Dear Editor,
I refer to the Jamaica Observer’s editorial of July 9, 2008, which was promptly published in the Stabroek News of July 10, 2008.
The editorial tries to explain President Bharrat Jagdeo’s position on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) through an irrelevant “inferiority complex” framework. Using this shoddy line is a deliberate intention not to focus on issues, but solely on personality.
The Jamaica Observer, through this editorial, presents itself as a symbol of enlightenment thinking. Should that be the case, then how did Air Jamaica Express, a subsidiary of Air Jamaica, fall into bankruptcy, given that the Jamaica Observer Chairman had controlling interests in Air Jamaica Express. And so where was the enlightenment thinking then to save Air Jamaica Express?
The editorial implies that persons who are opposed to the EPA are mendicants or in simple language, beggars. Are the more than 500 academics opposed to the EPA mendicants? And then the Jamaica Observer should explain the impact analysis findings of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) that examined the impact of trade liberalization features of the EPA in Africa.
UNECA’s findings showed that full reciprocity will be expensive for Africa, in relation to revenue losses and adjustment costs linked to de-industrialization and the adverse impact on regional integration. And so, clearly, these findings suggest that EPAs should give priority to the development dimension. However, the development dimension within the EPA is on the missing list for both the Caribbean and Africa.
And the Jamaica Observer implies that Cariforum should not wait with the African countries to ink the EPA because the African countries have different interests and are Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The Jamaica Observer seems to have forgotten that the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries met regularly for many years as one trading bloc in their engagement with the European Union on sugar protocols; countries with different interests and different levels of development constitute the ACP. In this sense, the Jamaica Observer’s argument is misleading and is an attempt to cast aspersions on the least developed societies of Africa.
However, it is true that the Everything but Arms (EBA) pact provides duty-free access of products from 49 LDCs without restrictions, not including arms and ammunition. And so some countries in Africa, excepting the Caribbean, already are cushioned from the European Union’s $450 million market through the EBA.
But is this a sufficiently strong reason not to wait with Africa before inking the EPA? Africa, like parts of Cariforum, is concerned about the limited development dimension within the EPA. And, indeed, there is the question of economic sovereignty, meaning that if the EPA is inked now, then the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) may become a mere relic.
Norman Girvan believes that the EU will control the EPA, and so noted, “It seems to me that Caricom will have no chance but to adapt its own regimes to the requirements and compliances of the EPA. In fact, why go through all the trouble and expense of having CSME . . . [because] the policies, laws and practices would have been changed to suit the EPA. What really will be left of the CSME? We would have surrendered our autonomy and policy-making in these areas to the requirements of the EPA compliance and with it much of our ability to pursue a development path.”
And Jean-Denis Crola of France’s Oxfam, in addressing the EPA in Africa, said that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, “Some officials have become more critical of the proposed agreements as they realise they are about to ‘lose Africa.’” Crola noted, too, that this same ministry was advocating for the inclusion of food security in the EPA.
The President’s position on the EPA is beyond the boundaries of personality characteristics; the President’s position has to do with the long-term sustainability of the quality of life in the Caribbean.
It should be noted that Caribbean economies are not highly protected any more; and, indeed, something like a force field analysis may show that these economies have lost out with sugar, vis-à-vis the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU). How so? Let’s review the EPA through the Girvan-Brewster-Lewis Memorandum that presents 19 criticisms making the case for renegotiation as follows:
• the development component in the EPA is subordinate to trade liberalisation;
• the advanced partner, the EC, would have greater access to the resource transfer opportunities thrown up by trade liberalisation;
• tariff elimination on 82.7% of EC imports; many value-added goods from Cariforum will be excluded;
• nothing about aid mentioned in the EPA to enhance Cariforum’s supply capabilities; development
cooperation within the EPA is not calculated and time-bound;
• Caribbean labour desiring to provide services in the EU would face too many conditionalities attached to 29 service sectors and 11 professional services within the EC;
• entertainers can make their way to the EC, but they first need to be registered in the Caribbean, and the local registration systems will be subject to EC approval;
• the EC has made no provision for visa, immigration, residency requirements, and work permits for Caribbean service providers;
• 75% of the service sectors are available to EC service providers for MDCs, and 65% for LDCs, placing locally-owned firms at a disadvantage, due to the greater capacity of EC firms; EC pushing for WTO-plus commitments on services, intellectual property, competition, public procurement, investment, and e-commerce, but WTO rules only require the EPA to be WTO-compatible, not WTO-plus;
• WTO-plus commitments to EC would anticipate and prohibit Caribbean governments’ policies, placing Caricom’s priorities in the background;
• ‘national treatment’ requirements within the EPA may work against developing the capacity of local firms;
• the essence of the EPA is integration with the EC, and since the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) is not a substitute for integration with the global economy, then CSME could become marginalized;
• institutionalization of EPA would demand a lot more of Caricorum’s scarce funds and scarce technical manpower; parties to the EPA are the EC and 15 Cariforum states, but Caricom is not a party to the agreement; additional problematic provisions prevail;
• the EPA provisions may emerge as a standard to the forthcoming Caricom trade negotiations with the US and Canada; and Cariforum should have negotiated an EPA that is WTO-compatible and not an EPA that is WTO-plus.
The Girvan-Brewster-Lewis Memorandum expresses sufficient concerns about the evolving EPA to warrant a second-look at a document that has the potential to devastate CSME and eventually disintegrate the Caricom integration movement. It’s hard not to reach this conclusion, given the EPA’s incorporation of ‘national treatment’ requirements, WTO-plus considerations, implied low priority accorded local firms, unreasonable conditions to enter the EU, among others. And so it’s appropriate, prior to any inking, to advocate national consultations, and perhaps, institute a Caribbean-wide consultation on this EPA issue.
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
Pro-Chancellor
University of Guyana
