getting the Governments to agree that the EU will be allowed to monitor and work with CS and even provide funds for them which the Government would not have a say in. Prior to this it was a “hands off sovereignty” approach.
Within a year of completing the revised treaty, the EU was here forcing Government’s hand to establish something called the Non State Actors Advisory Panel as a mechanism for CS participation and to boot, placed on them the most NGOs.
If nothing else this refusal to act on their commitments demonstrates a lack of caring for people by our own politicians. NGOs are about citizens who are seeking answers to social problems and fixing them. They spring up to fill voids, answer desparate calls and, believe me, when their usefulness is at an end, they die.
Have to continue this later, but will leave you with this document, “A User’s Guide for Non State Actors” which was published by the EU and gives an idea of the depth to which citizens ought to be participating in these processes; including the EPAs:
http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/cotonoup/nonstate
Pat // August 26, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The best piece of analysis i have read on this issue is by an Englishman called Sanders. His article: EPA for Whose Benefit can be found at the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2008/08/080815_sanders_epa.shtml
STEADY // August 26, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Imagine the pot calling the kettle black. Is this the same ROK that was part of the same BLP government that negotiated the EPA? That freezed out the poor from participating in the consultations. Or is it that when ROK was receiving benefits from the BLP government he could not be concerned with the EPA. Remember this EPA business did not start last December, it was going on for more that 4 years and even longer if you go back to when the negotiatons on the Cotonou started cause Cotonou is the governing framework for the EPA negotiations.
Where was ROK, busy getting the benefits from the BLP through Hammie La? Minister Sinckler can ably defend his positions as he did on Brass Tacts only a few weeks ago.
It is one thing to lead an regional NGO but an entirely different thing to be a Minister in government with the full responsibilty for all segments of the society. Rich and poor, workers and business and all that falls in between. He cant just transfer his NGO positions straight into government he is not representing CDPC or whatever it is called, he is representing the people of Barbados and the policy of the democratic labour party. He is bound by the collective responsibility of government.
So dont come running that simplistic line about he opposed the EPA when he was in the NGOs so he must oppose it now. Life is not that simple.
Besides all through the four years of the negotiations Mr. Sinckler was very vocal on the things which he said his organisation wanted to see in the agreement. And from his last press conference it seems to me that he is still saying that if he had to negotiate the agreement he would not have agreed the MFN clause, he would not have agreed th regional preference clause which in fact he has said he feels should be immediately change and which CARICOM has agreed to discuss with the Dominican Republic. He also said on VOB that he feels the safeguard clause could be stronger, that the government procurement clauses could be clearer and that more resources could have been made available in the development section.
The minister has said all of that – he said it on VOB, in parliament at his last press conference and elsewhere. So you need to listen better and be fair in your comment. The minister has already said that that agreement is not perfect. But which agreement is? When Unions negotiate they go to the table with a list of demands but they never come away with all of them granted. They have to compromise but they also have to look at their bottom line and see what they can live with and what they cannot go with.
The minister and the government has obviously had the agreement analyze and have determined that based on internal, personal and independent advice that Barbados could live with the agreement as there is more to gain than to lose.
That is what leaders do. that is why they are elected.
So I am very steady and very consistent in my observation and commentary of this issues.
But at the end of the ROK. lets say that the minister does as you and your friends ask and CARICOM says to the EU we ain’t signing that agreement. And the EU says well sorry but we had a deal with you initial and we feel that the deal is fair to both sides.
Then what happens?
you cannot force the EU to negotiate until you get what you what. They can do without our market can we do with theirs? And what of the Canadians and the Americans are we going to do with theirs too? because believve me they will offer you far less that Europe will offer and they wont be any development dimension in their trade deals either.
Or just for the sake of we lets suppose the EU agrees to go back to the table and say ok we will give you verything you want but we want something to. We want you in exchange to put the 14% of sectors and products we agreed before should not face liberalization back on the table to face tariff cuts. Or we want you to open up more of your services sector; or we feel that duty free quota free access is to generous we want to put tariffs on some of your products coming into our market.
What will you do then? tell them no. You dont negotiate by youself. It is not a one way thing anymore it is based on reciprocity now and you have to expect to give up something. So if you re-open to ask for something expect the EU to ask for something back.
Question is are we prepared to give it?
David // August 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm
We must admit that some good points are being traded on this topic, it is a crying shame that the heightened discussion which has descended on the region on the declared eve of the signing of the EPA had not occurred ealier. The question asked by Micro Mock Engineer as to whether the window between the final initial to the draft and the official sign-off is too short remains unanswered.
The other point which concerns the BU household does not concern the mechanics of whether the negotiating skills of the CARIFORUM team was on par with EU’s. By the way STEADY the example you gave about the Union accepting compromise at the collective bargaining table is half true. The union delegation will go to the table having researched the industry sector in which they are negotiating onbehalf and importantly will LOAD their demand to achieve what their members expect. To what extent did David(CARIFORUM) while negotiating with EU(Goliath)felt that they had the nerve and or the confidence to load their demands?
Our concern with the EPA is philosophical. What do we want as a small but PROUD grouping regarding the repositioning and restructuring of our economies and at the same time enable our Caribbean people to change their attitudes. It is no secret that many of the economies of the region have an unaceptably high debt to GDP ratio. How can these economies restructure to be competitive in the post CARIFORUM EU EPA environment?
After we export our services and goods to the EU market which the EPA affords us, and after 25 years when the phasing process is over on those commodities/services the EU has graciously agreed to gobble-up last, where will our people be? Let us face the home truth. For the most part and we exclude the Jamaicans, but our Caribbean people are hooked on behaviours which make them dependent on foreign goods and services, the reverse is not true. If the current attitude persists the imbalance will become ingrained and to what end?
What we need to see from our leaders is LEADERSHIP. What we see is a continuation of the status quo. We need fundamental change strategies that will lead to a change in attitudes of our people where we become 100% nationalistic, only then can we as a region benefit from the enormous intellectual capital which is circulating in our region. The fact that we are small developing states should not be used as an excuse to suppress our pride and our acumen when negotiating with the Goliaths of this world.
If we had gone to the negotiating table with our heads held high with a posture that we are equal we may have garnered the respect which is afforded to a courageous foe.
Here is what Nobel Laurette Dereck Walcott had to say at CARIFESTA 2008:
Banned Again From BFP // August 26, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
I very best friend is battling CARICOM for acting in bad faith leading up to the World Cup and this is his biggest obstacle. I wonder how many West Indians are aware of the fact that “CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
Donald Duck, Esq // August 27, 2008 at 12:13 am
Pat
As far as I am aware Ron Sanders is not english. He used to be high commissioner for antigua and barbuda to the court of st.james for a while. I believe he got knighted twice!!!
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 1:05 am
I tell you. Now I have to rename you Unsteady. Part of the BLP Government? Receiving benefits? That would have been the day.
You mean I worked with Hammie La? That did not qualify me to be among the boys in the club and really, I had no desire.
Let me make it plain that I ain’t no B or D but maybe what you can convict me for is association with Hammie La.
Even as Hammie’s Personal Assistant, I did not let up. I remained Civil Society and when the time came and I could not deal with the strain of the two anymore, I resigned as Hammie’s PA.
I think I have to tell this story because this association with the BLP is inaccurate. I will start by saying that Hammie owes his MP status to me. It was in 1982 when I started working steadily in the Pinelands community with Hammie. I was the Coordinator of Culture at the time with responsibility for Pinelands Creative Workshop.
During those times we used to fight for housing, welfare, assistance for the elderly, programmes for the youth, etc. As a matter of fact I believe that I still hold the record for pulling out the most residents to any one single event in the Pine.
It was during these times that Hammie used to push me to the limit. I was the forefront for Pinelands for a long time because I was always called upon to defend these ordinary people.
It was during this time that that I started to tell Hammie that I will see him in Parliament. 12 years before it could have happened. If at that time the people of the Pine had a true representative it was Hammie. When elections came around people would come and ask Hammie who to vote for and whomever he called was the candidate that would get in.
Thing is he only had to answer two or three people and it would spread like wildfire. We knew who would win and it always happened without fail.
The time came 1993-1994 when Erskine Simmons announced that he would not be coming back. It was then that I perceived the time had come for Hammie. I called the Prime Minister and told him that I had the perfect Candidate for St Michael South East and he asked, who? I said Hammie La and he said “bring him.”
It took me about three or four months before I could get Hammie to go and see the PM. During those four months I would meet Hammie every evening at Parkinson Centre where he used to lime. I used to sit and counsel Hammie to try to win him over and convince him that he could do it.
I then started to let the secret out that he was being accepted as a candidate by the DLP and solicited the help of close friends and the members of Pinelands Creative Workshop because for me it meant a Civil Society representative in Parlament.
We went through a lot together. I remember one day during that time. I was at home and the phone rang for me. When I picked up the phone a voice came at me, “Ty King, You get me in this get me out!” What happened, “I getting phone calls telling me that the only thing between Braddie and this seat is a bullet.” I told him that I coming. He said, “… and when you coming bring a bottle!”
I eventually found Hammie in a hole under the Community Centre hiding out. The Same Minister of Foreign Affairs would testify to that. It took me, him, PM David Thompson and a whole crew from the Pine to stabilise Hammie.
After the elections, I was back at #10 Garrison getting on with the beginnings of BANGO. It was then the Commonwealth Liaison Unit of Barbados which I was heading up with Bob Taylor. Then one day Hammie turned up with a mile of notes; Letters he wanted written on behalf of his constituents.
I became the most prolific letter writer in Barbados and Hammie became known as the man who submitted the most letters to Government Departments. One client could have as much as ten or fifteen letters, helping them look for jobs in every possible government department and business house, accessing welfare assistance, housing, wringing arms to get water turned back on and houses reparied, etc.
When Hammie decided to cross the floor, he again came for me but this time to work for pay. I refused but he won’t have it. Kept telling me I got him in it and after some time I started to work as his PA. That was around 1997
Nobody can tell you that they have ever seen me at BLP conferences, party functions; none of that. Hammie went to those things sometimes but by himself. I could only say that I did what I had to do as PA in terms of the party but by 2001, while still working with Hammie, I was back at BANGO.
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 1:06 am
From 2001 until today, I was undaunted in my task as a Civil Society advocate. The PA thing was aside. Even at that time many will tell you that if I had to call the PM a spade he would get called a spade.
When at one of the Public/Private consultations the PM took a turn in the then President of BCSI, Grenville Phillips. As far as I know (I was not at the Conference) the only body that came out in his defence was I and it was based on hearsay from others, i.e. without the full facts, but I knew i had to write it, so I confined myself to the principle of free speech and expression.
Excerpt from the said Advocate News article written by me: “The right of freedom of speech goes deeper than any law protecting these rights. Freedom of speech must be a political liberty empowering the citizen not to feel threatened. (See the Charter of Civil Society). We have the police for protection, the law courts for justice and elections that allow people to rise up and change their governments.
“While this may be so we suffer as the result of the deficiencies in the system and especially by our lack of participation. The young man should be praised for his bravery to seek to be outspoken.
“The Prime Minister could only be chided for the manner in which he responded only in so far as his behaviour may have deterred others from being as brave as the young man. The lingering question is, why does one have to be brave to speak up?
“From a Civil Society perspective, we on this side have similar concerns as to the effectiveness and efficiency of Government programmes. Far from nip-picking, if you added Civil Society concerns to that of the private sector’s there cannot be much more left that is positive in government’s relations with its subjects.” Full article: http://www.bango.org.bb/newspaper/policywithpotential.htm
All the articles written here were written during the time BLP was in Government: http://www.bango.org.bb/platform.htm
Furthermore, see report from BANGO to UN Human Rights Committee: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/microsoftw
See also UN Committee response especially paragraph 14: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/unhrcc~1
We are not an opposition party, we are advocates for ordinary citizens and it is our duty to work with Government for the benefit of the people, but at the same time if the Government is insensitive to suffering and poverty, then BANGO will rise up.
While you see me as some BLP stooge (God forbid) there are others who used to seek me out for the opposite qualities. For example, a worker at one of the social agencies was organising a seminar. I found it strange that I was invited and I declined. I got a visit (not a phone call) from that worker telling me I have to come, not only because the topic was important, “but” he said, “You are the only body I know that will call the PM a fool if you had to and the workers want somebody who will represent them.
All I can say is that Owen never got drunk enough to call me.
The experience of being a DLP and then getting a first hand peep at how the B’s operated, I have vowed that I will never leave the side of the people. I have to apologise to those who is left with the impression that I was some big-time B. When I stopped working for Hammie in 2003, the BLP stopped seeing me because I had no reason to be in Parliament anymore to him.
I have never looked back and all I can say is that the only thing that motivated me from back in the 80’s until now has been the plight of the unfortunate. Can’t help. It is a calling.
This is Barbados and of course Steady is one of those typical Bajans who take some pride in attacking the characters of those they do not know anything about. Anybody close to me will simply laugh at you and and your comments becase they would know that you don’t have the first clus and that is a guarantee.
Finally, you must promise yourself that someday you will take off your cloak and dark glasses because I doubt very much that you have the guts to stand up and be recognised. Prove me wrong.
Your humble servant!
Anonymous // August 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
Wha la, wha la, wha la, wha la.
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 2:03 am
@ Banned Again From BFP
That is an interesting scenario and only goes to show how something you did not visualise can happen.
This matter of the legal status of CARICOM came up some time ago. It is intersting that something could happen for which CARICOM could be sued. I suppose this must relates to words said; guarantees, etc.
The question is to what extent can the CARICOM Secretariat make any guarantees. Is that how it operates? CARICOM is a union of sovereign states and it would seem to me that it has to depend on decisions from the Heads so CARICOM can say only what the Heads say.
However, the Secretariat must be an agency of CARICOM which was established by Treaty. This puts CARICOM within the ambit of international law, so don’t be sidetracked by a legal status as like registration. Thjis happened by declaration and from this point of view, the Secretariat is an agent of CARICOM. Its executive arm.
So check the principles of agency and check the Treaty of Chaguramus. CARICOM has legal status and is certainly recognisable by international law. There is also something called “jointly and severally” (together or individually) and together is known as CARICOM made up of individual sovereign states. A tall order though!
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 5:27 am
@ Unsteady…. as I was saying…
From 2001 until today, I was undaunted in my task as a Civil Society advocate. The PA thing was aside. Even at that time many will tell you that if I had to call the PM a spade he would get called a spade.
When at one of the Public/Private consultations the PM took a turn in the then President of BCSI, Grenville Phillips. As far as I know (I was not at the Conference) the only body that came out in his defence was I and it was based on hearsay from others, i.e. without the full facts, but I knew i had to write it, so I confined myself to the principle of free speech and expression.
