Who can doubt that small developing countries are being given a blood-raw deal by developed countries? One aspect of this was once summed up in an e-mail sent to me by a Guyanese who found himself in remote Kazakhstan: “For every dollar in aid that flows into the developing world a whole seven dollars flows in debt repayments which are cruelly enforced on countries trying like hell to make it. And yet the moment they become economically viable in some field and therefore challenge developed country dominance then tariffs, subsidies and non-tariff barriers crop up to protect these so-called bastions of free trade.”
The whole process of negotiating international trading arrangements, which started decades ago, has been one long, grim tragedy of rich countries riding roughshod over poor countries. The infamous Uruguay Round of negotiations was a perfect example of this.
This long process of negotiations between unequals is presently contained for us in two negotiations which will deeply affect all our futures: the negotiation with Europe in which it was hoped to preserve, prolong and extend the beneficial concessions in the Lome Conventions and the Cotonou Agreement and, secondly, in the long, drawn-out negotiations in the DOHA Round in which it was hoped to take the iniquities and imbalances out of WTO arrangements and make sure we are not conned as we were in the Uruguay Round.
In these quagmires in which seriously under-resourced developing countries are struggling not so much to hold their own as to limit their losses against the ruthlessly selfish strategies and bullying tactics of countries already extremely rich, it is important to be absolutely clear as to what the realities are. Here, out of many, are two such realities.
In negotiations between the EU and ACP countries the EU drives the procedures and processes and sets the limits and targets. Of course, the official line is that these are agreed between the two parties. Not so. For instance, the European Commission’s “reform” of our sugar regime (it was as much our regime as theirs since it incorporated the Sugar Protocol) is a glaring example of the EU imposing a unilateral change much for the worse in a favourable and vital trading agreement with developing countries.
(As I write this, the EU has taken the brutal and arrogant step of unilaterally denouncing the Sugar Protocol. This is an appalling betrayal of Caricom and the ACP – in the wake of other betrayals over the years. Suffice it to say for now that it shows the nature of the beast when our so-called partners in the negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement in the middle of those negotiations unilaterally tear up an existing treaty with the very people with whom they are negotiating!)
The EU is determined to get rid of the previous Lome benefits and convert its relationship with us into reciprocity between “equals” in conformity with the WTO regime. We should refuse to accept the obvious injustice of reciprocity in trade relations between completely unequal partners but we may have little choice in the matter since this particular battle was lost during the very early stages of the negotiations leading to the Cotonou Agreement. The most that can be achieved will probably be some delay in applying reciprocity to us.
Hurried, sometimes inadequate preparation on the part of grossly under-resourced developing countries is one of the most iniquitous aspects of trade negotiations. There are a host of issues that need to be studied in depth and understood. Among these are: the detailed costs and benefits of the trade arrangements proposed; what transition period will be necessary; to what extent existing trade benefits can be retained and for how long; what extent of reciprocity might be acceptable; what costs would be involved in adjusting for the obligations associated with reciprocity and whether the financial and other assistance promised would be at all adequate to offset the costs. Huge efforts have been made by our overworked teams but all too often it is a matter of too little too late – too much in the end like considering desperately what ways to stop the boat whilst it is rushing headlong down the gorge out of the control of the paddlers.
If you do not believe that international trade negotiations have so far secured very little for poor countries, please look again at the Overview of a recent UNCTAD Trade and Development Report. In the summary it is admitted that the minimum agenda for rebalancing the equation between developing countries and developed countries has remained exactly what it was over forty years ago. Here is what UNCTAD reported:
“One voice from the past stands out in the search for a more balanced trading system. In his statement to the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in March, l964, Raul Prebisch, its then Secretary-General, called on the industrial countries not to underestimate the basic challenge facing developing countries in the existing system:
‘We believe that developing countries must not be forced to develop inwardly – which will happen if they are not helped to develop outwardly through an appropriate international policy. We also deem it undesirable to accept recommendations which tend to lower mass consumption in order to increase captitalization, either because of the lack of adequate foreign resources or because such resources are lost owing to adverse terms of trade.’
“Prebisch understood that recommending “the free play of market forces” between unequal trading partners would only punish poorer commodity exporters at the same time as it brought advantages to the rich industrial core. His agenda to attack the persistent trade imbalance and create the essential external conditions for accelerating the rate of growth included new modalities of participation for developing countries in the trading system which would guarantee price stablization and improve market access for primary exports, allow greater policy space to develop local industries and reduce barriers to their exports, establish more appropriate terms of accession to the multilateral system and reduce the burden of debt servicing. Although the participation of developing countries in the trading system has since gone through important changes, the minimum agenda put forward by Prebisch remains the basis for rebalancing that system in support of development.”
Poor Raul Prebisch, a noble but na
