Image by Nationnews.com
The buzz issue in the Caribbean media in recent weeks is whether the CARIFORUM members will sign-on to the CARIFORUM/EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica, St. Vincent and maybe a couple others have been supportive of the EPA. President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana has been a vocal critic and in recent weeks, he has been able to entice St. Lucia, Grenada and a few others to join his choir. CARIFORUM to many looking on appear to be waffling on the deal, and looking stupid by the day.
The question which ordinary citizens must be puzzled about it what would have caused the about turn by so many Caribbean leaders? As recent as July 2008 in a joint communiqué issued after the CARICOM summit the leaders were ready to sign the EPA. In recent days we now hear that a meeting is planned to be held in Barbados after CARIFSTA to discuss a revised position? Could it be that the people have only just started to understand the ramifications of sign-off? Could it be that enough time was not provisioned between final EPA Agreement and sign-off? Could it be that…
The most insightful observation by a Caribbean leader concerning the EPA we attribute to President Jagdeo:
We have always resisted this. We thought that this would be problematic because they’re breaking the traditional ACP solidarity that we had, and you know with solidarity comes strength, especially with negotiations and secondly to argue for WTO compatibility, for small countries, developing countries in the world, he said.
This was contrary to the spirit of successive international agreements which argued that there should be special and differential treatment of these countries in international trade and economic international relations, Jagdeo added. Caribbean countries signed on primarily due to Europe’s significant negotiating power, which was no match for the Caribbean’s “tiny” economies, he argued.
If you combine the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of all the countries in our region, it would be less than the assets of a large bank in Europe, so you can imagine how unbalanced, how uneven the negotiations are because you’re not negotiating as two equal partners. They got their way because they’re essentially a bigger power and they can always threaten to cut off their markets…Source:IPS
BU family member Micro Mock Engineer has been bold enough to post feedback on the EPA agreement which we are surprised has not attracted responses. Here is a repost in case you missed it:
I have three broad concerns relating to the proposed EPA. Disclaimer: I have read the EPA document and background information provided by the CRNM, but this has been heavy going as I Am Not A Social Scientist (IAN ASS).
1) Many of CRNM’s and Cariforum’s activities have been financed by the European Commission (EC). The EC has also provided a significant amount of training in trade negotiations for our CRNM/Cariforum negotiating teams. Can you imagine going to war (… although in this case its more like Saul and the Israelites facing the Philistines at Socoh), and your opponents are bankrolling your campaign and training your army?
2) The agreement deals almost entirely with market access and “free and undistorted competition” between Cariforum and the EC, and treats to these in very specific terms. Conversely, the huge gap between our level of development and resources, and consequently our capacity to compete on a “level” playing field is only addressed in a very cursory manner (Articles 117 & 121). So… having acknowledged the “inherent asymmetries in respective levels of development of the Parties”, they tell us don’t worry… level the playing field… we’ll teach you how to compete with us afterwards. 142 pages on trade liberalisation and open market access, and 1 page acknowledging our disadvantage and making vague promises.
3) At the end of last year, the ACP council of Ministers issued the following statement on the EPA negotiations: “The ACP Council of Ministers deplores the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear on the ACP States by the European Commission to initial the interim trade arrangements, contrary to the spirit of the ACP-EU partnership.” To date, with the exception of Cariforum, all other ACP states have either refused to sign or have initialed INTERIM agreements. At a time when even our lead negotiators acknowledge the EPA’s many shortcomings, wouldnt it be appropriate for us to show some level of solidarity with the larger group?
Anonymous, you say “It’s not fair to say that the CRNM did not expend time and effort to educate”. According to this official EC press release, EC and Cariforum initialed the “final” EPA on December 16 2007:
When was the EPA document first made available for public discussion?
95 responses so far ↓
Anonymous // August 25, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“Anonymous, you say “It’s not fair to say that the CRNM did not expend time and effort to educate”. According to this official EC press release, EC and Cariforum initialed the “final” EPA on December 16 2007:”
*****************************************
That’s true. To reach to the final EPA there was a long negotiation process. This process was consultative with key representatives from each sector.
Questionnaires were sent out, opinions were sought, seminars and conferences took place.
This is always the case in this type of consultative process. When the calls are made for key actors to be involved, they very often ignore the call. Then when they realize that the process has gone ahead without them, they typically respond the way most of them are responding now.
I can attest to the several levels and layers of consultation as well as training that the EU paid for.
Furthermore, I dont think anyone ever said that this EPA was a silver bullet.