Excerpt from the said Advocate News article written by me: “The right of freedom of speech goes deeper than any law protecting these rights. Freedom of speech must be a political liberty empowering the citizen not to feel threatened. (See the Charter of Civil Society). We have the police for protection, the law courts for justice and elections that allow people to rise up and change their governments.
“While this may be so we suffer as the result of the deficiencies in the system and especially by our lack of participation. The young man should be praised for his bravery to seek to be outspoken.
“The Prime Minister could only be chided for the manner in which he responded only in so far as his behaviour may have deterred others from being as brave as the young man. The lingering question is, why does one have to be brave to speak up?
“From a Civil Society perspective, we on this side have similar concerns as to the effectiveness and efficiency of Government programmes. Far from nip-picking, if you added Civil Society concerns to that of the private sector’s there cannot be much more left that is positive in government’s relations with its subjects.” Full article: http://www.bango.org.bb/newspaper/policywithpotential.htm
All the articles written here were written during the time BLP was in Government: http://www.bango.org.bb/platform.htm
Furthermore, see report from BANGO to UN Human Rights Committee: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/microsoftw
See also UN Committee response especially paragraph 14: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/unhrcc~1
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 11:22 am
This is real people. Just an idea of what can happen to us in these trade agreements from the live and living example in the excerpt below:
“The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to west Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal’s marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country’s waters fell from 95,000 tonnes to 45,000 tonnes. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997.” See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/food.eu
before we “follow -pattern” we should look at the society who we are following and it will give us an idea of what our society will look like in time.
David // August 27, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Based on latest news Prime Minister Thompson has indicated that the EPA signing will be delayed. He expressed disappointment with his fellow leaders. His main point was our region cannot afford to be marginalized by having their goods and services blocked from the EU market.
STEADY // August 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm
David where and when did Thompson say this
David // August 27, 2008 at 11:15 pm
@STEADY
We watched the CBC News earlier and thought that is what we heard. If we are wrong we stand corrected.
Here is what the Nation has reported him as saying. Is the delay in signing implied?
What benefits.. // August 28, 2008 at 7:18 am
“PRIME MINISTER DAVID THOMPSON firmly believes that there are benefits to be reaped from the proposed Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Europe.”
Nation newspaper (28 Aug 2008).
What benefits.. // August 28, 2008 at 7:26 am
Word in financial circles is that construction slowing down, inflation and unemployment going up and ‘our man in Havana’ ain’t batting an eyelid.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 9:21 am
I am not sure about all this. The Chief Negotiator is saying that this is the best deal ever. The Foreign Minister said it is the best deal in thrity years. Thompson is saying trust our negotiators.
None of this makes sense in the face of the evidence. There is more in the mortar. When you see a man fishing in a dry pond, he knows what he is doing.
Some further analysis:
Thompson, by saying that we have to trust our negotiators, makes one believe that he himself does not know what is in the EPAs. Well if he don’t know how are we to know?
Second, I think that by putting up that kind of front he is seeking to cast blame elsewhere and when the thing does not work out, blame the negotiators. Thompson has to understand that the responsibility must fall in his lap, because when if it fails, we are going to be saying that the NGOs told you so, academia told you so, Europe and all told you so, but you still went and sign.
If by chance Thompson knows that this is really not a good deal, especially with the inclusion of the Most Favoured Nation clause, it means that he is setting us for the fall.
It does not take a genius to know that the MFN clause means that you have no flexibility without automatically giving the same concessions to the Europeans.
Neither does it take a rocket scientists to understand the flood of services and goods that will hit our market and cripple our local economy.
On those two factors alone one can clearly see that this agreement is no more than an expansionists agreement where we are being asked to give Europe all that we can produce at cheap prices in exchange for a pitiful amount of foreign currency.
And for a negotiator to be saying that this is the best deal is sufficient to question his competence and his ability to understand the implications of trade and what are good terms for a developing or underdeveloped country or region.
I don’t know what is in it for the politicians and am not privy to the pressures that the EU may be heaping upon them. Maybe if any one of us was in the same position we would make the same decision, but one thing for sure is that whatever the influence it would have to out weight all the above considerations.
The other thing is that statement about being marginalised if we don’t sign, is nothing more than a joke. You can’t marginalise a country?Whatever it is we have that they want we still have it and it has to be worth something for them to be pushing this agreement down our throats.
We belittle the great value we have while others see it and gobble it up; at our expense and their gain.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well! Well! Well!
CARICOM Story leaking from EU NGOs (OXFAM):
“The latest news from the Caribbean is that the EU as of yesterday has indicated to CARICOM that its funding under the EDF programme could be in jeopardy if the EPA is not signed . A large part of the EDF funds are for EPA funding. The communication apparently also reflected that a number of countries also had integrated EPA implementation in their National programmes and that this could also be under threat with no EPA.
“In that context, CARICOM is trying to get a meeting of Heads for signing as soon as possible. The meeting on the 8th still has to be confirmed. The President of Guyana has indicated that he will not attend. And yesterday Trinidad indicated that as far as they were concerned the time for talking is over, as there will be dire consequences for the region if they don’t sign.”
Oxfam works with others to overcome poverty and suffering.
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 612172.
Registered office: Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY.
A registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SCO 039042)
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 11:18 am
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE EPAs:
In an effort to answer the requests for more information on the EPAs that would allow people to understand the reasons for not signing, the list of objections below gives some clarity:
• The impact of the substantially all trade threshold on future Bilateral and Multilateral negotiations:-
Means that whatever better prices we negotiate with poorer nations will automatically be given to the EU
• The implications of the Most Favoured Nation Treatment (MFN) and Regional Preference on our future bilateral trading relationships:-
Means that whatever better conditions we negotiate with poorer and lesser developed countries will automatically apply to the EU
• The implications of Market Access liberalisation on Tax Revenue and the impact this may have on taxation and the maintenance of social services to which we are accustomed:-
This means that our Government will be getting less taxes and this will have an impact on social services and programmes.
• The implications of the safeguard clause on infant industries:-
Effectively protects foreign interests.
• The amendments to the Rules of Origin and the impact they may have on Barbados’ ability to export certain goods to the European Community:-
Means that we cannot export goods that have in components (ingredients) that we did not produce but imported from elsewhere. So if we import essence to put in our lemonade then we cannot export the lemonade unless we exclude the essence (just a simple example)
• The nature of the commitments taken in the area of services and investment:-
We have committed to liberalizing a lot more services than necessary and this will impact on small business and manufacturing
• The potential impact of the Government Procurement arrangements:-
Means that a lot of government contacts that would normally be reserved for the local market will now have to be tendered outside the country as well. This would see a lot of roads and other construction in the hands of foreign companies as well as things like the supply of equipment and services to Government.
Chris Halsall // August 28, 2008 at 11:25 am
@ROK… Thank you!
Please do tell: is there any *upside* for the region?
The scout // August 28, 2008 at 11:51 am
Whether the EPA agreement is good or not for the region, it has highlighted the disunity among our leaders. Eventually our leaders will cause this region to be blacklisted because of their arrogance and insularity.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@Chris
Not sure how to answer that. One of the probelms is that the sweet is coming laced with gall.
Of course EU has opened up their market to us duty free on everything. Can we supply? We have not done so in the past so what magical performance will happen to cause us to suddenly be able to supply?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, they will be flooding our markets duty free too. However, the duty free thing will do two things. First it will mean that Government will collect far less revenue (and who will make up this void?) and second is that we will be flooded with cheap goods to compete with ours in our own market.
So it is all intertwined. Our only benefit will be our most bitter pill.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:35 pm
@Chris
What I should also point out is that this is not an insurmountable problem but you have to let people make their inputs and you will be surprised how creative solutions would come about; and this is something negotiators can’t do because they just don’t have that kind of local knowledge. That knowledge resides in the residents and citizens of the country.
Can only say it again, that the real solution rests with the people so our governments are hiring the wrong negotiators. The negotiators should come from consultations with the people who should then select a team to lay their case for them; with the relevant technical assistance of course.
That is too radical even to contemplate. What you talking ’bout fella?
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:40 pm
@Unsteady
Why do you proceed so headstrongly mis-informed? or should I say ill-informed? How can you come to positions without information? and how could stories covered in every media slip you like that? You on earth?
Chris Halsall // August 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@ROK… Thank you again for your above.
I agree with you entirely — those affected must be included in the loop. They must be consulted, but (IMHO) even more importantly, they must be educated and informed.
I keep asking (but am never given an answer): what is the upside? What are the opportunities? What should our people be preparing for? HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THUS TO AND FOR *OUR* ADVANTAGE?
Or (and please forgive me for this) are we simply envisioned as consumers and servants?
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I hope I have answered you there as to why people are not prepared to stick out their necks and for those who can, why they are not prepared to.
It is best to remember that for every benefit there is a bitter pill. There are certain clauses we should negotiate the deletion of. The Most Favoured Nation clause is one such deletion.
We should cut down on the amount of services we committed to liberate. Our resource is our people and if they are not performing there are no taxes. So your statement is correct; we are consumers and servants in this deal. Good one! You see what consultation can do?
STEADY // August 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Oh dear. ROK again. Dabbling in things that he knows very little about. Mis-statements, mis-quotes, lack of knowledge. It is sad.
Trust ROK the trade policy i read and forget you ent come into contact with. In fact it is quite clear from you comments that you have not read the Agreement and just picking up information off the web from organisations like OXFAM that frankly dont have the interests of this region at heart. But that is another matter.
Let me for the benefit of the people on this blog put you right. And after this i really hope you go and do some reading.
First of in order to understand this situation you have to know how we got in it the first place.
I really thought this was explained to both David and Chris already but clearly it has to be done again.
The problem with this EPA ent start with the Europeans and it will not end with them. Clearly the EPA and its shaping has its origins in the WTO and the challenges which countries that we feel are our friends and neighbours put up against the EU and force it to change its policies towards the ACP.
As i explained before, from as far back as the early 1980s the entire world trading system shifted its concessions to developing countries. By 1994 with the creation of the WTO that shift was alomost complete.
No longer was the system tolerant of preferential trade arrangements like LOME/Contonou that the EPA is set to replace. In fact i refer ROK for his benefit to Art. 24 in the GATT and Art. 5 in the GATS. Collectively these are called the “regional trade agreement articles”"
What these artitcles do is that they take away any ability of developed countries such as Europe and the US to develop and maintain preferential trade agreements. What are preferential trade agreements? These are agreements that allow and permit “one way trade”. That is that for example on LOME, CBI and CARIBCAN we were able to send all the goods we produce to the EU, USA, and Canada without attracting any duty some with a guarantee price and with guranteed quantities. While on th eother hand, these countries could could not get such benefits of market access from us. That went on for 20, 25, and in the case of the EU close to 40 years.
But as usual all good things must come to an end. So enter WTO. WTO members said those agreements are unfair to us cause you are offering these countries something which you ent offering us. And, under the new rules of non-discrimination Art. 1 of the GATT and 1 of the GATS what we call the MFN (most favoured nation clause), any country caught doing this would be carried before the WTO “court”
Now everbody including ROK, we hope, are aware of the cases involving bananas and sugar. In these cases the preferential treatment which the EU gave to ACP producers was challenged by the Latinos as unfair and an impairment of their rights to get equal treatment.
What happened. The EU fought the case and lost. LOST ! Sugar came up challenged by the Australians and Brazilians as unfair to them. And what happened? THE EU LOST THE CASE. In both instances the WTO dispute panel ruled that the EU “had to change the regime to accommodate other WTO members.
But what this meant was something even bigger.. It meant that all these preferential arrangement were in danger. Cause they were all alike and offered the same discrimination treatment to the Caribbean and other developing countries. So the EU had to go back to the WTO and ask the countries against whom its preferential arrangements discriminated for a “break” to allow the preferential arrangements to stay in place to help these small developing countries.
What did the WTO members say: We give you eight year 8 from January 1 2000 to December 31st 2007. After that come back with a different agreement which commits to liberalizing “SUBSTANTIALLY ALL TRADE BETWEEN YOU AND THE ACP COUNTRIES” If you do that we will give you another waiver that allows you to allow those countries to get duty free access to your markets.
So David, Chris, please try to understand that it ent the EU it is the WTO that is driving this process. The Caribbean therefore has no other alternative if we want to continue to get access to the EU markets duty free.
Now of course we dont have to sign. We really dont. But they are consequences to it. And when people like ROK come on the blog dont jjust let them tell you all that is bad let them tell you what is worse.
Take an example ROK talks about the rules of origin. Clearly he ent got a clue what he is talking about. Right now we have a major exporter in Barbados who sends product to the EU. An ingredient in that product because of the high price of it has to be sourced from Trinidad. Under the LOME rules of origin Barbados cannot export a product to the EU with an ingredient from any other country. So this company’s products have been stop from entering the market and asked to withdraw.
Fortunately for them the EU has already begun to implement the EPA even though it has not been signed. So the Barbados authorities have been able to point out to them that under EPA those rules have changed and the Caribbean is being treated as a single maket and so under rules of origin anything from another caribbean country will be considered as domestic.
The result. the product continues to enter EU markets duty free, quota free and with out question. Well that is for the time being and unless the the EPA is scrapped. So the ordinary workers at this company and i believe that there are close to 200, plus a whole of other people who provide that company with services can continue to make a living and feed their families.
Yet they are people like ROK who want these people put out of work and a decent living. Trust they are thousands more across this region who will face the same fate if we dont do this deal.
What is the alternative? they have not said any yet except that we must re-open negotiations. It takes two to do that and the EU has said they ent doing it. PERIOD. Besides the time is up. If we dont sign this agreement trust me the challenges in WTO will start. Dont mind Brazil and them, ask them if they thoough about us when they crash the sugar protocol in the WTO? they did not say oh let leave cause we will hurt Barbados. Next year alone Barbados will lose close to 30 million US dollars in FX because of that decision.
WAKE UP. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. if we dont sign the EU has said it ent going back to court to defend no deal that it knows it will lose. So it will put us under GSP and that means tariffs on our products. We cannot afford it.
ROK talks about revenue we will lose from tariff liberalization. He is right and this will have an impact. But not nearly cannot compare to the amount of foreign exchange we will lose if we dont do this deal. THAT IS A FACT. Barbados stands to lose about 16 million US dollars in tax revenue from this agreement over 25 years. That is less than a million US a year.
But on the Sugar fall out alone when the EU institues tariffs on our sugar we will lose on average 15 million uS a year every year till the sugar industry done. In other words we have to do like Trinidad, St. Kitts and so many others in the ACP. SHUT DOWN THE INDUSTRY.
