Dear Editor,
In his 2006 Churchill Lecture, Peter Mandelson, then EU Trade Commissioner, argued that the demands of globalisation were arousing fear and anxiety in the European Union and that: “Fear of change is probably the defining feature of modern European politics.” He further claimed that the only viable strategy is to devise and manage a positive agenda and that: “Europe already has an effective instrument for shaping that response: the European Union. The central achievement of Europe’s single market – the world’s largest at 450 million, has been to help companies prepare for, and compete in, the global market place. That is why we need to strengthen, not undermine the single market, partly through further integration and partly through further enlargement.”
Developments in technology, the natural tendency of capital to seek greater profits (which rules relating to child labour and environmental, employment and other such concerns can only temporarily stymie) and the demands of citizens in every corner of the world for improved standards of living, are naturally leading to the democratisation of international economic relations and their outcomes. Notwithstanding our capacity to innovate, the democratisation of economic outcomes must lead to a gradual leveling of global standards of living. Someone once calculated that even after accounting for our capacity to innovate, it would take a few more worlds such as ours for us all to live at the per capita income of the United States. The long term solution for those with really high standards of living, and perhaps all of us, is not simply to globalise our economies but our entire societies.
For example, in this context, the notion of citizenship will change. Original geographic location, i.e. place of birth, will increasingly become merely a preferable point of identity. National citizenship will gradually give rise to regional and then global citizenship. People will become more like companies are today: expected to make a living where and how they can. But this “ecological woman” will live in a no or low-carbon economy, have greater moral concern for her world and, for the most part, be more at one with her neighbours and herself.
Your editorial “Europe moving on” (SN: 14/10/09) suggests that Mandelson was correct, and that notwithstanding some difficulties, there is an “effective instrument” driving the European project as it seeks to accommodate itself to contemporary global reality. The above development will not take place overnight but countries and regions must recognise this general trend and attempt to locate themselves within it. The Europeans’ deliberate outsourcing of low level agricultural and other production, heavy emphasis on innovation, attempts to simplify international relations at higher levels than the state, etc. are all intended to help them stay at the top of the game for as long as possible but also all fit within this general trend.
I recently attended a seminar at St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, organised by the University of the West Indies’ Institute of International Relations & The European Centre for Development Policy Management, on the “The Future of Caribbean – European Union Integration – Defining a Research Agenda”. Much of the discourse centred around the need to strengthen the Caricom single market and economy, the direction of further integration and possible enlargement. In my assessment, the consensus was that all is not well with Caribbean integration. There appeared a general agreement that we do not have what Mandelson described as an “effective instrument” managing our integration process. The seminar attempted to fathom why this is so. Why, after endless studies and countless meetings, has progress been so slim and come in small fits and starts?
Professor Norman Girvan reminded the meeting that European integration was initially viewed as one way of preventing the periodic catastrophic wars in which Europeans indulged and of which we have thankfully had no similar experience. So, is the manner in which our region is preceding the natural progression of a “warless” integration process?
Following others, Ambass-ador PI Gomes in his paper seemed to suggest that an important reason for the lack of progress is a reluctance to relinquish levels of national sovereignty. Of course, this only begged the question of why there is a deep seated reluctance to surrender sovereignty.
The answer I proffered was that, notwithstanding their gut support for integration, the Caribbean peoples and their leaders do not yet believe that a lack of integration is fatal to their individual national sustainable development.
In Guyana, particularly since the completion of the Takutu Bridge on our border with Brazil, talk of Guyana’s continental destiny has become prevalent, if not dominant. In Trinidad and Tobago, I am not convinced that a deficiency in regional integration is seen as fatal to its aspiration of becoming a developed country by 2020! And Professor Vaughn Lewis in his paper suggested that Barbados and others are also contemplating developmental alternatives. An “effective instrument” is a sine qua non for sensibly implementing regional integration and as such we need to research what drives these kinds of processes and how, in our situation, those drivers may be enhanced.
I made three other points at the seminar, which I believe are of immediate importance for our relationship with Europe and which may be of some interest to your readers. Firstly, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, which governs EU-ACP relations, is up for its second five yearly review in 2010 and regional stakeholders need to proactively participate in that process.
The review may well result in a reduction in our access to the European Development Fund and a revision of aspects of the Cotonou having to do with the Economic Partnership Agreement. Also, according to a Concord, Cotonou Working Group Briefing Paper, the EC wants to revise the Agreement to centre it on issues of security, stability, migration control and governance in ACP states without taking into consideration ACP concerns having to do with the economic and financial crises, climate change and food insecurity. The Working Group made quite a few recommendations as to the way forward and argued that, contrary to what happened during the first review, we need a more transparent and open process and the EC should provide opportunities for civil society actors in developing countries to express their views.
Secondly, I view the Economic Partnership Agreement as a work in progress: in the sense that it has objectives (e.g. sustainable development), stated intentions (e.g. no country should be worse off) and institutional arrangements to manage the process. The participating countries recognised that the arrangements, as stated in the Agreement, were insufficient and if I am not mistaken, the Dominican Republic placed some ideas on the table as to how the process may be actualised. In his paper, PI Gomes also made some criticisms and suggestions. It is a year since the Agreement was signed and we should have gone beyond criticisms to a stage of new formulations and implementation. This is important, for it was also recognised that if the institutional arrangement is to properly carry out its management function, we would need specific indicators against which judgement could be made.
Finally, a matter of specific importance to Guyana (and the region as well) is our relationship with Brazil. Guyana is a part of the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America Programme; it has a partial scope trade agreement with Brazil which allows for the duty free access of a substantial number of items to Brazil, and other Caribbean countries have shown an interest in being a part of that Agreement. Now that the Takutu Bridge is open, there appears much more to come. While on the whole most of us believe that the country will benefit from these developments and have a general vision of Guyana being the Atlantic outlet for northern Brazil, what all of this means economically, politically, sociologically, etc, for Guyana and Caricom, remains unclear. If our relationship with Europe is intended to foster regional integration and sustainable development, I believe that it is necessary that we study, understand and properly exploit this important opportunity.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