ROK // August 26, 2008 at 12:29 am
Three questions that require answers to the EPA:
1. What is the rush? Did the date come as a command from the Most High?
2. Why is the EU pushing our Governments to sign without consultations, when consultations are an integral part of the EU processes in Europe?
3. Are we being used? We don’t have much more than 20Million people in CARIFORUM. Is it that lucrative? What is the attraction?
Questions for our Government:
1. What is encouraging you to sign and what is the anxiety?
2. Since you know that we will be disadvantaged and that it is a bad deal, why would you want to sign
David // August 26, 2008 at 12:50 am
Can the knowledgeable among us about the EPA tell us why it was necessary to breakout the ACP countries into subregions? The Caribbean is a small economic space and we are struggling with the logic of the decision by the EU. To our way of thinking it has to be the EU that requested this arrangment because there is no advantage we can see why the Caribbean would want to negotiate as a fraction of the ACP.
The other point we want clarification is to understand the logic of tossing out the idea that small developing states like the Caribbean should not get protection in a global economy. Isn’t that why we are developing states? The reality is that when compared to developed states of EU we will always be struggling. It sounds nice for people to say we need to improve and become more productive and competitive but when compared to to the developed models of the EU what is the reality?
The People's Democratic Congress // August 26, 2008 at 2:51 am
Generally, we hate to really engage in personal ad hominem attacks on any individuals in this country, from within any forum in which we are participants, and esp. without just cause or reason, fundamentally because we think it is far better to deal with ideas, issues and facts of a non-personal progressive rational nature. But, we think for now we will little relax that principle, in order to castigate one Chris Sinckler, who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business of Barbados, and who sometimes appears to be the biggest booby in this increasingly wayward and backward DLP Government.
For, it was this same Chris Sinckler, as a consequence of losing NOT once, but twice to Ishmael Roett, as the DLP’s Candidate in the St. Michael Central Constituency in back to back general elections - in 1994 and 1999, that had been made to suffer the indignity of being rghtly portrayed, then, as a political loser and as being quite unelectable, so much so that around that time it was bandied about in the local press that he, Mr. Sinckler, said he was finished with electoral politics in Barbados. So, yes, so bitter and frustrated was the man at having lost those elections that he probably came to that position!!
Nevertheless, it was NOT all the surprising to many people in Barbados how thereafter those losses how noticeable and so often Mr. Sinckler was in the local news as the executive director of the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) - which is located on Welches Main Road in St. Michael - talking on the behalf of that organization about esp. global and regional trade and development issues. Hence, here it was that Mr Sinckler was busy casting himself in this independent non-partisan political mould, and, too, seeking refuge from those serious electoral beatings - to the extent of NOT participating in the 2003 elections.
But, by being so political, all the while, too, it was becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Sinckler was earmarking and positioning himself to be a DLP candidate once again in another general election ahead - which would have turned out to be January, 2008. Many people even began comparing him to Dr. Don Blackman, because of their belief that Mr. Sinckler would use “big words” like Don on the platform, even in the 2003 election, but which - to us - was really a miniaturization of the goodly Dr. Don Blackman.
In the mean time, though, perhaps about a couple of years ago, it had been realized that Mr. Chris Sinckler had graduated from the University of the West Indiees, Cave Hill Campus, with a Masters Degree in International Trade Policy or in some other related discipline. And, it was seen by many politically minded people how he went on to be General Secretary of the Democratic Labour Party in August, 2007, but NOT before he himself had realized that his party had a real chance to win the next election. So, therefore, it was crass opportunism in reality to resurrect the old political electoral self, and be the DLP’s Candidate in the contest for St. Michael North West Constituency in the 2008 General Election, which he did go on to win primarily because so many thousands of voters throughout the country had wanted a change of government, and therefore St. Michael North West was a seat in which the national swing against the then BLP Government was so strong that the BLP would have lost that seat from the very word “go”. Clearly, Mr Sinckler did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, personally, spectacular to win that seat!!!!
But lo and behold, in a short time after winning his seat and after his party would have won the Government, who would think that this same person, who is definitely on course to becoming the worst minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business this country has ever had, would have been so naive and asinine as to think that our beloved Barbados should become the laughing stock of the region in regard of comments that would have been attributed to him - and that no doubt would have been read by so many acrosss the CARICOM sub-region - in the Nation Newpaper of Wednesday, August 20, 2008, to the effect that Barbados WILL BE SIGNING this CARIFORUM/ EU EPA on September 2 2008, WITH or WITHOUT (sic) other CARICOM countries. Is this agreement NOT a CARIFORUM/EU EPA? Why would NOT a unified position on the EPA have been sought after, at all costs, concerning the diplomatic engagements and negotiations of these CARIFORUM countries with the EU, rather than having still these apparent “untenable inconsistencies” among CARIFORUM members? Certainly, those utterances were among some of the most appalling and absurd statements any serious Minister of Foreign Affairs of Barbados could have made at any point in time with regard to Barbados’ possible participation in any kind of multi-lateral arrangement.