And that is only in sugar. Could you imagine what it will be like for our other exports.
These people really serious.
Man i gine and watch OBAMA.
Now on to the mis-information.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 3:57 am
@Unsteady
A lot of hot air. I wonder if you ever see a trade agreement far less study one and instead of this knocking at everybody you should read.
If you were really in this for the education of people you would use the opportunity to expand on what I said rather than beat down on one point and have to agree with the rest of it.
You let people know that the reason for CSME (which is the real thing) is to get around some of the rules of origin as you stated happened to your friend. A single domestic market space but for how many ingredients. Well, some better than none.
Which part of the EU agreement is driven by WTO? Joke! As a matter of fact, we are advising our Governments to do only what is necessary to become WTO compatible but this EPA gone far beyond that.
EU is not negotaiting with Barbados. Yes we have to sign but we talking CARIFORUM which is the space EU will recognise and not CSME or CARICOM in this deal. They so powerful they decide who in this. Anything coming out of CARIFORUM is domestic.
Tell the people how much fx we lose on our own from sugar under Lome because increasingly every year we have failed to reach our quota? Tell them too that the EU reduced the quota and we still can’t meet it.
Put people out of work? Tell them how many of our small businesses will shut down. Tell them how many monopolies and duopolies will find themselves in the region? Wherever in this world these things happen the economies slump because these people are able to clear away the competition and then decide how much people they are going to employ and with the competition gone the job market contract while labour expand. What is that a recipe for?
Tell your friend (whatever he exporting) how much competition he can expect to come up against and if he will be able to hold his head above water when he can’t stop the competition from coming in? Tell him how many people he will be able to employ?
Ask him if he will get any raw materials if some European come in and buy up his source and control it so that he can’t get the quota he wants or suddenly finds that the shipments always late? You understand business, sir?
I want you to paint the real story. Help me to help people to understand the possibilities and the implications of the MFN clause? Help them to understand national treatment and that the Europeans want national treatment, i.e. we treat them the same as we treat our own. You really understand the implications?
I would like you to understand that we facing a reduction in our standard of living and quality of life. I want you to understand that the reason we have so little unemployment (comparably) is because people can start a business without being hammered by unfair competition.
Look how one big wig was able to take over all the supermarkets and distribution trade in Barbados and left only Jordans and A1. Duplicate that at least fifty times and see where we are. We selling we land to get money but then we have to live on the streets and in public places. What is that?
You are encouraging people to take the money so that they have a big pocketful now but you did not advise them that if they take the money they have to live on the streets afterwards and have nowhere to raise their children; crime up, street children on the prowl, social frabric in tatters?????
You see what happening in Africa with these so called trade deals? War! I don’t know why we think that Europe is any salvation when really and truly their wealth comes out of their continued plundering of Africa.
This move by the Europeans is purely expansionists and is meant to control as much of its old dominion as possible. With the wealth in Africa and a few more Mugabes, soon Europe would be cut off, so they have to keep Africa fighting and we divided. They know that only too well and with S. Africa independent and backing Mugabe too they perceive that they have to keep stoking fires.
We depending on tourism? Well that is the next key. Don’t grow more food? Don’t try to export to our Diaspora? Don’t try to help African nations pull themselves up? Haynesley Benn saying it loud and clear.
To depend on tourism is to put your fate in the hands of the Imperialists who can withdraw their hands at any time, as they so often demonstrate. Enjoy the benefits of tourism but make an investment in yourselves and do not give up your right to live a quality life.
Next thing is that we listening to the Europeans telling us that nothing good in Africa when all the time that is where the gold mine is for them.
I ask again, what is the rush? Why all the pressure? Tell me something about that. Why the threats? What do we really have that merit so much pressure? You know, the reason for penalties is not only to punish but also to deter.
So we ain’t shutting down we sugar industry too? We trying to grow fuel, you forget? With St. Kitts and all the rest gone what quantities of sugar do we have to bargain with as CARIFORUM?
I feel like I wasting my time on you but I welcome the chance the debate has of sparking interests and helping to explain. I would risk to bet that somebody fed you the information you put up, you know why? You have not been able to articulate it properly. You deal with one or two issues superficially and you gone for Obama. You just being mischevious.
David // August 29, 2008 at 6:54 am
Please clarify why would the EU specifically demand to negotiate with regional groupings i,e CARIFORUM instead of ACP? We want the rational from the EU perspective because we assume the question would have been raised by the Regional Negotiating Machinery. If we missed it above we apologize.
What motivates the question is the size of the trade market in the CARIFORUM space. Why should the EU fight to compete in our space? What guarantees are in place to monitor the enormous subsidies provided to farming and other industries in Europe which obvious positions those companies to compete fiercely. In fact may of their companies are ready now.
We see a parallel between the lag in development of the BLACK race as a result of slavery which gave the Whites a head start and the industrial development in the EU compared to what obtains in CARIFORUM countries.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
Yes David, thanks for the question. This is one of the other pieces of mis-information which critics of the EPA keep spreading as though it is true. It is not the EU that insisted on regionalized negotiating groups. It is the Africans that said they wanted to negotiate as seperate regions.
CARICOM of course would have argued for the continuation of the ACP as a group for trade negotiations but the Africans, sweetened by the Everything but Arms” proposal (which guaranteed them duty free, quota free access for everything they could export except arms) from the EU, and believing that they could get better benefits if they go it alone.
So all of this talk about how the region abandoned africa and the pacific is patently false. If anything it was the other way around.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 11:40 am
@David,
My only explanation is expansionism; the need to control the markets of other countries because they are producing more than they consume on the one hand and need to get rid of it.
On the other hand, greatly deficient in some key areas such as natural proteins (cheap) and vitamins. The most obvious is fish. We in a sea of abundance.
The next thing is that they have the money to do it. Look at the strength of the British Pound for example, never mind the Euro, it works out the same. One BP is four Barbados Dollars.
We pay a dollar for a sweet drink, they pay a Pound. We charge US$150.00 for a hotel room, they charge 150.00 BP. We pay $40.00 for dining at a restaurant, they pay 40 BP. Understand the wealth.
I am not so sure that the division of the ACP into blocs is due to Africa. Sometimes we should see how we do things. To my mind, even if it had the strongest backing of Africa, this is a natural development because of cultural and other diversity; language too. Africa itself is split up into regions and are being negotiated in regions; so south will be different to east and they different to west, etc.
If we look at recent developments or I should say evolution of trade negotiations, you will see that EU is also negotiating by country as well. So our attempt to have consensus is good for us.
There is nothing wrong with the regions as smaller units coming together making their decisions and then coming together as one. Only, the coming together as one is not happening.
We should blame it on the ACP Secretariat which to my mind does nothing to encourage integration… but even then that is not right. I would say one thing though, we need to get the rid of that South African white man that heads the political bureau.
At the 2006 Civil Society summit, I witnessed first hand, the strategies he employed to create division and he got a piece of my tongue then. Subsequently Owen Arthur took a turn in him, followed by Ralph Gonsalves, but yet he still there.
Not sure how else to answer your question except being privy to the confidential affairs of the EU.
@Unsteady,
Sony Ramphal was there in live living colour, n’estpas? Were you?
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@STEADY: “I really thought this was explained to both David and Chris already but clearly it has to be done again.”
My personal apologies for being ignorant. And, quite possibly, profoundly stupid…
But… nothing I have been told to date (via any medium) has yet explained to me why we *must* sign the EPA. Or, for that matter, what the advantage is.
I keep asking for detailed analysis — but what I get back is nothing but great amounts of language which actually explains nothing…
Some seem to think that excessive verbiage can convince others that they are correct. In my mind, such waste of bandwidth simply means the transmitter actually doesn’t understand and/or cannot and/or will not explain the issue at hand.
@STEADY: Please correct me if I’m wrong here (and I probably am), but what you seem to be arguing is that unless we sign the EPA, that we will default back to the WTO GATT. But don’t you also argue that the EPA must be constrained within the WTO anyway?
So, what is the downside to not signing?
Specifically, what is our actual export capacity? Sugar? Fish? (Possibly energy?) What else?
@STEADY: Fundamentally, I’m asking — what are the trade-offs between signing the EPA, and not?
Again, I keep asking for a detailed analysis (or, preferably, many such) written by our own thinkers (would an “Executive Summary” be too much to ask for?). I keep asking for URLs, but all I get back is shite… (Actually, that’s not quite true — I’ve once been provided with the URL for the EPA documents themselves. But they seem to be designed by the EU to be absolutely unassailable…)
What work has been done *here* in the region with regards to the issues? Have mathematical models being built to analyse the options? Are these available to the public?
@STEADY: I have one last specific question; who are *you*? Why should I trust what *you* say?
I have met ROK (aka Roosevelt) twice. I have read many of his interviews in the local papers. For the record, I assisted ROK on a paper in response to the Barbados Fair Trading Commission (FTC) Price Cap Mechanism (PCM) review last year. In short, I know who ROK is — I think I understand where ROK is coming from. I trust his character. (Additionally, just for the record, ROK and I have not, are not, and will not “coordinate” our efforts on this Blog.)
Again, I ask, why should I trust *you*?
I have a personal rule: listen to others more than you yourself speak. But, be prepared to put your name behind your words… And if someone is not prepared to do so, then one must question the motivation and/or the conviction…
@STEADY: Please do advise on my immediate above. I am (truly) wishing to understand.
Kindest regard to all.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm
ROK,
Trust me i was right there with sonny as well. I dont speak of things that i dont know. And i am telling that is the history of it and you could check any person who was associated with the Cotonou negotiations they would tell you. I know you were not there cause i know you. You cant tell me…you have to listen and stop spreading mis-information about things that you dont know.
I have been working on CARCOM trade issues for more than 25 years and continue to do so all now so you should stop and learn a little about what is going on.
A lot of these people who you see commenting about these matters now come i was there from as far back as Willie Demas working as a young economist in the CDB. I worked with the EU and then with the Secretariat. So you cannot lecture about anything to do with trade, regional integration, caricom, ACP none of it.
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm
@STEADY: “And i am telling that is the history of it and you could check any person who was associated with the Cotonou negotiations they would tell you. I know you were not there cause i know you.”
Based on this specific language, you should have no problem sharing with us your name.
Please do so.
Namaste.
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm
@All…
One other life lesson I learnt from someone far smarter than myself:
“When someone says ‘trust me’, don’t.”
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm
@Steady
You still hedging, man. I want you to properly answer David’s question because you know that even if Africa is guilty as you charged that it only forms an excuse for EU to divide and rule.
You know that it has to do with how EU approaches the division and it is obvious that they will approach it in their own interest. For example, which country is responsible for EU now digging at countries individually?
Another thing, what happens if a country in a region do not sign but the rest of the region signs; or say 80% signs? What happens to the 20%? Do they enjoy the same agreement as the others?
Check the latest news: http://bangospeaks.blogspot.com as it may add to some understanding.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Well Chris you have said quite a mouth full but i cant convince you of anything you are not prepared to accept. My identity is not important it is what is important it is what i am saying and the analysis that is provided.
If you choose not to accept it then i cant do anything about that. As i have said you cant possibly hope to understand and appreciate these issues if your are not prepared to appreciate the origin of the EPAs, why is necessary to negotiate at this time and why we have to liberalize the way we have.
Now i tried my best to explain this but now you accuse me of liking to hear my self speak. I dont have to hear myself speak at all. You asked for explanations and i tried to give them. You just dont seem to want to accept it. I cannot do anything about that i could only try.
Now it is easy to say oh! dont sign cause the agreement will kill the region, re-colonize us and bring Caribbean civilization to an end. That sounds good but is that really case.
What you should be asking ROK and the others is what is the alternative to signing. Up to now none of the critics can tell you what the alternative is. They can just tell you “dont sign. In WTO you can hold out on signing an agreement if you want cause there is no real time line and little real up-front consequences.
But with EPA its different. Europe is one of our biggest markets. We, well that is the Caribbean export quite a bit to Europe and earn lots of foreign exchange. We dont have any other markets to really take our basic commodities in the volumes that the EU does.
Now with no agreement in place it means that we end up having to put our exporters in a very bad position of not being abler to retain market share. That means a massive lost of jobs, foreign exchange and economic growth. Who is willing to risk this? Thats the point.
Now Europe is saying look – we gave you one-way preferential trade for more than 30 years, along with it we gave you billions of dollars in aid and development assistance. The world had change and we are no longer obligated to do this and we are not doing it. Indeed even if we wanted to do the WTO will not approve it unless you agree to open up your markets to liberalization.
So lets put a new e deal in place. And that is all this is. The Caribbean, underdstanding the reality says yes lets negotiate. So you go to the table you put down your offers and they put there’s and you wade through till you find agreement. But you have a deadline within which to do so because the WTO rules say so. They also say that when you negotiate nake sure you liberalize “substantially all trade” between yourselves. Dont cme back with the EU opening up 100% and you doing 50% or even 60% liberalize substantially all.
Now ACP countries agreed to this in the Cotonou agreement which governs the EPA negotiations. Art. 37 says that the “parties” (that being the ACP and the EU) agree to negotiate a”WTO COMPATIBLE TRADE AGREEMENT”
So Chris, our governments agreed to do this every since 2000. And they agreed to do it frankly because they had no other choice.
Now i dont those rules, you dont make them either. So we cannot be blamed for it but he have to acknowledge it and deal with it.
That is all that i was trying to say to you.
Now lets see if i could answer some of your questions.
1. On the studies that were done. Yes Chris countless studies were done on EPA. Econometrical models were done, studies on market capacity, revenue lost impact, adjustment cost impact, markets impact and opportunities. Countless studies. The RNM established Technical Working Groups and Advisory Groups. They also did national consultations on top of national consultations all over the region.
NGOs also did countless consultations, rallies the whole thing. Could more have been done of course but for people to give the impression that countries are secretly trying to sign off an agreement without consultation is not true and not fair.
Chris, all of these studies are on the RNM website, or you could visit the Commonwealth Secretariat site, the ACP site OXFAM. They are just so many just google them and you will find both sides of the debate. The problem with caribbean people is that when these are being dealt with they dont pay attention, but just when the process is about to end they come rushing saying hold on start from the beginning and do it all over again so that we can get invloved. But this time we dont have that luxury.
It would be impossible for me to answer all of your questions here but i will send you a broad analysis that i hope you will be able to use to get more information on the subject.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Chris – As promised.
EXAMINATION OF THE DRAFT ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN CARIFORUM COUNTRIES
AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
INTRODUCTION
On the 16th of December 2007, the Draft Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between CARIFORUM countries and the European Union (EU) was initialed by the Principal Negotiators of the two Parties, thus signaling the conclusion of negotiations for a new trade and economic relationship between the Caribbean and the EU, which commenced in April 2004.
