Dear Editor,
I have followed with interest the debate on the EPA and the varying positions of President Jagdeo, the participants at the recent consultation and heads of Caricom governments.
This debate caused me to obtain and study the EPA document which covers 250 articles. In Sunday Stabroek editorial of September 21, you begin by stating that the “structural flaws inherent in the EPA are acknowledged,” but like many others you failed to cite the relevant articles of the agreement where these “flaws” are reflected.
Much has been written and said about the EPA, but there are no direct and specific references to the actual articles of the agreement.
One of the problems of the EPA, we are told, is that it “shall be valid indefinitely” Article 244.1, but we are not told that pursuant to Article 244.2, either party or signatory Cariforum state may give written notice to the others of its intention to “denounce this agreement” which “denunciation shall take effect six months after notification” Article 244.3. Further, Article 246 provides for revision and review of the EPA by the parties at the expiration of Cotonou.
As for the claim by government that the EPA is paramount over other trading agreements, Article 242 clearly states that nothing in the EPA requires the signatories “to act in a manner inconsistent with their WTO obligations.”
Contrary to public pronouncements, the agreement as written recognizes the importance of and supports the goals of CSME and the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, and reconfirms this repeatedly throughout the text starting with the very first line of the first paragraph of the preamble, continuing through Articles 1, 4, 7, 8, 34, 38, 47, 56 and 141.
There has been a lot of discussion on the question of implications and social impact of the EPA. It is the task of the Cariforum states to figure this out. This is natural and normal when anyone is about to undertake serious obligations. We cannot expect the other party to do our homework. In all probability the other side has already studied the implications for themselves. The region has over 15 individual state bureaucracies plus the huge bureaucracy at the Caricom Secretariat. It is just a case of sheer laziness, disinterest and a false sense of priorities. The sloth of the Caribbean governments and the Caricom bureaucracy is legendary.
Since 1973, when Burnham, Barrow and Co first launched the Carifta initiative, they have been struggling with the problems of Caribbean integration for over 35 years.
They are obviously not in a hurry − but Europe is. It has to rapidly and in an orderly fashion absorb a host of new members from Eastern Europe, and it is this clash of cultural characteristics that is at the root of the problem, partially.
The revision of the Chaguaramas Treaty took 11 years to complete, but as Caribbean peoples we can successfully mount an international extravaganza of Caribbean culture and entertainment (Akon included) in 10 months.
Now there is a new proposal to procrastinate even more by waiting on the African summit in Ghana. There is no need for that. Many countries from Africa and the Pacific have already signed EPAs. Many have not. It is now too late to rally those regions to support our cause, assuming we have a strong case.
But Guyana has been unable to convince its own Caricom partners to support its position, so it is doubtful whether it can convince others further afield.
It is quite amazing that the most vocal critics of the EPA have been the most vociferous protagonists of the World Bank/IMF/IDB oppressive adjustment programmes. The fact of the matter is that the world is changing rapidly. Europe is undergoing radical change but we have failed to take notice. We have failed miserably to diversify our trade relations since independence, relying instead on an old colonial system of preferences which was bound to go, but notwithstanding all the warnings, policy-makers just stubbornly refused to accept the looming crisis, compounding the problem by making huge ill-advised economic decisions and investments based upon political considerations, putting billions of dollars in a doomed product − sugar.
In addition to taking on an unserviceable debt of US$180M for so-called modernization of sugar, we have turned over vast and valuable national and irreplaceable natural/mining/forestry resources − gold, diamonds, bauxite, etc, to Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian and Asian interests.
This is our real problem. But coming back to the EPA, it appears as if there is a willingness to sign a ‘goods-only’ EPA, implying that there is some merit, after all, in part of the deal. The only problem, however, is that there is no such thing on the table for signature.
Assuming some acceptance of the ‘goods-only’ part of the agreement, one can safely conclude that there are concerns over the other provisions such as investment, trade services, e-commerce, competition, intellectual property, public procurement, environment, etc.
Services include provision of services by independent professionals, telecommunications, financial and international martime services. In all of the areas there are common themes throughout the agreement, such as:-
* Market access − Articles 67, 76, 77, 79
* Favourable treatment − Articles 19, 68, 70
* Cooperation among signatories − Articles 8, 20, 22, 30, 35, 43, 50, 51, 59, 117, 121, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143,164
* Strong/independent regulatory framework − Articles 93, 95, 105, 120
* Mutual recognition − Articles 85, 114
* Transparency − Articles 48, 57, 86
* Prevention of anti competitive practices − Articles 90, 97, 111, 126, 129
Articles dealing with public procurement − 165-181 − are particularly helpful because of the strict insistence on transparency (Article 168), methodology (Articles 169, 170, 176) bid challenges (Article 179).
There are extensive safeguard provisions in the agreement and for dispute avoidance and settlement.
There have been views expressed that not only is the EPA anti-CSME but it is also injurious to Guyana’s sovereignty. No one has so far cited the specific article where this is reflected.
The oppressive and anti-national World Bank/IMF structural programmes were quietly accepted and signed by successive governments since 1988 without any fuss or national consideration. In comparison the EPA is a pussy-cat.
The EPA is accompanied by a lot of aid to which Guyana is addicted, for survival.
For the period 2008-13, the 10th EDF €22B have been pledged for ACP countries in comparison to €2.7B per annum for the 9th EDF.
The real problem in Guyana is not the EPA. It is the inappropriate model of development being pursued which cannot take care of the needs of Guyanese.
Now that it is not clear how and when Guyana will sign the deal, this uncertainty among Guyana’s European customers could lead them to withhold buying our goods and there is quite a danger of losing customers.
By not signing at the right time, Guyana is taking unacceptable, incalculable and incomprehensible risks.
Yours faithfully,
Ramon Gaskin