Moreover, this said Minister was further reported as saying, in this said back page Nation News story, that Barbados had NOT to date received any official notification from any government in the CARICOM or the CARIFORUM grouping - which included the Dominican Republic, and that would have formally indicated that they will NOT be present at the signing or that they will NOT sign the agreement. So, before first finding out - at a special meeting of CARIFORUM Heads - what were the real positions of these different CARIFORUM countries on the EPA, Mr Sinckler arrogated unto himself the task of ungainy saying something that no doubt will haunt him so much in the future, as that it WILL be seen that there will be NO signing ceremony on September 2, 2008 in Barbados. So, Mr Sinckler with his hare-brained, speaking-out-of-turn self wanted, so it appeared, Barbados to rush headlong into a perceptibly strong opposing current that is being pushed by some countries ( Guyana, Grenada, St. Lucia, etc ), that they want to delay signing - meaning that they would sign ONLY after enough time has been gone through, with careful and sufficient studying of this agreement ( whatever that is).
Really and truly, Mr Sinckler’s supposed intellectual credentials in international trade policy matters are NOT being felt palpably, as if he really knew that he owes a big duty to fellow Barbadians, first and foremost, and on the basis of his supposed immense knowledge of international trade issues, to properly and boldly represent them, and then any other CARIFORUM countries in these EPA negotiations, and as if he knew too he owes a great duty to Barbadians who would have sacrificed much to see that he would have got a half-baked so-called university education, to critically appraise for the harmful effects on these said Barbadians of their country joining onto this EPA, rather than his genuflecting to the relevant Europeans. How laughable, indeed, Mr. Sinckler, you political racoon!!
But, we get the distinct but ominous feeling that Mr. Sinckler is really absolutely NOT operating in the interest of the nation or in the interest of the masses and middle classes of people of Barbados, but in the interests of a few thousands esp. the elite of the merchant/business classes in this country and the esp. the government - many of whom, in the former case, clearly WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO VOTE FOR HIM - given the mainly working class make up of this constituency, so that he could have gotten into parliament and promoted and look out for big business’ own affairs in St. Michael North West. Surely, he is NOT operating in the interests of the St. Micheal North West Constituents when he could be reported as saying - with out any explanation whatsoever in the press - that Barbados - by signing this agreement - would be acting in its OWN interest. Mr. Sinckler is surely being intellectually dishonest when he talks like that!! FOR, HE REALLY DOES NOT MEAN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS when it is clear there have been NO PUBLIC OF BARBADOS SCRUTINY OR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS EPA; when there have been NO NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE ON THIS EPA; when THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT MADE ANY INPUTS INTO THIS EPA; and when there is clearly NO YARDSTICK TO MEASURE HOW THE NATION FEELS ABOUT IT. So, Mr. Sinckler is really TALKING ABSOLUTE STUPID TRASH ABOUT AN EPA BEING IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS!! WHAT A TRASH TALKING MINISTER!!
If there is any thing that this trash talking mud slinging political sales man has really proved, is this, that the time has really come for him to really FIRE HIMSELF from that position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business, since it is clear he is NOT the best and most capable person within the DLP top brass that is suited - intellectually or otherwise - for that Ministry.
Finally, matters such as this EPA are too crucial to the future of ALL BARBADIANS AND THEIR EFFECTS TO BE SO TRIFLED AND TINKERED WITH BY ONE PARTY FAR LESS A MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT WHOSE REAL LOVE AND COMMITMENT FOR CONSTITUENTS REMAIN EVER SO QUESTIONABLE.
PDC
Yardbroom // August 26, 2008 at 4:33 am
Would it be too much to ask for a “detailed response,” from individual leaders of Caribbean countries, as to why they are in favour of the EPA. Citizens of CARIFORUM can then evaluate their responses - those leaders in agreement - when comparing them to the position of President Bharrat Jagedo of Guyana and other leaders who agree with him.
The interval between pro EPA and anti EPA expositions can be used by citizens to study the relevant documentation, have an informed debate and arrive at a decision.