2. The mandate for negotiations emanated from the ACP/EU Partnership Agreement signed in Cotonou in 2000. That mandate, among other things, called for the negotiation of a World Trade Organization (WTO) compatible agreement, the essential feature of which is reciprocity in trade. An agreement of this nature represents a fundamental departure from previous ACP/EU Conventions and the current Cotonou Agreement which were based on the principle of cooperation and non-reciprocal trade relations.
3. The Draft Agreement, while not a perfect one, represents a reasonable tool for encouraging and promoting meaningful and beneficial trade and economic relations between CARIFORUM and the EU, given the new realities of a changing global economic landscape. The Agreement covers the following areas (i) Market Access for both Industrial and Agricultural products; (ii) Services and Investment; (iii) Trade-related issues – competition policy, trade and the environment, trade and labour, and consumer policy – and (iv) Legal & Institutional Issues.
4. Essentially the Agreement provides for free trade between the two sides in both goods and services, on a phased basis, with the Caribbean being allowed a period of up to twenty-five years to liberalise its import-trade in goods from the EU. The Agreement also emphasizes and provides for a high level of development cooperation and financial and technical assistance, CARIFORUM countries being the beneficiaries. Emphasis is also placed on regional integration.
5. The general objectives of the Agreement speak to:
The reduction and eradication of poverty
Promoting regional integration, economic cooperation and good governance
The gradual integration of CARIFORUM States into the world economy
Improving trade capacity in trade policy and trade-related issues
Supporting conditions for increasing investment and private sector initiative, and enhancing supply capacity, competitiveness and economic growth in the region
Strengthening relations between the two parties on the basis of solidarity and mutual interest.
6. CARIFORUM was the only region in the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group (ACP), which was able to conclude a comprehensive EPA, including provisions for both goods and services. The other five regions eventually signed interim agreements with the EU, most of which are to take effect from April 2008.
7. The Draft Agreement having been initialed by the two Principal Negotiators, must now be formally signed and ratified by both Parties. The current schedule calls for formal signature of the Agreement by all States on July 23, 2008, with provisional application taking effect pending ratification. It should be noted that the EU, pending the provisional application of the Agreement, has been applying full duty-free treatment to CARIFORUM exports to Europe since the beginning of January 2008.
8. The remainder of this paper will be divided as follows: Part I will provide a synopsis of the principal features of the Agreement, while Part II examines the development cooperation dimension of the Agreement. Part III will discuss the main opportunities presented by the new arrangement. Part IV will highlight and examine the challenges that CARIFORUM countries may face in the implementation of the EPA, while Part V speaks to the way forward. The conclusion to the paper will include an overall assessment of the EPA.
PART 1
OVERVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT
MARKET ACCESS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL GOODS
9. The economies of CARICOM and the Dominican Republic have traditionally benefited from an economic relationship with the European Union (EU) where almost 90 percent of their goods were eligible for preferential treatment in the EU market. CARICOM countries have benefited predominately from the export of primary products such as sugar, rum and bananas.
10. There were some restrictions under this arrangement as well. For example, under the Lomé Conventions export quotas were imposed on sugar, rum and bananas entering the EU market. In addition, rum coming from the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) States was not allowed to be re-exported from one EU Member State to another. This prohibition resulted in high cost of shipping for Caribbean rum and limited the number of markets that Barbados was able successfully to penetrate. These restrictions, together with some highly restrictive rules of origin and demanding sanitary and phyto-sanitary requirements that ACP countries had to observe in exporting preferentially to Europe, did not permit for the development of any viable CARICOM export trade in manufactured goods to Europe.
11. The forces of globalization and liberalization have contrived to make one-way preferential trading arrangements untenable. Such arrangements are now being replaced by reciprocal trade and economic agreements. The proposed EPA between CARIFORUM States and the EU is but one example of this new shift in trade and economic relations among states, particularly between developed and developing.
The EPA Market Access Provisions
12. Part II of the Draft Agreement deals with Trade in Goods. These provisions cover areas such as customs duties; trade defense instruments; non-tariff measures; customs and trade facilitation; agriculture and fisheries; technical barriers to trade; and sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures. The market access schedules for both industrial and agricultural goods are annexed to the Agreement.
13. Given the mandate of the Contonou Agreement (Article 36) “to conclude new WTO compatible trading arrangements, removing progressively barriers to trade” between the ACP countries and the EU, CARIFORUM countries were intent on negotiating an EPA that would not only liberalize trade between the two parties on a phased basis, but also promote their economic development and further regional integration. The asymmetrical nature of the Draft Agreement especially as it relates to goods, together with its development provisions suggest that the Caribbean, to a large extent, did achieve its principal objective. It is considered that the provisions are in keeping with WTO provisions, especially GATT Article XXIV which speaks to the formation of free trade areas (FTAs) . That Article calls, inter alia, for the liberalization of “substantially all trade” over a “reasonable” period of time.
14. These concepts have never been defined or challenged in the WTO. CARIFORUM States, and indeed Barbados, have maintained that substantially all trade should amount to between 80 and 85 percent of total trade between the states concerned. The EU, on the other hand, insisted on 90 percent of total trade. The Draft EPA Agreement provides for CARIFORUM liberalizing 86.9 percent of trade, with 82.7 percent being liberalized within the first fifteen years. The other 4.2 percent would be liberalized over a twenty to twenty-five year period. 13.1 percent of trade has been excluded from liberalization. This is in keeping with the Barbados position. Table 1 captures the position outlined above.
Table 1
Level of Liberalization in CARIFORUM-EU EPA
% Imports
from EU
Zero Basket 52.8%
lib within 5 yrs 56.0%
lib within 10 yrs 61.1%
lib within 15 yrs 82.7%
lib within 20 yrs 84.6%
lib within 25 yrs 86.9%
Source: Adapted from CRNM Report
15. The Draft Agreement outlines five time-frames (transition periods) over which the elimination of duties will take place on specified products. These time frames are five years; ten years; fifteen years; twenty years; and twenty-five years. In international trade agreements transitional periods are usually limited to maximum of ten to twelve years and even fifteen years, as is the case with the EU-South Africa Agreement. It therefore should be noted that to date the ACP groupings or individual countries who have signed interim agreements have accepted transition periods of fifteen years in duration.
Tariff Liberalization and Other Duties and Charges
16. The Agreement allows for the notification and maintenance of other duties and charges (ODCs) for a ten-year period. CARIFORUM States are not required to make reductions in these charges within the first seven years, but will be granted three years thereafter in which to phase them out. During this phasing period, applicable duties will be reduced with a view to their eventual elimination. It is anticipated that the reduction in these duties will prompt some revenue shortfalls. It must, however, be noted that reductions in duties are only applicable to ODCs which discriminate against imports. In the case of Barbados’ the Environmental levy comes readily to mind. Taxes which are imposed locally, such as the Excise Tax and Value Added Tax, will not be subject to reduction.
Exclusions List
17. As was previously alluded to, 13.1 percent of trade has been omitted from trade liberalization. These include both agricultural and industrial goods, but the larger share comprises agricultural goods. The duty will not be removed on these products. In the case of Barbados, the national effort to identify these products was informed by consultations with the public and private sectors, as well as the trades unions. The examination took into account growth potential, revenue sensitivity and food security concerns.
18. Some items which Barbados traditionally regarded as revenue sensitive items, however, have not been included in this list and will face tariff liberalization over specified time frames. Included in these are jewelry, clocks, cars, prefabricated buildings and some steel products. The excise tax will continue to be applied in addition to the Value Added Tax (VAT).
Moratorium
19. A general moratorium of three years prior to the commencement of tariff reductions has been agreed to by both parties. However, the exceptions to this general rule are motor vehicles and their parts and gasoline which have an extended moratorium period of ten years. According to the Draft Agreement, the moratorium will be seen as part of the transition period for tariff liberalization.
Rules of Origin
20. Rules of Origin (RoO) prescribe the criteria which a product would have to meet in order to qualify as originating in the exporting country. This is also critical in determining the product’s eligibility for being granted preferential market access. The RoO under this Agreement (Protocol 1) are an improvement over those which currently exist in the Cotonou Agreement. It is considered that CARIFORUM countries in seeking to access the EU market would find the rules more achievable than under previous ACP/EU agreements. Provision is also made in the Agreement for a review of the Rules within the first five years of the entry into force of the Agreement. The aim is to seek to further simplify the Rules, taking into consideration the developmental needs of the CARIFORUM States. This provides a window of opportunity for the Caribbean to seek to revise the Rules in instances where they are considered to be impediments to meaningful trade with the EU.
Modification of Schedules
21. The Draft Agreement gives the assurance that, in the case of any serious difficulties which may interrupt the importation of a given product by CARIFORUM, a review will be undertaken by the CARIFORUM-EC Trade and Development Council (TDC). This would be done with a view to possibly modifying the schedule for phased duty reduction on that particular product. The time-frame, however, would not be extended beyond what was originally scheduled and agreed to in the Agreement. The phased reduction process then could be postponed for a period of one year. Special provisions apply for CARICOM LDCs.
Most Favoured Nation Treatment
22. The Most Favoured Nation Treatment (MFN) Clause within the EPA was introduced by the EU, and was not readily accepted by CARIFORUM. This MFN clause requires CARIFORUM States not to grant more favourable treatment to any major trading economy than it grants to the EU. This certainly has implications for future trade negotiations with the other developed countries and larger developing countries such as China, Brazil and India, as it would limit CARIFORUM in terms of what trade concessions it could make in such negotiations. Barbados and other CARIFORUM countries therefore must be cognizant of this.
Safeguards
23. The Draft Agreement provides for locally produced products to be protected by the application of a safeguard, if the volume of imports (or if “conditions arise”) causes or threatens to cause injury to the domestic industry. This safeguard therefore allows for:
• the suspension of any further reduction of the rate of import duty applied to the product concerned
• an increase in the amount of customs duty applicable on the product up to a level not exceeding the duty applied to other WTO Members
• the introduction of tariff quotas on the product.
24. In instances where the safeguard is to be applied, CARIFORUM States have up to four years to apply such and the option of an additional four years should the circumstances warrant it.
Technical Barriers to Trade
25. In the area of technical barriers to trade (TBT), the parties have reaffirmed their commitment to the rights and obligations provided for in the WTO TBT Agreement. That Agreement represents a minimum set of requirements for member states to observe. The region was content to have this maintained as there would be no additional obligations to be met. The Agreement allows for collaboration at the regional and international levels in order to arrive at acceptable standards.
Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures
26. As with the TBT provisions, the sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) provisions generally do not seek to go beyond what is already agreed to at the WTO level by CARIFORUM countries. There is, however, a requirement for collaboration at the regional level.
27. In the negotiations, CARIFORUM had three main aims with regard to SPS measures, namely:
a) to develop a mechanism for coordination, consultation and exchange of information as regards notification and application of proposed SPS measures, whenever these measures might affect the interests of either the Caribbean or the EU
b) to secure support for capacity building initiatives for the Caribbean so that they can meet the SPS measures of the EU which are becoming increasingly stringent
c) to take appropriate measures so as to minimize extra costs placed on Caribbean producers and exporters to comply with EU SPS measures.
28. The Caribbean was relatively successful in realizing these aims. The parties agreed to consult with the aim of achieving bilateral arrangements on recognition of the equivalence of specified SPS measures. This provision could allow the region to make use of SPS measures which are economically viable for the region and readily available.
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures of the EPA
29. The provisions on Anti-dumping (AD) and Countervailing (CV) measures outlined in Article 23 of Chapter 2 of the Draft EPA defers to WTO provisions on this matter. The EPA, however, speaks to the possibility of imposing such measures at the regional level. The EU has also given the undertaking that it will consider the possibility of using constructive remedies as provided for in WTO Agreements before imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties. It is worth noting that these provisions are not subject to dispute settlement requirements.
30. It should be noted that within the WTO, a number of issues relating to its Anti-dumping Agreement arise, and often require consultations and/or dispute settlement. For example, there is the issue of “like products” and what exactly constitutes a “like product”. Is it that the characteristics of the product should be considered or some other related aspects such as its uses, raw materials used or other criteria? In addition, even the calculation of the dumping margin is an area that has been under some scrutiny for sometime.
SERVICES AND INVESTMENT
Objectives of Services Negotiations
31. One important objective for CARIFORUM countries in the services negotiations was an increase in market access for Caribbean services providers at all jurisdictional levels (i.e. federal, state and municipal levels) in the European Community. In particular, CARIFORUM wanted to obtain greater access under Mode 4 (movement of natural persons) . This is consistent with Article IV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which contains a number of built-in flexibilities for developing countries. It therefore was considered prudent to have a similar framework reflected in the EPA text to ensure that CARIFORUM countries are afforded similar opportunities to become meaningful participants in the trading arrangements with the EU.
32. Given the objective of seeking greater market access in sectors of export interest to CARIFORUM, the region sought to obtain full commitments from the EC in Modes 1 and 2 – cross border supply and the consumption abroad. Restrictions on these modes of supply could have a negative impact upon the region’s ability to leverage information communication technologies (ICTs) in its attempt at realising its full potential in the provision of services.
33. The temporary movement of business persons is of the utmost importance to CARIFORUM Member States. Barbados, for example, in identifying its export interests to the EU, targeted mainly its professional services regime as the means by which meaningful exportation of services could occur. In pursuit of this, the region sought to have EU Member States eliminate all requirements (visas, licenses, permits or economic needs tests) impeding market access for individual CARIFORUM suppliers, intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and professionals, and support personnel.
34. In addition, it was necessary to seek equivalency recognition by the EU for the professional credentials of CARIFORUM services suppliers. This was sought through the insertion into the text of mutual recognition provisions.
35. The recognition of non-traditional services activities was also one of the stated objectives of CARIFORUM. The region had always envisaged the successful exportation of viable services activities which have the potential to earn a high level of foreign exchange. Accordingly, the cultural services industries, including the music industry, were targeted. This was met with tough resistance on the part of some members of the EU.
36. The region also sought the creation of an appropriate, targeted technical assistance programme that would result in;
• the development of services capacities leading to the structural transformation of the economies of CARIFORUM Member States;
• an increase in earnings in foreign exchanges in services;
• the diversification of CARIFORUM/s services export base; and
• an increase in job creation in the regional services industries.
Objectives of Investment Negotiations
37. Traditionally, regional Governments have adopted a very liberal approach to investment; in particular with respect to the attracting of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In Barbados, the Government has devised a range of various tax incentives, buttressed by a growing network of comprehensive bilateral investment and tax treaties. This has created an investment-friendly climate which is highly attractive to overseas business interests.
