Dear Editor,
Current Latin American politics drive a pragmatic political economy; even Venezuela and other left-leaning Latin leaders have rationalized their political economies to compete within the framework of a liberal ideology, which is why Brazil, especially under Lula, has made such a dramatic shift in ideology. Dependency ideologies and a feeling of entitlement by the former colonial economies presented Latin America with structural impediments to trading in major markets with similar commodities − sugar and bananas on the Caribbean front and coffee, cotton and other commodities on the African and Pacific fronts;  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 make clear to Caricom countries, especially those which are just wasting time on the development front like Guyana, that there is but one more chance over 25 years to get their houses in order. And we should be thankful, because for the past 30 odd years, we have been receiving prices for commodities subsidised by European taxpayers, and we have nothing much to show for it. We simply wasted time and are now crying out for more subsidies within an infinite time-frame.
It is this sense of entitlement which is driving the critics.

Dependency has been translated into entitlement, and given President Jagdeo’s previous arguments for debt reduction and forgiveness and the PPP attitude that ruling Guyana is an entitlement, it is possible that somewhere in the President’s belligerence is an ideological hangup.

One last point, I think that 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 something in it for everyone. Let me give Mr  Jagdeo an intellectual argument for the second amendment he suggested. If Guyana developed a good strategic and business plan for the implementation of the EPA, worked diligently to execute it and some structural changes like good governance, transparency and accountability were phased into 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 glaring. But, the big question is, have we established benchmarks and standards in the initial negotiations? This is where for all intents and practical purposes, the intellectual argument above becomes weak. How are we going to evaluate the impacts on Guyana, say, when we have not established the modalities for setting 5 year bench marks in the agreement.
Yours faithfully,
Evan Thomas
(Comment taken from
SN website)