This would not necessarily produce total agreement, but at least citizens would be better informed of a decision taken on their behalf. They would also know the thinking which underpins their respective Government’s analysis.
Bush tea // August 26, 2008 at 6:01 am
David,
This initiative is simply the thrust of the EU big business complex seeking to establish markets as part of their global competitiveness.
Somewhat like the ‘Bizzies’ of EU using the Owings and Gline Clarkes of the EU Headquarters to force their EPA ‘flyovers’ down the throats of this region.
….and true to form there are people like ru4real to come with childish, illogical reasons why we should sign on…. and selling perceived benefits to those gullible enough to listen to them.
Intelligent leaders sign contracts which result in desirable outcomes for their people. We have to be careful that like the ABC flyovers, the EPA is not providing benefits mostly for the proponents and to our supposed representatives -at the expense of the rest of us.
David // August 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
@PDC
As far as we are aware there is no requirement to sign on to the EPA as a group i.e CARICOM.
The scout // August 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
It just shows that there is no unity among the leaders in the region. What Caricom What. Just a lotta long talk and wasted money.
Technician // August 26, 2008 at 6:50 am
To divide and rule is their own plan…….
David // August 26, 2008 at 7:45 am
Can,t find the link at the moment but Dereck Walcott the St,Lucian Nobel Prize winner has accused Caribbean leaders of prostituting the region.
He made his comment at a panel discussion at Carifesta. We found the comment interesting because BU commenters have been quoting the good man.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 26, 2008 at 7:49 am
“Questionnaires were sent out, opinions were sought, seminars and conferences took place. This is always the case in this type of consultative process. When the calls are made for key actors to be involved, they very often ignore the call.”
—————————————
Yes Anonymous, like many other “key actors”, I received my share of invitations to meetings and my opinions were sought, but these could only be considered token gestures given the lack of public disclosure (us plebs were not allowed to review the draft EPA until it had already been “agreed” and initialed and we kept nuff noise) and disproportionate allocation of time assigned to engaging stakeholders on what is a highly complex matter.
ROK asked “What’s the rush”?”. The ‘big gun’ the EU held to our heads, is that if we don’t sign the EPA agreement they will apply new GSP tariffs to our exports (… under the Lome Convention and its successor Contonou Agreement, exports from ACP states are granted preferential access to the EU). However the question we need to ask ourselves is whether the fallout from new GSP tariffs will be more damaging in the long run than the negative social/economic impact and increased marginalisation that is likely to come with the signing of the EPA in its present state. Ironically, the primary objectives of Lome, Contonou and even these new EPA’s are sustainable development and the elimination of poverty - it would appear that the European philosophy for achieving these objectives is to ‘integrate’ our small economies into theirs… cleverly packaged re-colonialisation… they’re practicing the politics of inclusion.
Here’s another ‘rush’ question to add to yours ROK… why would we be rushing to include issues like competition, procurement and investment policies which have been successfully excluded (for the time being) at the WTO negotiation level on the grounds that they restricted development policy options? Surely we stand on good ground by insisting that these be similarly excluded until they are EITHER resolved at that level OR Cariform is ready to discuss/implement them.
David, you said that there is no requirement for Cariforum to sign on to the EPA as a group. It’s worse than that… by design, we are actually signing on as INDIVIDUAL countries whereas the EU is signing on as a group. Cariforum is just a construct created by the EU for negotiating convenience… it includes non-Caricom and non-CSME states… furthermore, CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).
The People's Democratic Congress // August 26, 2008 at 7:57 am
To David,
Yes, true, based on the rationalization of Mr. Baldwin Spencer that individual countries will sign the EPA, as individual countries in their own individual capacities within the CARIFORUM grouping and NOT as a grouping (Tuesday, August 12, 2008, Daily Nation). What would you expect, David, there is absolutely NO CARICOM state, and there is a democratic EU state with constituent states still having the right to sign on in their individual capacities. There are individual states within CARICOM, with their own individual political and legal jurisdictions, BUT NO CARICOM state like there is very much A EU state with its own substantial political and legal jurisdiction . NO wonder CARICOM is on the verge of being seriously marginalized within the context of greater regional and international intergration initiatives
But, that is really NOT our point. Our point is that by Mr. Sinckler saying WITH or WITHOUT oth CARICOM countries meant he was so strong headed about signing this thing on September 2 2008, that he appeared to be very reckless and indifferent as to whether there was logic behind the issues countries like Guyana, Grenada, St. Lucia, etc, were raising about the difficulties in signing the EPA at that stage; that he appeared to be very reckless and indifferent as to whether there should have, first, been arrived at a unified common position on the EPA by CARIFORUM countries SIGNING the SAME agreement, both in its letter and its spirit, without there being the POSSIBILITY that some other CARIFORUM countries could sign a SLIGHTLY different agreement, with the agreement of the EU, that much, first, before ungainly saying what he had to say about Barbados signing this agreement WITH or WITHOUT other CARICOM countries; and, last, he appeared to be very reckless and insensitive to the fact of Barbados appearing - with his very dogmatic statement - to want to drag some other countries along into signing this agreement, without recognizing the validity of their own problems and then later on having to eat humble pie - that this DLP government WAS AWARE of some new initiatives in relation to securing a consensus within CARICOM on the signing of the EPA (pg 6, Friday, August 22, 2008 Weekend Nation).