38. In the area of investment, CARIFORUM Member States believed that an EPA with Europe principally should;
• facilitate economic diversification efforts in CARIFORUM while providing a suitable platform for regional exports in non-services activities to the EC;
• secure the preservation of the right to regulate activities in the public interest;
• complement existing bilateral investment arrangements between members of CARIFORUM and individual EC Member States;
• provide for the removal of all discriminatory restrictions on establishment, thereby facilitating CARIFORUM’s outward investment thrust; and
• remove all discriminatory measures affecting citizenship, residency, capital, land purchase and equity caps or other such requirements for Caribbean investors.
Overview of Services and Investment in the Draft Agreement
39. The EPA text covers salient areas such as market access and national treatment; (as they pertain to the cross border supply of services and the commercial presence of services entities); most favoured nation treatment; the treatment of the temporary movement of business persons; mutual recognition; rules governing the behaviour of investors; regulatory provisions relating to specific services sectors (in particular tourism services); development cooperation in services; and recognition and treatment of cultural services industries. The schedules containing the proposed commitments on services and investment by the Parties are annexed to the Agreement.
Objectives, Scope and Coverage
40. The objective, scope and coverage of the agreement clearly reaffirm the commitments of the Parties, as contracting parties in the WTO, to work towards the gradual integration of CARIFORUM States into the global economy. The text also provides for the progressive, reciprocal and asymmetrical liberalization of investment and services, as well as cooperation in e-commerce. In addition, the Draft (Article 60) speaks to:
• The non-inclusion of rules on subsidies
• The exclusion of privatization
• The non-imposition of obligations with respect to government procurement
• The retention by the Parties of the right to regulate and to impose new regulations in the pursuit of legitimate national policy objectives
• The non application of the Agreement with respect to measures relating to natural persons seeking employment, as well as measures affecting citizenship or residency on a permanent basis
• The right of the Parties to impose measures regulating the entry and stay of individuals, including measures aimed at maintaining the integrity of, and ensuring the orderly movement of natural persons, providing that the measures employed do not impair the benefits to be derived from the Agreement.
Market Access Provisions
41. The Draft Agreement provides for the conditions under which market access is granted in the contracting parties. It also calls for the extension of treatment no less favourable than outlined in the respective parties’ schedule of commitments with respect to commercial presence, as well as the cross border provision of services.
42. It therefore is expected that commitments undertaken be unfettered unless the following types of measures/limitations are disclosed in the schedules of Parties:
(a) Limitations on the number of service suppliers including commercial presence, whether in the form of numerical quotas, monopolies, exclusive services suppliers or other requirements such as economic needs tests
(b) Limitations on the total value of transactions or assets in the form of numerical quotas or economic needs tests
(c) Limitations on the total number of operations or on the total quantity of output expressed in terms of designated numerical units in the form of quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test
(d) Limitations on the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage limit on foreign shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign investment
(e) Measures which restrict or require specific types of commercial presence (subsidiary, branch, representative office) or joint ventures through which an investor of the other Party may perform an economic activity.
43. It is important to note, however, that the market access limitations with respect to the cross border provision of services exclude the following, given the nature of cross border provision of services:
• Limitations on the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage limit on foreign shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign investment
• Measures which restrict or require specific types of commercial presence (subsidiary, branch, representative office) or joint ventures through which an investor of the other Party may perform an economic activity.
National Treatment
44. The National Treatment provisions in the text stipulate that the contracting parties shall ensure that the treatment extended to foreign services suppliers should not be less than equal to the treatment granted to domestic services suppliers. The text also interestingly states that specific commitments undertaken shall not be construed to require the contracting parties to compensate for inherent competitive disadvantages which result from the foreign character of the relevant commercial presences and investors.
Most Favoured Nation Treatment
45. The text provides for the important overarching principle of non-discrimination. The provisions on Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Treatment call not only for no less than equal treatment for foreign services and services suppliers, but also imposes the additional requirement on CARIFORUM countries not to grant more favourable treatment to any “major trading economy” (as defined earlier in this report).
46. There is, however, some avenue for derogation from this principle. According to the text, the obligations set out shall not apply to treatment granted under:
i) measures providing for recognition of qualifications, licences or prudential measures in accordance with Article VII of the GATS or its Annex on Financial Services,
ii) any international agreement or arrangement relating wholly or mainly to taxation, or
iii) measures benefiting from the coverage of an MFN exemption listed in accordance with Article II.2 of the GATS.
47. Furthermore, when either of the contracting parties concludes a regional economic integration agreement creating an internal market or requiring the said parties to “significantly approximate their legislation with a view to removing non-discriminatory obstacles to trade in services”, the treatment granted to services and services suppliers of third countries in sectors subject to the internal market or to the significant approximation of legislation is not covered by the aforementioned MFN principle. This therefore ensures that the European Economic Area, pre-accession agreements to the European Union, the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, and the CARICOM-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement fall in their entirety under this stated exception.
Future Liberalization and Review
48. The text makes provision for further liberalization of services and investment. In this regard, the parties are required to engage in negotiations no later than five years after the date of entry into force of the Agreement.
Commercial Presence
49. The Agreement outlines the level of coverage attributed to firms seeking to establish a presence within the contracting parties. The following activities however are excluded with respect to commercial presence:
(a) Mining, manufacturing and processing of nuclear
materials
(b) Production of or trade in arms, munitions and war
material
(c) Audio-visual services
(d) National maritime cabotage
(e) National and international air transport services, and services directly related to the exercise of traffic rights, other than:
i. aircraft repair and maintenance services
ii. the selling and marketing of air transport services
iii. computer reservation system (CRS) services
iv. other ancillary services that facilitate the operation of air carriers, such as ground handling services, rental services of aircraft with crew, and airport management services.
Bilateral Investment Treaties
50. The EPA services and investment text provides the flexibility to individual CARIFORUM and EC Member States to conclude bilateral investment treaties. The Agreement, however, does not cover promotion and protection of investment.
Cross Border Supply of Services
51. The coverage provided for cross border supply of services is similar to that provided for commercial presence, with the exception of activities pertaining to (a) mining, manufacturing and processing of nuclear materials; and (b) production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.
Temporary Movement of Natural Persons for Business Purposes
52. The Agreement provides for a framework governing the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes. The categories of such persons include key personnel, graduate trainees, business services sellers, contractual services suppliers, independent professionals and short-term visitors for business purposes .
Regulatory Framework
53. The text speaks to a regulatory framework for services and investment which contains provisions relating to mutual recognition of qualifications, transparency and other related issues. There are also regulations for specific activities such as computer services, courier services, telecommunication services, financial services, international maritime transport services, and tourism services.
Electronic Commerce
54. A nexus between electronic commerce and trade is recognized in the Draft. The Parties have agreed to promote the development of electronic commerce and to cooperate on development issues relating to the same. In addition, the text stresses the need for the highest international standards of data protection in the development of electronic commerce. This is considered critical in order to ensure the confidence of users of electronic commerce.
Cooperation
55. The Agreement speaks to the provision of technical assistance by the EU to strengthen the capacity of CARIFORUM States to effectively supply services, thereby realizing the objectives of and commitments undertaken in the Agreement. A non-exhaustive list of areas for technical assistance, training and capacity building is identified in the text.
Protocol on Cultural Cooperation
56. The Protocol on Cultural Cooperation outlines the framework for the development of cultural industries in the region. The text which covers both goods and services associated with the cultural sector, calls for inter alia the provision of technical assistance to the cultural industries. It also speaks to the facilitation of cultural exchanges and dialogue in this area. In addition, the Agreement provides for the entry and temporary stay of artists and other cultural professionals and practitioners from CARIFORUM into the EU.
57. The text also contains provisions on audio visual cooperation (including cinematography) aimed at the creation of an environment conducive to the development of new, and the implementation of existing co-production agreements between the Parties. Co-produced works are to benefit from preferential arrangements in the EC market, subject to certain conditions such as:
1) the co-produced audiovisual works are realized between undertakings which are owned and continue to be owned, whether directly or by majority participation, by a member state of the European Union or a Signatory CARIFORUM State and or their respective nationals
2) the nationality of the owners and managers, which must either be of EU nationality or the nationality of one of the CARIFORUM Member States; and
3) capital contribution requirements, where both the total financial contributions of one or several producers of the EC and the total financial contributions of one or several producers of CARIFORUM States shall not be less than 20 percent and not more than 80 percent of the total production cost.
58. The agreement also covers the important areas of; (a) the temporary importation of material and equipment for the purpose of shooting cinematographic films and television programmes; (b) the facilitation of increased contacts between practitioners of performing arts in areas such as professional exchanges and training; (c) facilitating the exchange and dissemination of publications; and (d) the protection of sites and historical monuments.
TRADE RELATED ISSUES
59. Trade related issues (TRIs) must of necessity be covered in any modern trade agreement, if it is to address meaningfully the questions of impediments to trade development among the parties concerned. The fact that the Parties have agreed to the inclusion of provisions relating to this area in the EPA speaks well of their intention to genuinely promote trade between themselves.
60. The relevant section of the Draft (Title IV) covers a number of issues of a cross-cutting nature, which speaks to a deliberate attempt at ensuring that the objectives of the EPA are achieved. These include competition policy, innovation and intellectual property, public procurement, environment, and protection of personal data.
Competition Policy
61. The section on competition policy identifies the types of anti-competitive conduct that will be prohibited in trade between the Parties. These include restrictive business practices and the abuse of dominant positions. The Parties commit to have in place, within 5 years of the commencement of the Agreement, the relevant laws and institutions to address matters related to competition policy. It should be noted that the text recognizes the CARICOM Competition Commission and the Dominican Republic Competition Authority. Each entity may inform the other of its willingness to cooperate on enforcement activity. This, however, does not preclude individual member states from taking autonomous action/decisions.
Innovation and Intellectual Property
62. This Chapter covers a range of issues related to intellectual property such as copyright, brand names, trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications and plant varieties. It also addresses issues to improve the administration and reporting of these matters. The Parties have agreed to create an environment which fosters innovation and creativity, leading to improved competitiveness. Intellectual property is not treated on its own but within the overall context of cooperation on innovation. These two issues are deemed to play a critical role in economic partnership agreements. The questions of protection and enforcement of intellectual property are deemed as critical in fostering creativity, innovation and competitiveness.
Public Procurement
63. The objective of the Chapter is to increase transparency in the procurement of goods and services by Governments. The text outlines the procedures for open, selective and limited tendering and the creation of a regional procurement market (Articles 165-182). The rules prohibit discrimination against CARIFORUM and EU suppliers and set out rules for valuation and bid challenges. There is also the requirement for the establishment and maintenance of on-line procurement facilities and a requirement to use international standards in technical specifications. The provisions dealing with this area are to be reviewed after three years by a Joint CARIFORUM-EC Implementation Committee.
64. It is considered that these provisions might have gone farther than what is necessary for a basic agreement covering transparency in government procurement. Barbados as well as other CARICOM governments will have to ensure that market access considerations do not creep into the implementation of these provisions.
Environment
65. The essential aim of this area of the Draft is to provide a framework which ensures that as trade develops, the environment is simultaneously being protected and preserved. The Parties therefore are required to observe certain disciplines as they see to develop trade among themselves.
Social Aspects
66. It should be stressed that within the context of sustainable development, social, cultural, economic and environmental, considerations must feature prominently in the negotiation of an EPA between CARIFORUM and the EU. The Agreement, as it relates to social issues, is largely based on two principal international agreements. The first is the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention that supports freedom of association and collective bargaining, elimination of forced labour, abolition of child labour and elimination of discrimination in the workplace. The second is the United Nations Social and Economic Council Agreement on Full Employment and Decent Work. In this respect, Parties are encouraged to seek the advice of the ILO on best practices and cooperate on social and labour issues. The Parties are also committed to observing internationally recognized core labour standards.
Protection of Personal Data
67. The objective of the relevant Chapter on personal data protection is to ensure that parties establish effective regimes covering this area. Parties have seven years after the EPA comes into force to establish and maintain such regimes. Given Barbados’ thrust (and CARIFORUM as a whole), in the area of services, it is considered that the implementation of these provisions would enhance the country’s capacity to create a successful e-commerce regime.
Legal and Institutional Issues
68. A number of bodies/institution will be established to manage the operations of the EPA. These include the Joint CARIFORUM-EC Council, and the CARIFORUM-EC Trade and Development Committee. There also would be a Parliamentary Committee as well as a Consultative Committee.
69. The CARIFORUM-EC Trade and Development Committee will assist the Joint CARIFORUM-EC Council in performing its duties in the area of trade and development. It will have principal responsibility for ensuring the proper and effective application of the provisions of the Agreement relating to trade and development cooperation. The CARIFORUM-EC Parliamentary Committee will comprise members of the European Parliament and CARIFORUM States legislatures. This body will keep the implementation of the EPA under review with the purpose of making recommendations to the Joint Trade and Development Committee and the Joint Council. The CARIFORUM-EC Committee will function as the link between civil society, social and economic partners and the CARIFORUM-EC Council.
70. This committee will function as the link, between organizations of civil society, social and economic partners and the CARIFORUM-EC Council. The Committee will seek to promote cooperation in all areas of the EPA. This body may make recommendations to the joint CARIFORUM-EC Council and the CARIFORUM-EC Trade and Development Committee.
Dispute Settlements
71. Provisions for the settlement of disputes under the EPA are clearly set out in the Draft Agreement. It is considered that they do reflect the standard requirements expected of agreements of this kind. CARIFORUM countries should not have any real difficulty in agreeing to these provisions.
PART II
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
72. Development was the major CARIFORUM negotiating thrust in the negotiations for the EPA. The justification for this was that trade liberalization alone is considered insufficient to bring about economic development in CARIFORUM countries. Furthermore, given the marked economic disparities between the EU and CARIFORUM countries, it was imperative that the former explicitly commit themselves to providing qualitative development assistance to the latter within the context of the EPA. CARIFORUM negotiators therefore insisted on having a distinct Chapter in the Agreement that speaks to development assistance. However, as the negotiations progressed, it was determined that it was more advantageous to have development infused in all areas covered by the Agreement.
