(This is one of a series of fortnightly columns from Guy-anese in the diaspora and others with an interest in issues related to Guyana and the Caribbean)
In the last week, a diverse group that included civil society organizations, trade unions, artists and academics, endorsed a statement expressing concern over the Economic Partnership Agreement that Cariforum (CARICOM member states and the Dominican Republic) initialled with the European Community in December. There have been public commentaries from individuals – like Mary King and Norman Girvan in Trinidad & Tobago, Ian McDonald and C.Y. Thomas in Guyana – and groups such as the Caribbean Cultural Industries Network and Haitian based BARE APE (STOP EPA). Nor are the voices confined to the region; London based organizations like Christian Aid have expressed similar reservations. A few public awareness rallies in the Eastern Caribbean were held with small farmers, organized by the Caribbean Policy Development Centre and the Windward Islands Farmers’ Association. But as Jamaican economist Michael Witter points out, it is imperative that we press for governments to actively promote, organize, and fund the education of and consultation with the public, in active partnership with the private sector and civil society organizations. Only a concerted and collective effort will ensure that this is now done. We should have ensured this was a formal part of the EPA process well before the December signing. Are we going to let it slip again? As Caribbean citizens, we are entitled to know, in terms that are accessible to us all, what are the potential benefits as well as the real tradeoffs, pitfalls and risks.
For more information on the EPA and to add your name, visit www.normangirvan.info
STATEMENT BY A GROUP OF CONCERNED CARIBBEAN CITIZENS CALLING FOR FULL AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE CARIFORUM-EC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (EPA)
We note with interest the recent statement by President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana in which he observed that the Caribbean stands to gain little from the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) recently negotiated with Europe. President Jagdeo stated that the agreement was concluded against the backdrop of a threat that tariffs would be imposed on Caribbean exports of sugar, bananas and manufactured goods to the European community as of January 1st 2008 if the region did not meet the timeline of December 31, 2007 – the date when the WTO waiver for the trade arrangements under the Cotonou Agreement was set to expire. He suggested that the shift from the principle of preferential trade to one of reciprocity introduces a new set of challenges that the Caribbean is ill equipped to face.
We welcome the candour with which President Jagdeo has now raised several issues that have so far been overlooked by other government leaders, officials and negotiators in the public discussion of the EPA to the extent warranted by the far-reaching consequences of the legally and perma-nently binding articles of the agreement. We believe that the Caribbean public was not kept fully abreast of the potential implications of the EPA for the course of the region’s economic relations, not only with Europe, but with all other trading partners as it may become a blueprint for future trade negotiations. It is regrettable that Caribbean governments and responsible officials did not keep the public better informed about the progress of the negotiations and the ‘bullying’ and ‘broken promises’ by Europe to which the President of Guyana referred. We believe that opportunities must be found to remedy this deficit in the future, and that the situation calls for full disclosure, for public explanation of the shortcomings as well as any anticipated benefit of the EPA, and for open participation in a discussion of its implications for our economies and for the livelihoods of our peoples.
It is our understanding that the EPA is due to be signed by Cariforum Ministers on March 15 and to be provisionally applied from April 1. After that, Caribbean countries will be locked in for all time to the provisions of this legally binding instrument. It will be very difficult, and in all likelihood very costly, to amend the EPA after it comes into force. We are urgently proposing that more time and opportunity be provided for a full and public review of the EPA in order that all its aspects are explained and understood and relevant objections taken into account.