Finally, the truth is that Mr Sinckler has spectacularly failed to provide any genuine leadership on this EPA issue, whereas Mr. Jagdeo and some others have been doing so. Mr. SINKler, RESIGN do!!
PDC
David // August 26, 2008 at 8:43 am
As a corollary to what MME commented the EU legisture has already enacted laws to delist CARIFORUM members from the EPA if they don’t sign-off.
Juris // August 26, 2008 at 8:51 am
Jagdeo’s comments reflect the essential nature of contracting, the side with the heavier bargaining power gets most of what it wants. Does he think re-negotiation will change anything? Or is he prepared to go ahead without any agreement? No skin off the EU’s nose, in such a case. Are the others of the same belief? Or just following the multitude?
Global Voices Online » Barbados: To Sign or Not To Sign // August 26, 2008 at 9:29 am
[...] the CARIFORUM members will sign-on to the CARIFORUM/EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)”: Barbados Underground examines a few of the issues. Posted by Janine Mendes-Franco Print Version Share [...]
STEADY // August 26, 2008 at 11:31 am
OH Dear! here we go again. In the midst of a another useful discussion on EPAs out jump the buffoons at the PDC to launch and unwarrented attack on the Minister of Foreign Trade. Now exactly what does losing two elections to Mr. Roett have to do with the EPA.
Are we to understand that PDC which campaigned on a platform of the abolitition of all taxes, should be now placed to be critisizing a young Barbadian man for advancing himself by getting a university masters.
Maybe then all of the young Barbadians who go to university to get advance degrees in specialized areas should just forget because according to the PDC they may like Chris Sinckler just be getting a “half baked” education. worst yet they maybe just “political opportunists” waiting in the wings to grab a seat in parlament.
Wow! if ever you could read foolishness PDC is good at writing. I for one am proud that we in Barbados have a trade minister that is not only qualified but is independent enough to read and agreement and analyze it for himself and the government and come to a independent judgement.
Now that is clearly unlike some of the people who lead governments across the region who can’t come to a simple decision not even if they lives depended on it.
As far as i recall last December 16th while PDC was busy doing nothing to assist the education of the masses of people of this country - (whom they claim to love so much) about the EPA, our governments were busy agreeing to initial the final negotiating text.
Let see who was there calling the shots. President Jagdeo of Guyana this supposed “Champion” of the don’t sign crowd, was upfront and very vocal on the reasons why we should sign off on the agreement. The text was available to him and his entire government. He must of read it and so knew that all the issues he is complaining about now are the same ones that were there then. What did he do? he instructed the RNM to sign off the final draft.
Several NGOs in the region including many in Guyana asked him to reconsider his view and he dismissed them as “humbugs” and misguided activists. He asked that they give the agreement chance to work first and then we can make adjustments after.
Then CARICOM has a big meeting of Trade officials including Guyana’s minister of trade in the Bahamas at which a full review of the EPA was discussed and again not one country including GUYANA objected to the signing of the EPA. In fact very distinctively the Guyana trade minister Dr. Henry Jefferies indicated that the region had to “stop wasting time” and get on with signing trhe agreement.
Now it was agreed at that meeting that each country would do its internal reviews and national consultations on/of the agreement determine their poisitions on whether to sign or not and come back to the Heads of Government meeting in eraly July and agree a way forward for the agreement.
To the best of my knowledge no country objected to that course of action. I also understand that the new government did its internal assessment, and independent review conducted by economist from the UWI and had a national consultation at sherbourne conference centre which i know as a matter of fact was advertised on both TV and radio and in the press.