73. Part I of the Draft Agreement entitled Trade Partnership For Sustainable Development speaks clearly to the question of development cooperation and assistance. Article 8 cites the development cooperation priorities of the Agreement which include:
• The provision of technical assistance to build human, legal and institutional capacity in CARIFORUM States so as to facilitate their ability to comply with commitments set out in the Agreement
• Provision of support measures aimed at promoting private sector and enterprise development, in particular small economic operators, and enhancing the international competitiveness of CARIFORUM firms and diversification of the CARIFORUM economies
• The diversification of CARIFORUM exports of goods and services through new investment and the development of new sectors
• Enhancing the technological and research capabilities of the CARIFORUM States so as to facilitate development of, and compliance with, internationally recognised sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures and technical standards and internationally recognised labour and environmental standards
• The development of CARIFORUM innovation systems, including the development of technological capacity
• Support for the development of infrastructure in CARIFORUM States necessary for the conduct of trade.
74. In addition to the above, it was agreed that development will infuse all aspects of the Agreement. This infusion can be seen through the various Chapters of the Agreement. The EU together with CARIFORUM States has also committed to take all measures necessary to ensure the effective mobilisation, provision and utilisation of resources aimed at facilitating the development cooperation activities provided for in the Agreement. The Agreement also calls for the establishment of a regional development fund representative of the interests of all CARIFORUM States to mobilise and channel EPA-related resources from the European Development Fund (EDF) and other donors. CARIFORUM States are committed to the establishment of this fund within two years of the date of signature of the Agreement.
75. The Agreement also contains a Joint Declaration on Development Cooperation which essentially speaks to levels of funding particularly through the EDF. It notes that some 165 million euros are available for financing the Tenth EDF Caribbean Regional Indicative Programme (CRIP), and additional resources will be forthcoming under the next Financial Protocol covering the period 2014-2020. In addition, the Declaration points to the fact that these resources will be complemented by Aid for Trade contributions from member states of the EU.
76. Barbados is satisfied that development cooperation assistance is infused throughout the Agreement, and it is primarily designed to addressing supply-side constraints. It also seeks to focus on the building of institutional capacity and assist in developing infrastructure in CARIFORUM States. Emphasis is also placed on assisting small enterprises in becoming financially sound and viable.
Barbados, however, is concerned that the development cooperation provisions of the Agreement are largely best endeavour clauses and that sufficient funds have not really been identified to assist CARIFORUM States to undertake the restructuring needed to effectively benefit from this expansive Agreement with their counterpart developed countries in Europe. This concern is further heightened by the fact that development assistance funds are to be channeled through traditional mechanisms which, in the past, have proven to be problematic for the Region.
PART III
BENEFITS AND OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE EPA
77. International trade agreements are concluded with a view to providing the Parties to such agreements with benefits and opportunities which otherwise might not exist. The proposed EPA between CARIFORUM and EU is expected to deliver such benefits. In addition to the traditional gains from an agreement of this nature, additional economic benefits are expected from the development component of the EPA. This section of the paper seeks to highlight the potential benefits and opportunities offered by the EPA.
78. The EPA between the CARIFORUM and EU provides free access to the EU market for almost 100 per cent of the region’s goods. It also allows CARIFORUM countries access into the markets of the EU overseas territories and departments in the Caribbean on a more predictable and beneficial basis. In fact, given the close proximity of the French and Dutch Dependencies – Martinique, Guadeloupe and St. Maarten – to CARICOM countries, one expects to witness the development of a more meaningful and beneficial trade with these countries/territories. They can also serve as gateways to the mainland EU market.
79. The region’s ability to negotiate a twenty-five year transitional period within any trade agreement is unprecedented and must be noted as a tremendous victory for CARIFORUM States. The time period allows the region to liberalize its trade in goods on a manageable and somewhat predictable basis. This phased liberalization will go a long way in meeting many of the development concerns of the region as CARICOM seeks to chart its own economic development path at a pace that is commensurate with its capacity.
80. The three-year moratorium in the Agreement provides a breathing space for local industries to begin to make the necessary adjustments and prepare for any impact which tariff reductions on competing imports may present. This, together with the list of highly sensitive items that have been excluded from trade liberalization, will certainly assist Barbados and CARIFORUM as a whole in making the desired forward economic strides.
81. A number of Barbados’ sensitive products have been excluded from the liberalization process. In other words, if any of these products are exported by an EU country to Barbados, they will face the appropriate MFN tariff as reflected in Barbados’ Customs Tariff Schedule. These goods include a range of agricultural products and some manufactured goods.
82. The EPA also provides for a much simplified set of rules of origin as compared with previous Lomé Conventions and the current Cotonou Agreement. The rules of origin relating to biscuits, in the case of Barbados, provide a good example of a more simplified and relaxed set of rules under the Agreement. Barbados was unable to export this product to the French Overseas Territories in the Caribbean under preferential terms owing to the relevant rules of origin. The EPA now provides for biscuits made from flour sourced from outside the region or from the EU to qualify for duty-free entry into the EU market. Other Barbados products benefiting from relaxed rules of origin include confectionary, garments (knitted and non-knitted), certain condiments (sauces) and bakery products, fruit juices and other beverages, garments, and air conditioning units.
83. The provisions under Cooperation however will be essential to the region as support for training and harmonization of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures may be provided. The process of harmonization will be beneficial for the region and would serve to further supplement the work undertaken in CARICOM by the CARICOM Regional Organization for Standards and Quality (CROSQ).
84. In terms of agriculture, the EPA will also allow the region the possibility of producing higher value products rather than continuing as suppliers of only raw materials. The EU has agreed to assist the region in improving the competitiveness of the industry in both the traditional and non-traditional export sectors, including downstream processing of agricultural and fisheries products. Other provisions of assistance include strengthening the scientific and technical human and institutional capability of the region. CARIFORUM however, will need to submit concrete and sound project requests to the EU under this technical cooperation programme.
85. The Parties have also committed themselves to undertake prior consultations on trade policy developments that may impact on the competitive position of traditional agricultural products of the region. This commitment is important to the region in that it would provide the opportunity for countries to clearly present their positions and views on any developments that may negatively impact on the sector.
86. The EU has committed to assisting the region in developing the appropriate capacity to meet national, regional, and international standards (technical, health and quality) for fish and fish products. This is particularly important for Barbados as the country seeks to develop its fish industry and to achieve export status in the EU market. It should be noted that the absence of an EU approved regulatory framework for fish and related products has been a major concern of Barbados. To date, Barbados has not been able to obtain approved export status for fish and fish products destined for the EU market. The EPA and its related provisions on technical assistance to Agriculture will pave the way for Barbados to obtain the designated status.
87. It should be noted that, under the previous preferential arrangements of Cotonou, some of the agricultural products from ACP countries did not receive duty free access treatment in the EU market. The EU has now opened up its market to the majority of CARIFORUM exports, providing that they can meet the required standards.
88. In the EPA, as in the WTO, food security concerns take precedence over any obligations entered into by CARIFORUM States. This allows CARIFORUM countries some elbow room in protecting the agricultural sector from any major invasion by EU exporters. The conditions under which this can be done are laid out in Articles 25 and 40. CARIFORUM countries also have been exempted, for the first five years of the Agreement, from any EU safeguard measures taken in the area of agriculture. In addition, the EU has given a commitment not to export to the region any subsidised agricultural products that compete with similar regional products. This represents a major achievement for Barbados and CARICOM generally.
89. The Joint Declaration on rum provides for non-discrimination of CARIFORUM rum in the EU market. This provision will certainly help regional rum producers/exporters to compete more effectively with other rums or related products in the EU market.
90. Under the Agreement, the Sugar Protocol will remain in effect until 30 September 2009. After that, CARIFOUM sugar will enter the EU market duty-free and quota-free. Of course, there will be no longer any guaranteed price for sugar. However, the EU has committed to grant preferential import licenses for only if the importer undertakes to purchase products at a price not lower than 90 percent of the reference price set by the EU. This will allow regional producers to better plan their production and to be assured of a certain level of remuneration for their product.
91. The Draft EPA provides access to the markets of 27 EU Member States in a diverse range of services activities. The ability of the region to diversify its services exports beyond the traditional activities of tourism and financial services constitutes an opportunity which cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the targeting, as well as the segmentation of the various EU markets will effectively allow businesses to tailor their export strategies to suit these markets.
92. The nature of services permits businesses engaged in such trade to enter an export market by means of one or a combination of the following modes of supply: cross border supply of services, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and temporary entry of natural persons for business purposes. Such modes of supply of services can be restricted by the Government of the targeted market in its national interest. The liberalization of almost 90 per cent of the EU services market under the EPA guarantees Barbados and other CARIFORUM services exporters’ access to that market which is considered to be highly attractive. A number of services sectors of interest to Barbados has been liberalized. These include professional services, business services, financial services, and entertainment services.
93. Another benefit to Barbados is the ability of its services suppliers to focus their export initiatives beyond the traditional European markets such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The former eastern bloc countries of the EU present new opportunities for Barbadian and other CARIFORUM exporters.
94. The provisions dealing with the issue of mutual recognition of qualifications of professional services suppliers give comfort to Barbados’ professionals seeking to supply services to the EU over the medium and long term. These provisions allow inter alia the recognition of the qualifications of high-skilled professionals from CARIFORUM countries. This is considered a major achievement for the Caribbean.
95. The provisions on financial services, especially new financial services, will facilitate the development of an innovative capacity on the part of our Barbadian and regional financial services suppliers. Services suppliers will now be able to market their own branded products and services in an attempt to gain and eventually increase market share in the EU market.
96. In the area of tourism services the Draft EPA covers a number of issues of importance to CARIFORUM such as the prevention of anti-competitive practices (including, inter alia, abuse of dominant position through imposition of unfair prices, exclusivity clauses, refusal to deal, tied sales or quantity restrictions). The facilitation of technology transfer as well as a commitment that the Parties would cooperate on the question of mutual recognition of requirements, qualifications, licenses and other regulations relating to services trade is yet another area that will provide benefits to Barbados’ services suppliers.
97. It is considered that the provisions relating to tourism services are beneficial to Barbados and the region as a whole. Tourism is the largest foreign exchange earner in most regional economies, and therefore the value of this sector to the economic and social well-being of CARIFORUM Member States cannot be over-emphasized.
98. The regime for the temporary entry of business persons as structured in the EPA serves two primary objectives. Firstly, it facilitates the temporary movement of CARIFORUM service providers into the EU market. This issue is a very important one for CARIFORUM countries, given the fact that the region possesses an array of human resource skills that can be exported thereby earning valuable foreign exchange. Secondly, it provides a structure amenable to foreign investors who are desirous of safeguarding their investments by allowing their key personnel to oversee their operations in the host country. It is important to note that this also will apply to regional enterprises that possess the capacity to invest abroad.
99. The categories of business persons covered by the Agreement include the following:
• Contractual services suppliers
• Independent professionals
• Business services sellers
• Short-term visitors for business purposes.
100. These categories are important in realizing the objectives identified by CARIFORUM with respect to the exportation of services. Accordingly, one can understand the reason for CARIFORUM countries placing such emphasis on mode IV as a means of services supply to Europe.
101. Traditionally, Barbados has sought to market itself as a suitable and attractive destination to conduct business. As a net recipient of investment flows, Barbados’ main concern in the negotiations was to ensure that the country maintains an open, flexible and investment-friendly climate. The Draft EPA reinforces this position.
102. The Draft Agreement recognizes the importance of the provision of technical assistance to CARIFORUM States to further develop and enhance their services capacity, thus permitting them to engage in meaningful trade in services with the EU. Development assistance will cover such areas as information gathering, regulations and technical standards, marketing – especially tourism and cultural services – franchising, negotiation of mutual recognition agreements, and small and medium enterprises development.
103. It is considered that the establishment of regulatory regimes for specific service sectors (at both the regional and national level) and of mechanisms for promoting investment and joint ventures is indispensable to the capacity strengthening thrust of the region.
104. The Protocol on Cultural Cooperation provides a basis for the development of cultural industries within CARIFORUM, which could translate into increased regional export capability. The inclusion of this Protocol in the Agreement is certainly a victory for the region, especially since the EU was very reluctant to include cultural industries – goods and services – in the Agreement. Cultural industries in CARIFORUM States play a very important role in their economic development. The Agreement speaks inter alia to the relaxing of restrictions on the entry and stay of cultural practitioners.
105. The provision on future liberalization of services in the Agreement could present a good for services providers in Barbados to seek improved and additional access into the EU market. This provision also allows for CARIFORUM business interests to develop further targeted requests based on their experiences over the first five years of the operation of the Agreement.
106. A company in Barbados can take comfort in the fact that another company within the jurisdiction of the Agreement will not be permitted to abuse its monopolistic or oligopolistic position to the disadvantage of the CARIFORUM firms or EU businesses. In this regard, CARIFORUM States are committed to enacting, within five years of the commencement of the Agreement, legislation to give effect to these provisions as outlined in Articles 125 to 128. Rules for fair competition within the CSME are also prescribed in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas to ensure that anti-competitive business practices are not encouraged in the region. Barbados has already enacted its Competition Law and therefore has fulfilled its commitment under this provision.
107. The EPA provisions in the area of competition policy also link development assistance to the implementation by CARIFORUM countries of obligations under the Agreement. This assistance will facilitate ongoing regional integration initiatives in the context of the CSME. Other benefits arising from development cooperation in this area include:
• Assistance to CARIFORUM Competition Authorities
• Assistance in drafting guidelines, manuals and, where necessary, legislation
• Provision of training for key personnel involved in the implementation of and enforcement of competition policy
• Other technical assistance such as the provision of independent experts.
108. The Agreement also makes provision for commitments in the area of innovation and intellectual property that would certainly result in benefits for Barbados. These include:
• Support for the creative industries. In this the Barbadian entertainment industry can benefit from protection of content in the digital environment in accordance with treaties negotiated multilaterally and by the tightening of existing measures.
• Facilitation and promotion of CARIFORUM participation in existing and future framework programmes.
• The development of GIs and the protection of Traditional Knowledge, accompanied by the relevant legal systems and enforcement institutions, without restricting existing flexibilities, particularly those required to address public health.
• Facilitation of and support for cooperation in the development of competitiveness and innovation, science and technology, eco-innovation and renewable energy, and ICTs.
• A provision which could allow for CARIFORUM farmers to save, use and exchange farm-saved seed or propagating materials rather than having to purchase new seed each year. This is significant given the growing trend relating to the protection of intellectual property.
109. Barbados and CARIFORUM on the whole stand to benefit from the different forms of cooperation in the area of the environment. Article 190 speaks to the cooperation that is expected to take place. The following is included:
• Technical assistance to producers in meeting relevant product and other applicable standards
• Promotion and facilitation of private and public voluntary and market-based schemes
• Technical assistance and capacity building in the area of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)
• Facilitation of trade between parties in operating in natural resources
• Assistance to producers to develop and improve production of environmental friendly goods and services
• Promotion and facilitation of public awareness and educational programmes in respect of development and consumption of environmentally friendly goods and services.
