Influencing the trade debate

A statement by President Bharrat Jagdeo to the effect that the Caribbean are the losers in the recently concluded negotiation of the Economic Partner-ship Agreement (EPA) with Europe has been welcomed by a group of prominent Caribbean personalities, including academics, NGO activists and union leaders.

The group, which counts among its notables, such well-known regional commentators as Professors Norman Girvan and Clive Thomas, Ian McDonald and Sir Ronald Sanders, believes that “the Caribbean public was not kept fully abreast of the potential implications of the EPA for the course of the region’s economic relations, not only with Europe, but with all other trading partners as it may become a blueprint for future trade negotiations”. They are therefore calling for “a full and public review of the EPA in order that all its aspects are explained and understood and relevant objections taken into account” before it is signed by CARIFORUM Ministers on 15th March and provisionally applied from 1st April 2008.

We do not intend, at this juncture, to comment on the merits of the arguments for or against the EPA, as agreed. Suffice it to say that the sound of the stable door belatedly slamming shut will reverberate across the region for some time yet.

We would prefer instead to focus on an immediate opportunity possibly to rein in the galloping horses of trade liberalization in another theatre of trade negotiations, as consideration is given in the United States to restructuring the Caribbean Basin Initia-tive (CBI).

The most powerful man in the US Congress is Representative Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Demo-cratic Congressman from New York City’s 15th District, home to many Caribbean immigrants. Over the years he has been a proven friend of the Caribbean.

Last November, in anticipation of the expiration of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) in September 2008, Mr Rangel asked the US International Trade Commission (USITC) to undertake a study to help the Ways and Means Committee identify ways that US trade and development policies could best help the Caribbean Basin and strengthen the region’s ability to compete in the global economy.

As part of the process of preparing the study, the USITC has scheduled a public hearing in Washing-ton, next Tuesday, 29th January. The hearing is open to anyone who wishes to attend, though the deadline for filing requests to appear at the hearing was 16th January. The deadline for making a written submission for the record was 22nd January. Nevertheless, post-hearing briefs, statements and written submissions can be filed by 5th February and it is therefore not too late to influence the Commission’s report, which is due to be submitted to the Ways and Means Committee on 7th May 2008. The public record for this investigation may be viewed electronically on www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm.

It is expected that Caribbean diplomats and trade policy experts will be seeking to make their views heard in Washington, as the USITC is inviting input on the current level of economic development in the Caribbean, at regional and national levels, and on the potential for future development.

Among the issues the USITC has been asked to address are:

* The successes and failures of development policies in the region and the challenges to economic development;

* The importance of trade liberalization and trade growth to the region’s economies;

* The extent to which trade growth has contributed to poverty reduction and faster economic growth;

* The industries and sectors that show promise for increased productivity, export growth, job creation and global competitiveness;

* The extent to which Caribbean goods and services compete in the global economy and the major impediments to their global competitiveness;

* How other agreements such as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) have affected Caribbean trade with the US;

* The extent of utilization of CBI preferences, including the textile and apparel provisions and ways to encourage a wider use of the programme;

* The impact of loans and financial support provided by the international financial institutions;

* How US trade policy, including preferences and trade expansion, in conjunction with economic aid and technical assistance, might strengthen the region’s ability to compete globally, especially in the context of increasing output, jobs and exports;

How US trade policy liberalization, special tax preference programmes and/or economic aid might help develop new industries in the region.

This is a golden opportunity for not only Caribbean governments, but also civil society and the private sector, both in the region and the diaspora, to contribute to a process that could have a strong bearing on the future direction of US trade policy towards the Caribbean and by extension, regional development.

To avoid the type of criticism of the EPA now emerging, it is obviously in the best interests of all concerned actors in the Caribbean, to ensure that their representatives, agents and allies make their views heard to inform the USITC report. Let us hope that this shot at influencing the elaboration of a win-win framework for continuing US-Caribbean trade relations, does not go begging.