I attended that session but i am not sure if PDC sent anybody. But of course you would have to read the agreement first in order to go there in order to properly participate. The Agreement as far as i am aware is all over trhe place on the RNM, EU, CARICOM, OXFAM Government, ACP and several other websites. Anybody who is seriously interested in learning about the EPAs could go there and get information.
Equally the minister delivered a ministerial statement on EPAs in Parliament as recent to three week ago as well as making the assessments documents of the house. Indeed he has spoken about this agreement more often than any other single issue over the past six months. And from reading and listening to all that he has said it is patently unfair for anyone to say that he has not indicated what the pros and cons are about the agreement. But it serves some people’s objective to ignore these facts.
But back to Jagdeo and the regional leaders.
So the leaders come to Antigua for the Heads meeting and the EPA is discussed. And after six months, and before it nearly four years out jumps the President of Guyana and says he is not signing the agreement before analysing it and having national consultations. He then says at the the opening ceremony of the Heads meeting that the region should sign a “goods” only agreement and forget about services.
Amazing. Do any of you know what that means? its means that Guyana which stands to benefit greatest from the duty free access to the EU market for its rum, rice and sugar, would get the lion share of the benefits from a “goods” only agreement while Barbados, St. Vincent etc who rely more on services would get nothing or very little. WOW! Thats the great “champion” of the don’t signers there for you. In whose interests is Mr. Jagdeo acting? Is my trade minister to follow that lead? NOT FOR HELL. He has to look after the interest of Barbados and from all assessments signing this agreement is in Barbados’ best interests.
And where was this Jagdeo when his trade minister was pushing countries to sign. Indeed why all of a sudden did Jagdeo now discover that this agreement is the worst thing ever.. Did he not know al of this when he himself was upfront with Owen Arthur pushing the other leaders to approve the text of the agreement in December?
And why has i taken him and Guyana so long between February and now to get his consultation done and his assessments complete? Can you guys see that Jagdeo is playing games. He wants something from the EU and is playing this agreement to get it. The problem is that he will lead a whole region down the line and then he will sign the agreement in its current. Then his country’s products will get into Europe and get the benfits while the rest of the region will be scrambling to get their act together. Guyana , as a HIPC country (highly indebted poor country) benefits from grant financing, debt relief, massive amounts of development aid and concessionary loans at very low interest rates. Barbados does not get any of that or certainly none of it of any significance.
We have to cut our through like any major developing countries or even developed country. Nobody cuts Barbados any slack. Our leaders therefore have to ensure that anywhere we can find advantages we must take it. Our leaders have to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages and make a decision in the best interests of the whole country not one part at the exclusion of the other. but the whole country.
And according to the minister and from my own reading and analysis of the agreement while they are some areas which we would love to have changed in the text, these do not over weigh the positive aspects of the agreement. So what should Barbados do? PDC follow the blind lead of countries that are acting in their own self interest at the expense of the interests of the people of Barbados?
So Jagdoe goes to the Heads and says he wants time to do consultations. Yet between the end of the first week in July, and the middle of August not a meeting. Not a consultation and a word from Guyana or its government. And when asked by the media on the second week of august why he has not had the consultation yet he replies that Guyana got CARIFESTA to host and will do it after. Carifesta is in the last week of August. What happened for the whole of July and into the first two weeks of August. Is Jagdeo really serious?
Now on his request the Heads in their communique indicated that “ALL” countries were commited to signing the agreement at the date to be announce. Guyana would do its consultations and be ready for September.
That was the agreement of the Heads according to the Secretariat press release.
So Barbados which is the country asked to host the signing and with authority from the HEADS of Government agrees a date with the EU for the signing which ALL countries agree to. And so as i under stand it arrangements were being put in place to have the signing on the 2nd of September.
Is not reasonable to therefore expect that all CARICOM countries would have been notified of this date? And would it not be reasonable to expect that if countries are not prepared to sign off on the agreement that these same countries which gave Barbados the go ahead to arrange a date for signing, should officially notify Barbados that they are not prepared to go ahead?
Now if the trade minister holds a press conference on the signing date would it not be correct and right and sensible and fair for him, in response to a question from the press to indicate that he has not received official word from any country that they are not signing.
Would it not be resonable for Barbados to conclude that short of any communication from countries to the contrary that the signing is going ahead even as political leaders try to find a solution to the swirling media comments?
Of course it is. Government and governance relations are not conducted in the media or on hersay they are conducted through official decisions that are communicated to principals.