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm
@Steady(?): I have to admit… I found it somewhat difficult not to respond to your above in more negative terms than my below…
Please let me simply say:
1. @Steady: “My identity is not important…” IMHO, your identity is entirely important, if you are expecting to be taken seriously. Particularly considering the attacks (and claims) you have made on this Blog against others.
2. I asked for URLs, not cut-and-paste…
3. May I please ask that you re-read my posts to this particular Blog, and internalize the “art of the short form”.
4. If you’re going to convince anyone of anything, you need to learn how to communicate your message, instead of simply radiating a great deal of language…
A serious question: anyone else have anything of value?
Kindest regards to all…
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 6:11 pm
@Unsteady,
You even went to university though? and spelling there’s for theirs? If you as old as you say you are and went to University in that time you could not be slipping up so.
The man ask you a simple question and you got all kinds o’ long talk and repetitive posturing and then turn around cutting and pasting a document???
To say that there has been wide consultations is the greatest lie I have heard. You mean consultations with the big-ups in the private sector? Which NGOs consulted? When? Where?
You think you could get the EU to sign without this going through each and every Parliament of the countries that make up the EU? Impossible! But that is what you want us to do. You understand that a debate in Parliament would educate the people? Yes, that is one of the roles of Parliament; to educate and inform.
Your simplistic talk about EU making them sound so good; what! No further obligation? Not even the British would tell you that. They so guilty that they just gave Barbados Government US$90M as a kind of goodwill payment for the losses in the sugar industry. That ain’t got nothing to do with the EDF, that was purely compensation and our Government promised to spend it on ICT development and training.
Let me tell you the political reality of not signing but first let me say that you so much want to sign that you ain’t listening. Go and get the pen.
If we don’t sign, we will still be Barbados. We would simply have to trade within WTO compatability which would eliminate a lot of the areas where EU wants direct flight into our region.
Not only that, EU would come to its senses and sign what we deem to be in our interests; without compromising our sovereignty.
You know where this is heading? I bet you that the individual states of the EU reject this and save us from ourselves? People like you playing the fool with people’s lives by feeding them FALSE IMPRESSIONS and you are the type of people that need some good chiding.
Up to now you are not saying what is good substantially but let me help you cut and paste a few things.
“87. It should be noted that, under the previous preferential arrangements of Cotonou, some of the agricultural products from ACP countries did not receive duty free access treatment in the EU market. The EU has now opened up its market to the majority of CARIFORUM exports, providing that they can meet the required standards.”
All of that paragraph hinges on the last phrase: “providing that they can meet the standards.” You understand that language and the implications of it? Well it means that we have an agreement for duty free access, but you know what? The agreement can be de facto altered by some authority in any one of the EU States putting up stringent measure on standards of goods, packaging, labelling, ingredients, etc. Even down to paperwork such as certificates, etc. Where is the guarantee in th agreement itself?
Second, (and I am not going to be much longer for those who will be turned off by long scripts) look at the legislation we put in place to deal with competition under WTO? The FTC???? They can’t even deal with C&W or DIGICEL how they going to deal with the monopolies and oligopolies, because once you open up you can’t stop them from coming. Another Joke! With all the talk in the world and these companies pursue the legal route, how you going to stop them?
I want you to bring the reality to the people and not just words that sound good but in reality have no meaning.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm
ROK you telling somebody about university. I hope you ent ment the one that you dropped out of or were kicked out of. You always try dabbling in things that you ent got a clue about.
You think going a maeeting here and a meeting their, oops sorry, there, lol – makes you some type of expert. Tell the people why PCW had to get rid of you. And while you at it tell them why Hammie had to get you from near him.
You are a fraud ROK. You lead an organisation that hardly exist. When last BANGO had an annual meeting. Who elected you to lead BANGO. In fact let the people know that you kidnapped BANGO’s name and registered it.
Where is BANGO’s financial reports. Wait tell me something ROK you pay the poor women that you tries to cheat out of there….. they……oops their money after the world cup 2007.
You are a fraud and a liar. And those of us who know what you are really like can speak to your checkered history. So you cannot test me skipper.
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Steady there @STEADY…
Care to personally attack me? Care to speak to (or, perhaps I should say, answer) my questions? Care to share who you are? Care to explain why you’re so involved here? Care to justify why we should take what you have to say seriously?
Just putting that out there…
David // August 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm
For those who are interested the known critic of the EPA Sir Ronald Girvan has been reading your comments.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Nobody never kicked me out of school yet. Kidnap BANGO? You really got it wrong. The problem with you is that you can’t answer the question. PCW get rid of me. Hammie La had to get from around me? Man you don’t have the first clue. You had better be careful.
In all, don’t shun the question. You comfortable behind your dark glasses and black cloak? You ain’t man enough to show yourself. Let we see who is the fraud? Don’t talk about world cup because the only payment problem we had was school meals and one creditor.
That is another story and all that you raise I really don’t see why you should cause me to tell the world about me. Not that it is a secret but I will deal with one thing and one thing only. All the rest can go by the wayside because I know better. You just ain’t up to date that is all and we know why?
BANGO was formed in 1997 out of the work I was doing at #10 Garrison, St. Michael, then under the banner of the Commonwealth Liaison Unit of Barbados.
It was just about that time that I went to do a stint at PCW and with Hammie. It was during the time that Hammie was a Minister that a request came up for BANGO to get a subvention. I have to admit that even the officers in the Ministry were not very familiar with the work of BANGO.
The Minister asked for my opinion so I sat and told him what BANGO was. Not that he did not know because PCW and the Development Council were benefitting from the work that started BANGO between 1994 – 1997.
The Minister therefore decided that the subvention would be given in six months periods. After the first six months, the then Secretary General and the rest of the executive could not file a report on how they spent the money. I had nothing to do with it.
It was in September of 2000 that I got a message from one of the officers of BANGO, saying that BANGO had gone down and, excepth for the Chairman, the Deputy Secretary General and one board member, the rest run and left BANGO.
It was somewhere between November and December 2000 that it was agreed that I would assume interim Secretary General of BANGO until a new management committee could be assembled. When the management committee was assembled, it confirmed me as the Secretary General.
At that time, BANGO operated as an umbrella organisation and this is the period during which the reputation of BANGO (not me) came into question. However, there was no other organisation doing this work and it would have been a shame to let BANGO go under.
Furthermore, much of the problems between BANGO and other organisations is that the executive wanted to speak for all the NGOs in Barbados. That can’t happen. We therefore had to put BANGO into perspective. NGOs had to maintain their independence. They could not feel hemmed in.
Also, BANGO only had about 40 organisations in its membership but for the work it had to undertake 43 organisation just would not be enough in a population at the time of about 900 NGOs.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 8:47 pm
BANGO was registered as a Charity as well and started to do its work under my watch. The Trustees of BANGO are organisations: ICAR, PCW (chair) and UDOHT. These were the organisations that were interested in the work of BANGO and wanted to see it grow.
BANGO has been encouraging Government to have at least one NGO on each of its boards and committees. Also by furnishing a list of NGOs to Government Departments, developmental agencies and others, we encouraged partnership and defended this.
Sometimes, we would turn up with a group of NGO leaders to show Government Departments that these people had knowledge to share and could help Government solve problems. Today there is hardly a Government Department that does not have a list of NGOs and that don’t engage them.
BANGO has been encouraging NGOs to wake up and see past their narrow vision and have a national perspective. We get them to go to training, workshops, seminars, meetings with developmental agencies and even get them to represent a national view in their field. At least this was better than no information at all.
I did not do like a certain member of the then executive, flying all over the world, going to meetings and did not have a clue about the subject matter.
For example, when the ten year review meeting of SIDS came up a few years ago, the environmental organisations started calling asking about how to get to the meeting. I could not answer, because the same individual used to go to those meetings and really, I was focussed on CARICOM not international.
It was then that I called the Ministry of Environment to see if any of them could be accredited to the delegation and I was told that BANGO already had a representative; the same individual… and the PS asked me not to make a further request otherwise he would have to re-write the Cabinet Paper. It was Tuesday, Cabinet was Thursday and the meeting was the following week.
That individual was so selfish, that although they could have included some of the other NGOs, that individual got it for themself alone. I know you got those stories from that individual because when it was not possible for them to use BANGO’s name anymore to travel all over the place, they started scandalising my name with some of the most vicious lies.
So I could see why they use the work kidnap. Yes dragged from under feet using it for personal benefit; US$185/day for a UN meeting. Wow! The things that money do to people.
As a matter of fact, I have decided to heed the advice of those around me and let them go about thier rant. Time will catch up with them, but you dabbling in what you don’t know and you spreading propoganda for fraudulent people.
If they can dupe you then you are easily duped. It takes a fraud to know a fraud and I think you are not who you say you are. You don’t even display the temperament of anybody with a discipline.
Chris is so right. Everything you accuse me of is what you are doing; including the fraud part. Trust you? Not when I know that all you say are lies. Doing the same thing with the EPA????
I only entertain you to get some PR for BANGO. We need it. Too many people out there with the wrong impression.
By the way, BANGO does not raise funds or have any excess funds. We partner with agencies on projects. They provide funding we do the preparations and coordination (for which we do not receive a cent compensation) Our financial statements are rather pitiful. We don’t raise funds for many reasons.
First after the fiasco that stopped the subvention I was not minded to ask the Government for any further funding. It is just a phase BANGO would have to go through.
Second, when we try to raise funds on the local market, businesses would always tell NGOs coming after us that they gave BANGO money so organisations would come expecting to get some of the cake which would have been only a pittance for specific use.
Under Clevedon Mayers, BANGO used to do an annual dinner and would sometimes raise as little as $2000.00 in a year. The effort was too great for that, which was basically used for monthly bills.
Finally, Clevedon would tell you that I used to take my own money to support BANGO; paid all of BANGO’s bills for all the years. Still doing it too.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 29, 2008 at 9:07 pm
David… shouldn’t that be Prof. Norman Girvan?
Micro Mock Engineer // August 29, 2008 at 9:39 pm
… Sir Ronald Sanders is also a well known critic of the EPA (… that probably explains the mix-up).
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The good professor is not going to get into this. Good to know he is reading though and would be good to get his assessment of one “Unsteady” who is far too volatile to engage sensibly. I have been trying but I think I will leave him to himself or her to herself because there is absolutely nothing to gain there.
David // August 30, 2008 at 12:23 am
Thanks for the correction MME. We stand corrected, it has been a long week!
STEADY // August 30, 2008 at 6:28 am
PAY THE WOMEM MAN YUH FRAUD. LOL
David // August 30, 2008 at 9:58 am
@STEADY & ROK
While a diversion is necessary in any debate the BU family reminds you two that the world is reading what you are posting and given the deterioration in the debate in your recent comments, credibility clearly comes into question.
ROK // August 30, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@David,
My humble apoligies. This is clearly not the forum and I accept responsibility for the deterioration.
STEADY // August 30, 2008 at 2:18 pm
good ROK now you can get back to dealing with serious issues and not trying belittle my intelligence
ROK // August 30, 2008 at 8:43 pm
@David,
To answer an earlier question, this quote from President Jagdeo in this extract from Caribbean 360 is instructive:
Last week, President Bharrat Jagdeo continued his attack on the EPA, noting that ACP countries had not been in favour of replacing the traditional ACP unit with EPAs and regional groupings.
“We have always resisted this. We thought that this would be problematic because they’re breaking the traditional ACP solidarity that we had, and you know with solidarity comes strength, especially with negotiations and secondly to argue for WTO compatibility, for small countries, developing countries in the world,” he said.
“This was contrary to the spirit of successive international agreements which argued that there should be special and differential treatment of these countries in international trade and economic international relations,” Jagdeo added.
Caribbean countries signed on primarily due to Europe’s significant negotiating power, which was no match for the Caribbean’s “tiny” economies, he argued.
“If you combine the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of all the countries in our region, it would be less than the assets of a large bank in Europe, so you can imagine how unbalanced, how uneven the negotiations are because you’re not negotiating as two equal partners. They got their way because they’re essentially a bigger power and they can always threaten to cut off their markets,” he said.
****************************************
This is evidence that our leaders know that the EPAs are a bad deal; from the same article:
However, Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and one of the main supporters of the EPA, urged his colleagues to sign because “it is preferable to sign than not to sign”.
“I, for instance, I am a right-hander. I will probably put my right hand on my heart and sign with my left hand. What I am indicating by that metaphorically is that one would wish that you had a better quote unquote deal. But you can manage in the circumstances,” he said.
http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Caribbean/Stories/2008/08/27/NEWS0000006241.html
David // August 31, 2008 at 7:44 pm
After listening to former Minister Kerrie Symmonds big words and all and Shontel Knight on today’s callin program no wonder we are confused as a region. The arrogance of Kerrie when he refers to the preferred policy by the government of a managed immigration plan we found to be disrespectful.
He tried to make out the argument that it is only now that Barbadians are speaking out about the EPA. Did the former government come to the people and indicated the reasons why the Caribbean was being hived off into CARIFORUM and not able to negotiate as ACP? I don’t recall that they did. Did they have town hall meetings? What role did the GIS play in providing updates to the country? Did the trade ministers and others speak out in a structured way to provide updates to the people. The truth is we just don’t recall that they did. We recall that CSME has suffered the same fate.
The caller who suggested that Barbados would need 100 years to ready itself for the onslaught of market penetration by EC hit home the reality of the situation for CARIFORUM.
We get the impression that they all pelt their arms in the air because as they saw it there was not other avenue left to negotiate. Why are some leaders making the stance now and not earlier?
So many questions!
Bush tea // August 31, 2008 at 9:31 pm
David,
Have you got a simple answer to the only real pertinent question yet? (I may have missed it…)
What happens if we don’t sign?
..apart from our no longer getting those stupid EU grants that only provide free trips for bureaucrats, and a few handouts for what little sugar we have to export that is….
David // September 1, 2008 at 12:22 am
@ Bush tea
The experts like ROK et al need to answer wBUaint not technocrats!
So far we have surmised that a few companies like WABISCO , BANKS and others in that class will struggle to compete in the EU market.
Also there are implications for when we have to sign off on similar agreements with USA etc.
STEADY // September 1, 2008 at 8:26 am
David you are absolutely correct. The last government, in fact all the governments in the Caribbean failed to do the necessary public education programmes on both CSME and EPA. It is true that these agreements/processes are very difficult and complex but public information is a right in my view.
Truth is that it is never too late to discuss these processes because they are really projects in the making. The EPA will last for 25 years and the CSME probably for a lifetime so there is still room to do work.
