By Dr Clive Thomas
Last week’s article showed that in the instances of Government Pro-curement and the Most Favoured Nation stipulations of the EPA one should not accept the claim that when negotiating these the EU was dispassionately concerned about promoting the development goals of Cariforum, even at the expense of its self interest. Those who would argue otherwise, and present these provisions as entirely benign and the well-intentioned pursuit of Cariforum/Caricom’s well-being, need to convince us of this beyond a reasonable doubt. This may sound cynical, but the Global Europe project outlined below leaves little doubt about the EU’s guiding purpose. The quote I cited last week from the development commissioner was clear on this issue: “The EU is generous but not naïve”.
DG Trade Commission
In recent years, the EU’s Global Europe project has been mainly articulated through the writings and commentaries of Peter Mandelson, Director General of the Trade Commission. Recently, on the occasion of the Alcuin Lecture at Cambridge University, (February 8, 2008), the theses behind this project were further elaborated and presented to the audience as necessary actions for the EU to follow in order to secure the sustenance of the “openness boom”, on which it is claimed the “rising tide of global prosperity” has rested. Mandelson urges that this vision should inform all of Europe’s future external trade and development agendas.In essence, the Global Europe project argues that the world has been witnessing an “openness boom” for the past couple of decades and that it is here to stay. It is admitted also that critics are right and that the “openness boom” faces two fundamental long-run challenges. One is environmental damage and the other the “political consequences” of the boom. Despite these, the proposition is advanced that the role of the EU is to resolutely promote continued global openness. Disengagement, or an inward-looking Europe at this stage would be calamitous for Europe. The project admits that in the face of the political challenges posed by the huge gains, which states like Russia and China are receiving from the openness boom and the potential for grave effects on the EU it must nevertheless do its utmost to promote even greater openness.
Projectionism
Mandelson states that what is required is a coherent EU response and this should be constructed around the notion of “projectionism”, not protectionism. By this is meant, enhancing Europe’s capacity to project its interests and values on to the world as steering modalities even as globalisation continues to advance rapidly in the 21st Century. In the lecture, the DG Trade Commission asserts:
“Politics in Europe and a conception of the European Union equip us to shape the openness boom not abandon it and, in doing so, project our values and our interests in a changing world.” (Mandelson, Peter. The Alcuin Lecture, Cambridge, University, February, 2008, page 2)
He then goes on to point out more bluntly:
“Asia may have pressed on the accelerator, but we have kept a steady hand on the wheel… The EU as a whole has prospered from the openness boom.” (my emphasis. Ibid, page 3)
The EU pursues its global trade agenda multilaterally at the WTO. Bilateral agendas such as the EPAs (and what it terms as “autonomous measures” such as the Generalized System of Preference (GSP) and the Everything But Arms Agreement (EBA) are designed to serve, not substitute for, this global agenda.
Two crucial issues
Two crucial issues arise from all this. One is that it must be conceded that the EU is entitled to promote its national interests based on its world view; Caricom must therefore seek to establish clearly a distinction as to where the EU’s autonomous philanthropy begins and real politik ends. Caricom cannot assume an invariant dispassionate objective EU in situations where its national interests and the EU’s diverge. Indeed, the EU has never hidden its deep intent in the EPA negotiations, no matter what its negotiators might have said to the contrary. To quote again:
“The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPAs) are not an end in themselves, but are intended to act as a stepping stone to the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy.” (European Commission Website, External Trade, Trade Issues)
The second crucial issue is that there has not been the similar provision of a coherent and sustained elaboration (for the benefit of Caricom citizens and others) of a Project Caribbean to steer the region’s negotiations. Implicit however, to every major action along the way, especially the effort to construct the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME), is the vision of promoting an open-regionalism, which builds Caricom as a platform for sustainable engagement in the wider global economy. Given the uneven and asymmetric distribution of power, development levels and capacities globally, engagement in the international economy has to be sequenced and firmly rooted in the priorities of the region. An “as is” and “where is” engagement in the global economy poses risks for all countries, but while none of these are likely to produce catastrophic results for the EU, they could for Caricom, considering that it comprises small, vulnerable and relatively poor states. It is this perspective, however, that has guided these contributions.
The DG of the Trade Commission has therefore confidently asserted that even with the Doha Development Round incomplete: “The WTO already (my emphasis) governs the multilateral trading system with striking effectiveness”. Can Caricom say the same?
Brazil’s observations
From the perspective of Global Europe we can appreciate the concern of Brazil when it stated at the WTO General Council meeting of February 6.
“The migration of trade preferences from schemes authorised by waivers to free trade agreements such as the EPAs poses a series of questions and challenges both to the ACP countries and to the broader WTO Member-ship.” (Brazil Statement, WTO General Council February 6)
In the statement, Brazil’s representative went on to remind us of the long struggle of developing countries to negotiate the enabling clause and its overwhelming significance for them:
“The enabling clause, painstakingly negotiated, has been since then, the basis of a number of agreements and schemes, constituting one of the pillars of the multilateral trading system. It would be ironic; to say the least, if the clause were to be severely undermined in the middle of a ‘development round’.”