So the Trade minister was dead on in his comments and in the way he has handle this issue of the EPA signing. As he said at the press conference quoted in the press - Barbados is not wringing anybody’s hand to sign an agreement they are unconfortable with. It is their sovereign right to determine whether they can or cannot in keeping with there country’s best interests. But, their can’t send conflicting signals to my trade minister and expect him to read minds. They cant say go ahead and set a date and then without officially communicating with our government get in the media and issue conflicting statements of whether they are going to sign or not. Within the space of one week the PM of St. Lucia went from stating categorically that St. Lucia will be signing the EPA on the 2nd or September to saying that St. Lucia is rethinking its positions. Up to now he has not said that he definitely said St. Lucia wont sign on that date.
So PDC you can lay off the trade minster. If you have issues with Chris Sinckler find some other issue to talk about cause on this issue the minister has been clear and consistent. When he came he said he had issues with the EPA negotiations and would have to review the final agreement (which until then he had not seen a final copy) before commiting Barbados to signing.
He immediately ordered a review of the agreement not just internal, but external and independent too. He i assume would also have done his own analysis of the text and form his own conclusions. His ministry then had a national consultation on the EPA and when this was finished the minister did a ministerial statement in parliament as he said he would.
All of those assessments bar none have concluded that while they are some areas of concern with some provisions of the agreement on the totality the agreement will do barbados more good than harm.
So the minister has done what all leaders must do he has made a decision. Now you dont have to agree that is your right and you should challenge him on his reasoning and logic, but can’t come this blog trying to give the impression that the minister has sold out the interests of Barbados on basis that a few Caribbean leaders who refuse to do their work and lead from the front cant make a decision to save their lives.
Barbados has always led from the front in CARICOM and this time is no different. When we can go with an issue we do, when we cant we dont and we say why we cant. But we make decisions we dont vacilate.
I thank the Minister for his strong Leadership on this issue. At least he knows what he is doing.
ROK // August 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Steady should take a leaf from his/her own name and be steady and consistent. I am not sure that the Minister who stalked the halls of the EU and and the highways of Africa trying to stop the EPAs and is now on a bandwagon to get the Caribbean to sign the CARIFORUM EPA, is delivering strong leadership; The irony of politics. Somehow, to me, that lacks a principled stance.
However, what I want to throw out, especially in support of our Nobel Laureate, is that all this is about European (or imperialists) expansionism. Yes they want to take what we have and attach it to theirs; that is expansionism.
When Columbus and all the other explorers sailed to look for new lands, that was expansionism in action. Columbus is sailing again.
If you base your observations on the theory of expansionism, you can’t go wrong. Why the secrecy? Why the rush? Why the individualism and not the region? Why this little region trying to go it alone rather than as the ACP?
Pure and simple corruption. These people think they can buy us out by way of secret deals with politicians who cannot resist and they are using the Caribbean to throw in the face of the Pacific and Africa to get them to sign.
So use your commonsense. If they buy out CARIFORUM and wave it in the face of the Pacific and Africa, theycan better get them to sign. Not only that, it would be cost effective.
Don’t worry to come saying “what secret deals?” because we are not privy to exactly what our Governments are signing away. You can’t get a straight answer from nobody. We get documents which are supposed to be the new agreement but they are no different from what went before.
The language of the EPAs are so complex that the average person needs interpreters because if you don’t understand the difference in the language of commitment and only simple acknowledgement, then you will not know what to expect and you may expect the wrong thing.
Since 2000 our Governments committed to the participation of Civil Society but Mr. Arthur’s idea of CS participation was the private sector, not even the unions, except that the unions so powerful they cannot be kept out of international issues. Joke!
Since Government did not honour these commitments the EU came in the revised Treaty and entranched it even further by getting the Governments to agree that the EU will be allowed to monitor and work with CS and even provide funds for them which the Government would not have a say in. Prior to this it was a “hands off sovereignty” approach.
Within a year of completing the revised treaty, the EU was here forcing Government’s hand to establish something called the Non State Actors Advisory Panel as a mechanism for CS participation and to boot, placed on them the most NGOs.
If nothing else this refusal to act on their commitments demonstrates a lack of caring for people by our own politicians. NGOs are about citizens who are seeking answers to social problems and fixing them. They spring up to fill voids, answer desparate calls and, believe me, when their usefulness is at an end, they die.