If the EPA is signed today the Caribbean does not start implement any commitments until three years after the date of signing. So it means that in that time there should be serveral meetings of the joint EU/CARIFORUM Council on EPA to examing issues that the region is uncomfortable with. Indeed the region only starts major liberalizing five years after the signing of the agreement and in that regard the estimates are that only 8% of our tariff lines will be affected. That is because the heavest part of the liberalization effort for the Caribbean have been back loaded after 15 years of the existence of the agreement.
It means that we have time to make some adjust to cushion th elikely impact.
But whats most interesting is about the entire discourse on EPA is that always only seem to take about the negative impact of liberalization but what about the advantages we can take from getting increase access to the EU market.
Now some people will tell you that it means nothing cause we dont have much to export. But i prefer to think that it is incumbant on all of us in the region to make sure we build system to get our people producing more goods and services for export. That is what we have to be working hard on.
Now as to bush tea’s questions David you have answered some and done so well. The i submit that the impact on business, jobs and economic growth is going to be greater if we dont do this deal than if we do. You see if we sign and the agreement is having too negative an impact on our economies and our producers there are clauses in the agreement that allow us to suspend the offending parts of it or impose corrective measures.
However if we dont sign we leave the EU and the WTO to determine the fate of our exports while in any case their imports to our country will likely still come as our economies are very open to trade baecause of our small size.
In his lecture on EPAs earlier this year Owen Arthur made a true but sometimes often ignored point about our trade situation in the region and in Barbados particularly.
It is that in most countries in the region our trade is highly open to goods and even services from outside. As much as 51% in the case of Barbados. So when people talk about the great revenue lost from EPA our the great impact on local business it is not a great as it might first appear.
In WTO we have not opened most of services sectors in our schedules of commitments to liberalize. However in practice all most all of them are opened to entry from foreign companies. And that is because of our small size and on the necessity to have top class services in many areas to keep our economy functioning at the highest level and attract the type of investment we need to advance.
So even if we dont sign we are still going to allow the European, Americans and Canadians to come in. The question is can we afford to allow our producers going into their markets to face the disadvantage of doing so with tariffs on them while theirs tariffs or not will still compete effectively in our.
My view is that we are playing way to much defence to win this game. He need to go on the offensive some times too while we seek to defend.
ROK // September 3, 2008 at 12:32 pm
@David,
The most ready of these so-called large companies is probably Grace Kennedy and they will give you a list of woes trying to meet the standards of the big wigs alone. That company has about a ten year head start on what we now trying to embark on with the coming of the EPAs.
May be more that I am not aware of that may have an even longer head-start; but just to give you an idea of the time span. So when we ask for a 10 yr or 25 yr grace period (no pun intended), we see that this is a short time; far less 7 yrs for some parts of the agreement.
We cannot even supply the Caribbean market so where we going? We will depend too heavily on investors and as far as I am concerned that is not to our benefit. They take out the profits which is an extraction from the economy, plus they leave a lot of irreparable damage in their wake; people and environment.
Also, a big part of this EPA (for the EU) is about investment and not so much financial services, except maybe for offshore and the like. So the money will buzz all around you but don’t look for none to stop at your door. Maybe a little drizzle here and there just to keep your mouth watering.
This is not an impossible challenge but only if people behave like clockwork; people are not like clockwork.
ROK // September 4, 2008 at 8:19 am
@David,
Actually, we are collaborating and that is why the two petitions are the same only one is couched for Barbados and one for the Caribbean. We had hoped that all the states would do the some but we have T&T, St. Lucia, Dominica, Antigua and I think Grenada on board that collected signatures.
As a matter of fact the two petitions have been making the same rounds together in the same e-mails from the very beginning.
It was CPDC that framed the first petiition and we set the target of 5000 signatures. The response is very weak. Not sure that we will get as much as 20% of the target.
However, while this may be low this is still encouraging because we could see the increase in signatories with every e-mail and after every media story. Nobody signs when news and views are not in the air.
I must state here that a lot of organisations have gone into effective hibernation in the past; tardy and apathetic. This is therefore encouraging as it is a sign that hibernation seems to be over. I am sure you would have seen the same effect on the population itself; more people willing to speak up.
It must be more a country’s assertion of its right to determine its destiny that is causing the pull-back than any consideration of confidence in the RNM. Not to have confidence in the RNM is the same as a Prime Minister not having confidence in the majority of his colleagues. The RNM can only negotiate what they are told. They have directives coming collectively from the process.
Even though all the countries took part in the process, there may have been those who were silent or did not get their recommendations in the collective.
This is a critical decision and while some may want to throw away their sovereignty to EU, there are others that do not have the confidence in the EU to act in their economic interests and would prefer to take the chance of not signing.
As I see it the ball is in our court. If the majority go ahead and sign, then the Agreement goes into force to the (apparent) detriment of those who did not sign. The other point is that the EU will use our signing to coerce the other regions into signing.
If, however, nobody signs, the EU is in trouble, not us. First, they won’t have anything to wave in the face of Pacific and Africa and then Pacific and Africa may say that if the Caribbean did not sign, we are not signing.
I am very sure that they are both looking on with interests and taking notes too. We are supposed to be the example and EU knows it can’t fail.
ROK // September 4, 2008 at 9:36 am
Breaking News!
Have to share this with you as it corroborates much of what we have been saying about the ratification porcess. Her is a question which is answered by the EU:
733557.EN PE 410.397
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4083/08
by David Martin (PSE)
to the Commission
Subject: Cariforum Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) ratification
Can the Commission provide detailed information regarding how ratification of the Cariforum EPA will take place in the 15 Caribbean countries party to the Agreement, i.e. whether ratification will be through national parliaments or through other legislative procedures? Can the Commission also provide information on the likely timetable for each Caribbean country to ratify the EPA?
This is the EU response:
P-4083/08EN
Answer given by Mr Mandelson
on behalf of the Commission
(3.9.2008)
The Commission is not in a position to provide the information requested as the ratification processes in each individual Cariforum State are subject to domestic constitutional requirements, as well as to the workload of the respective Parliaments. In any event, it is the Commission’s understanding that, judging from past experience, especially the ratification of the Cotonou Agreement, national ratifications are lengthy processes in the Caribbean countries, not dissimilar from those prevailing in the Member States of the European Union. This is why the EPA provides for provisional application (pending the completion of the national ratification processes and Parliament assent) of the Agreement so as to ensure early and speedy implementation of the commitments contained therein.
ROK // September 4, 2008 at 9:39 am
Sorry! What does that mean? That once our heads sign, the EU going ahead. They don’t care about the people or if they usurp the authority of our Parliaments. These guys serious?
ROK // September 6, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Thought I would also share this with you. It has to do with how the African region supported the Caribbean in a time of crisis during Lome. If you remember correctly we were told by someone who said they were there and that it was not Africa that supported the Caribbean, it was the other way around. Here is an extract from a speech by Sonny Ramphal during the Guyana consultations yesterday that gives his side of the story. Would like you to tell me which is more credible:
“ACP solidarity is not an abstract concept. But for ACP solidarity the rum industry in the Caribbean would probably be dead by now. When the Lome Convention was being concluded in 1974 there were 10 issues unresolved. In a special last-ditch session, agreement was reached on 9. Only 1 stood in the way of a Convention with which Africa was by then happy. That 1 outstanding issue was not of interest to Africa. It was Rum – of interest to the Caribbean. Africa said to the Commission: if you do not settle ‘rum’ with the Caribbean we will not conclude the Convention. They settled. Our salvation was African solidarity. Today we seem to have forgotten all about this; all about solidarity – which we still need. We seem more comfortable with Europe’s ‘reliability’ than Africa’s fraternity. Some are even boasting that among the 6 regions we have beaten Africa to the tape. What we have done, or are threatening to do is to abandon Africa in the struggle for economic justice. Worse still, we are offering the EU weapons against Africa in Europe’s continuing campaign of coercion to bring the 4 African regions into line. If the Caribbean can sign up, why can’t you? Europe tells them. Let Africa – and the Pacific – know from this Consultation that stakeholders in Guyana keep solidarity with them.”
See full text of his presentation:
http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/cotonoup/epas/nwcotbarba/updates/sirshridit
You think we need to let Sonny know he is spreading mis-information? He should have told Guyana that the Africans were sweetened with “everything but arms” and that it did not happen how he told it.
David // September 10, 2008 at 12:07 am
It seems that the comments option on this blog was inadvertently closed, we are sorry about that because it was not deliberate.
Tomorrow is the big day and it seems from all reports that there will be fireworks. We believe like with other Caribbean initiatives some will sign and others will not, nothing new on that front.
The EPA is jet another example that we are struggling with integration.
ROK // September 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm
@David
Today an NGO media conference was streamed complements of OXFAM. It was held at the Hilton Hotel which was booked prior to the announcement that the meeting with the Heads would be held at Sherbourne.
The Heads and delegates stayed at the Hilton and it was assumed that the meeting would be held there. Therefore CPDC went ahead and arranged the conference there.
The parties included NGOs from St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Guyana. Guyana trade unions were there as well.
Most went into what we have been hearing all along. Today on VOB there was some feedback from the people and most of them admitted complete ignorance of the issues. They had not a clue.
So here it is we are allowing our Heads to sign away something with the EU when such a thing could not happen in the EU itself, without consultation and passage through their individual Parliaments.
BANGO’s focus was therefore on the fact that we need an information policy and for sure, some legislation to ensure that the people get the information that is relevant to them.
For seven long years this nogotiation has been in progress and it is a crying shame that our people know nothing about it and can’t offer an opinion one way or another.
Most of the NGOs and Unions, including Professor Girvan by telephone came to the position that our Governments should pursue a “goods only” agreement, which is the same position as Guyana’s President.
David // September 10, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Thanks for the update ROK. We heard your interview on the newscast this afternoon.
What we can’t seem to understand is how all the governments would have initialed the agreement at the last Caricom Summit and now have the situation turnout where there is such dissent. It does not put the union in good light at all!
ROK // September 11, 2008 at 4:11 am
@ David
True. My only explanation is that maybe the dissenting voices at the time at the initialling may have already expressed their concerns but since the initialling was not a commitment in itself, there was no harm signing, but as the day of reckoning approached, they simply went public.
The other factor is that Civil Society has been making some good noise and you would see that where they were keeping noise is also where those Heads started to let their dissent be heard, namely Guyana and St. Lucia.
Don’t know what is St. Lucia’s position right now but I am sure that once Flavia starts making some more noise with her supporting NGOs, Stevenson King will have to start thinking about how he can win the next election. His popularity right now is at its lowest ebb. Many St. Lucians would welcome an election tomorrow.
We know where Jagdeo is. he just went through a hard time with crime prior to this EPA crisis and said some things back then that made him a bit unpopular. He is trying to regain his popularity with the People of Guyana and right now the EPA is providing that opportunity for healing and it is certainly working.
It may be considered that the people of Guyana made a decision and he is carrying it out.
propaganda press // September 11, 2008 at 8:31 am
to all those in favour of signing the EPA if you thought slavery was bad, you will not have a first hand experience as this thing will take you right back to the plantation
we can say for once we agree with the criminal govt of Guyana
propaganda press // September 11, 2008 at 8:35 am
@ ROK
Jagdeo is not trying to win friends in Guyana or heal any wounds with his EPA position
he is really an on again off again ‘communist’ and really has disdain for white people running his affairs.
but no only Jagdeo there was laughter and rip-roaring laughter everytime the EU and the whites in the room were humiliated which was replayed on national tv 24/7
the bite back on Guyana will be severe for that alone, insulting big whitey
we will have a detailed report on how he humiliated the EU chief negotiator at the symposium last week in Guyana on our flagship http://www.propagandapress.org
ROK // September 11, 2008 at 11:43 am
It is nothing short of amazing that one could be a communist and despise white people? That sounds like a non sequitor because the whole philosophy is white, despite Marx’s contribution or Trotsky’s for that matter; even Hitler’s.
David // September 11, 2008 at 5:38 pm
We have updated the EPA and Catonou Agreement in our Library.
David // September 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
@ROK et al
Any comments on the Clyde Mascoll column in the Nation today? He is of the view that explaining the EPA to citizens is like explaining how a software program works. He is of the view that the problem with the EPA now is a lack of leadership which would be able to sell the idea that as a region we need to sign.
ROK // September 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm
@ David
The EPA will take a lot of education, training and re-tooling in order to make it work. It is also a question of time. We have lost seven years during which time Government could have done more to inform and educate people about the issues.
So when one politician gets up and makes that comment, is an indictment on our immediate past political leadership on this matter.
We now have to wait and see how the practical application of the EPA will impact; most likely a lot of impacts that these technocrats overlooked or did not envisage.
Even Government is talking about establishing an EPA Unit, so that tells me that they are expecting trouble, big time; and possibly utter confusion in the beginning. That could be the only reason to establish a Unit as well as an education and information drive.
David // September 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Did we hear in the news that the African countries are expected to reach an agreement on the EPA in about one year? The EU person making the announcement seemed quite comfortable with this situation. Why the haste for the Caribbean with our insignificant markets to sign? Also given the importance of the EU EPA which will be used as a benchmark for the Canada and USA agreement it seems that we should have moved with caution.
ROK // September 19, 2008 at 8:03 pm
@ David,
You made the same observation and asked the same question I did during the press conference on September 10th.
The answer to my mind is that we are the weakest region and most likely to sign. Once we sign that will influence the others to sign, especially if EU goes around waving the CARIFORUM EPA in their face.
That is the extent of our importance to the EU and our leaders fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
Think about it. What do we have that EU could want? Why else would they put so much pressure on us?
David // September 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Interesting blog by ROK:
David // September 25, 2008 at 8:34 am
President Jagdeo not easing up. Will he a hero or stupid.
ROK // October 15, 2008 at 10:04 am
It was very sad to get the news that some CARICOM heads have impressed upon the EU To make Guyana sign the EPA as is, without the inclusion of the two conditions put forward by Guyana.
See this report from the Guyana Chronicle:
“President Jagdeo last week said top officials of the European Commission and governments in Europe had confided in him that some CARICOM members had asked them to “lean hard” on Guyana to sign the EPA with the EU in its current form. Mr. Jagdeo told reporters at his office the unnamed CARICOM members argued that they would lose face if Guyana were to succeed in getting key changes to the agreement.”
Meanwhile the Haitian NGOs, (Haiti by the way is not signing the agreement), is staging a sit-in at one of the buildings in the Capital, in solidarity with and support of the Guyana position, as well as in protest of the rest of the CARICOM States signing the Agreement.
See full stories:
http://bangospeaks.blogspot.com
http://noepa.blogspot.com