Predictably, the opening act of the increasingly sordid saga of the African Caribbean Pacific group (ACP) – European Commission (EC) – EPAs has come to a tawdry conclusion with two recent developments in relation to the Cariforum-EC, EPA. One of these is legal and formal. On October 15, thirteen Caricom member states that had last December initialled the EPA signed it at a formal ceremony in Barbados. For different reasons, Guyana and Haiti did not sign at the ceremony but were expected to do so later. Guyana signed on October 20 in Brussels to beat the deadline date of October 31 set by the EC before it levied tariffs on Guyana’s exports to Europe under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) rates offered generally to all developing countries.

Haiti has been given until 2010 to sign the agreement. This is partly due to the lingering effects of recent hurricanes  However, Haiti is classed as a least developed country (LDC) and under the existing EC Everything But Arms Agreement it is allowed to export  to the EC duty free.

As we saw earlier, the Guyana government had at its National Consultation on the EPA indicated it was only willing to sign a “goods-only” agreement so as to meet the legal requirements of the WTO waiver on the Cotonou Agreement, which regulated trade between the EC and the ACP group of countries. The EC however, declared this as unacceptable and in effect threatened that Guyana would have to sign the EPA or else!

The second decisive development is neither legal nor formal but its effect is nevertheless of tremendous significance. This outcome has finally put to rest once and for all, the calculated EC myth being promoted in international development circles that the EPAs are  a new trade model – a “partnership of equals.”

Joint declaration

The fig leaf of the joint declaration made by the parties to the Cariforum-EC, EPA which determines a five yearly review of its costs and achievements as well as seeks to clarify some CSME issues cannot conceal the many remaining defects in the agreement. The coercive tactics of the EC over the years and its studied recalcitrance in the face of numerous entreaties to do better for the poor countries of the ACP were matched by its remarkably successful cooptation (not without some  intended and unintended connivance) of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM). The CRNM has seemed far too comfortable with the widespread accusation that it seems to be acting as a lobbyist for the EC.

The craven irresponsibility and rank opportunism displayed by several Caricom political leaders has created the perfect backdrop to these occurrences. As pointed out in my previous columns on this topic the practice of moral hazard has become endemic in the region. How can it be otherwise? Lacking vision and an independent understanding of the dynamic process at work globally, regionally and nationally several political leaders have become easy prey to the EC and CRNM’s offerings of 18th and 19th century economic beliefs masquerading as modernity.

In my view, the EC is not fairly the main target of criticism for what has transpired. The EC has a duty and obligation to protect and promote the commercial interests of its member states, collectively and separately. It has done this brilliantly with the EPA. My criticism is only directed at its sophistry and pretension in its claims that it is pursuing, in an altruistic manner, the needs and priorities of Caricom and Cariforum.

Do not forget

The region should not forget that the CRNM was created as a regional inter-governmental organization to promote its external trade relations.  Since these relations derive from the member states’ needs, priorities and capacities collectively, the process of regional integration must in all circumstances take precedence. This is a logical imperative, which the CRNM seems never to have fully accepted and which through neglect the political leadership of Caricom has allowed to persist. Thus instead of responding to stakeholders’ concerns with an open frame of mind in a self-critical way, the CRNM has allowed its political function as lobbyist for the EC to take hold. Every disagreement has been put down as “misperception” or simply cast aside as “coming from persons who are against trade liberalization.” While one would have expected the EC to resort to such political ploys and distractions as an outside agency negotiating with the region one cannot accept this from an agency responsible for pursuing our external trade negotiation to be engaged in such foolishness.

I think I have read most of the published and unpublished papers on the EPA and never once have I come across an author who based his/her argument on being against trade liberalization. All critiques have accepted the inexorable global drive in this direction and see in the effort to create an open regionalism through Caricom a needed platform for global engagement. The EPA is a mercantilist instrument that promotes EC interests. The collateral damage that all mercantilist agreements generate eventually becomes the source of their undermining.

In conclusion let me say Guyana has been very shabbily treated by Caricom’s political leadership. Time will show that the EPA, even before it has been formally signed on to has driven a major wedge into the political, economic and social fabric of Caricom. The long term transformational significance of Guyana to a self-respecting Caricom region should not be underestimated because its economic and political performances now do not compare with the best in Caricom. There can, however, be no meaningful self sustaining Caricom region if Guyana is not at its strategic heart.

Next week I will move on to discuss over the next several weeks the stunning global financial crisis.