One last point, I think that the CRN made a big blunder in not paying attention to the structural characteristics of the cariforum partners based on ideological imperatives which is why there isn’t something in there for everybody for everyone.

————————————————————————————————————–

The fact that then smaller islands are focused on a form of development which had a substantial emphasis on services (beach and inland tourism, banking, insurance, gambling, medical tourism in Barbados and the DR, etc) rather than on agricultural and or industrial commodities (agroprocessing for example) is the hallmark of the development imperatives of these islands which lack the abundance of natural resources of Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana.

Didn’t any of the advisers to the CRN, the CRN experts, the Guyanese experts, Presidnet Jagdeo and others caricom experts recognize this dicotomy during four years. how could they when they were only focused on liberalization policies. I think Guyana’s problems is that the president like to boast that Guyana has the most open economy therefore we the most liberal political economy but the policy decision makers do not subscribe to a liberal political economy and have been fooling themselves. This is it we have lied so much to the people with our “sound macroeconomic fundamentals” garbage that we have started to believe it our selves. We went into the negotiations believing that we were equals with our cariforum partners. had we recognized our own truth, we would have been looking our for our interest in the collective. Still need to wonder why Trinidad, Jamaica and Barbados are so anxious to move on.

Current Latin American politics drives a pragmatic political economy; even venezuela and other leftist leaning latin leaders have rationalized their political economy towards competing within the same framework of a dominalt liberal ideology, which is why led Brazil, especially under Lula, has made such a dramatic shift in the ideology of their political economy. Dependency ideologies and a feeling of entitlement by the former colonial economies presented latin america with structural impediments to trade to major markets for similar commodities…sugar and bananas on the Caribbean front and coffee, cotton and other commodities from the African and Pacific front and thus the failure of the small vulnerable economies to secure any preferential deals at the WTO and subsequent rounds of trade talks.

What the EPA has done is to demand from Caricom countries especially those who are just wasting time on the development front like Guyana, is that there is but one more chance over 25 years to get your house in order. And we should be thankful because for the past 30 odd years, we have been receiving preference and prices for commidities subsiudised by European taxpayers and we have nothing much to show for it….we simpley wasted time and is now crying out for more subsidy at an infinite time frame.

It is this sense of entitlement which you have mention about which is driving the cirtics. I might have even be wrong when I said previously that I doubt whether Jagdeo is driven by ideolog. I can now see, using your logic, that dependency translated into entitlement and given Jagdeo’s previous arguements for debt reduction and forgiveness and the PPP attitude that ruling Guyana is an entitlement, it is possible indeed somewhere in his billegerence is an ideological hangup….I therefore conceed an ideological driven motive.

One last point, I think that the cariforum made a big blunder in not paying attention to the structural characteristics of the cariforum partners based on ideological imperatives which is why there is in it something for everyone. Let me give Jagdeo an intellectual arguement (don’t know how practical it is under the circumstances) for the second amendment he suggested. If Guyana in the implementation of the EPA develop a good strategic and business plan for the implementation of the EPA, work diligently to execute it and phase some structural changes like good governance, transparancy and accountability in the contract process early, then, he would stand a good chance of getting concessions out of the EU because of our shortcomings which are all too glearing. But, the big question is, have we established benchmarks and standards in the initial negotiations. This is where for all intent an practical purpose, the intellectual arguement above becomes weak. How are we going to evaluate the impacts on say Guyana when we have not established the modalities for establishing 5 year bench marks in the agreement. This is a technical matter and more so Jagdeo will again come up with dissatifactions because the EU can always get their way in setting these bench marks which to my mind would entail a next set of negotiations…..are we hoping that the lady who has taken over as the EU Trade Commissioner would be less tough than Mandelson…..this amendment is just a no brainer and non starter, the EU would never allow for a fundamental change in the scope of the EPA. If they get into setting benchmarks, they will be committing more euros than they have already committed and much more ….in this hard guava season, weh deh money gun come from …oh boy, this EPA matter has really excited the grey matter…..thanks BJ.