Have to continue this later, but will leave you with this document, “A User’s Guide for Non State Actors” which was published by the EU and gives an idea of the depth to which citizens ought to be participating in these processes; including the EPAs:
http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/cotonoup/nonstate
Pat // August 26, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The best piece of analysis i have read on this issue is by an Englishman called Sanders. His article: EPA for Whose Benefit can be found at the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2008/08/080815_sanders_epa.shtml
STEADY // August 26, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Imagine the pot calling the kettle black. Is this the same ROK that was part of the same BLP government that negotiated the EPA? That freezed out the poor from participating in the consultations. Or is it that when ROK was receiving benefits from the BLP government he could not be concerned with the EPA. Remember this EPA business did not start last December, it was going on for more that 4 years and even longer if you go back to when the negotiatons on the Cotonou started cause Cotonou is the governing framework for the EPA negotiations.
Where was ROK, busy getting the benefits from the BLP through Hammie La? Minister Sinckler can ably defend his positions as he did on Brass Tacts only a few weeks ago.
It is one thing to lead an regional NGO but an entirely different thing to be a Minister in government with the full responsibilty for all segments of the society. Rich and poor, workers and business and all that falls in between. He cant just transfer his NGO positions straight into government he is not representing CDPC or whatever it is called, he is representing the people of Barbados and the policy of the democratic labour party. He is bound by the collective responsibility of government.
So dont come running that simplistic line about he opposed the EPA when he was in the NGOs so he must oppose it now. Life is not that simple.
Besides all through the four years of the negotiations Mr. Sinckler was very vocal on the things which he said his organisation wanted to see in the agreement. And from his last press conference it seems to me that he is still saying that if he had to negotiate the agreement he would not have agreed the MFN clause, he would not have agreed th regional preference clause which in fact he has said he feels should be immediately change and which CARICOM has agreed to discuss with the Dominican Republic. He also said on VOB that he feels the safeguard clause could be stronger, that the government procurement clauses could be clearer and that more resources could have been made available in the development section.
The minister has said all of that - he said it on VOB, in parliament at his last press conference and elsewhere. So you need to listen better and be fair in your comment. The minister has already said that that agreement is not perfect. But which agreement is? When Unions negotiate they go to the table with a list of demands but they never come away with all of them granted. They have to compromise but they also have to look at their bottom line and see what they can live with and what they cannot go with.
The minister and the government has obviously had the agreement analyze and have determined that based on internal, personal and independent advice that Barbados could live with the agreement as there is more to gain than to lose.
That is what leaders do. that is why they are elected.
So I am very steady and very consistent in my observation and commentary of this issues.
But at the end of the ROK. lets say that the minister does as you and your friends ask and CARICOM says to the EU we ain’t signing that agreement. And the EU says well sorry but we had a deal with you initial and we feel that the deal is fair to both sides.
Then what happens?
you cannot force the EU to negotiate until you get what you what. They can do without our market can we do with theirs? And what of the Canadians and the Americans are we going to do with theirs too? because believve me they will offer you far less that Europe will offer and they wont be any development dimension in their trade deals either.
Or just for the sake of we lets suppose the EU agrees to go back to the table and say ok we will give you verything you want but we want something to. We want you in exchange to put the 14% of sectors and products we agreed before should not face liberalization back on the table to face tariff cuts. Or we want you to open up more of your services sector; or we feel that duty free quota free access is to generous we want to put tariffs on some of your products coming into our market.
What will you do then? tell them no. You dont negotiate by youself. It is not a one way thing anymore it is based on reciprocity now and you have to expect to give up something. So if you re-open to ask for something expect the EU to ask for something back.
Question is are we prepared to give it?
David // August 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm
We must admit that some good points are being traded on this topic, it is a crying shame that the heightened discussion which has descended on the region on the declared eve of the signing of the EPA had not occurred ealier. The question asked by Micro Mock Engineer as to whether the window between the final initial to the draft and the official sign-off is too short remains unanswered.
The other point which concerns the BU household does not concern the mechanics of whether the negotiating skills of the CARIFORUM team was on par with EU’s. By the way STEADY the example you gave about the Union accepting compromise at the collective bargaining table is half true. The union delegation will go to the table having researched the industry sector in which they are negotiating onbehalf and importantly will LOAD their demand to achieve what their members expect. To what extent did David(CARIFORUM) while negotiating with EU(Goliath)felt that they had the nerve and or the confidence to load their demands?
Our concern with the EPA is philosophical. What do we want as a small but PROUD grouping regarding the repositioning and restructuring of our economies and at the same time enable our Caribbean people to change their attitudes. It is no secret that many of the economies of the region have an unaceptably high debt to GDP ratio. How can these economies restructure to be competitive in the post CARIFORUM EU EPA environment?
After we export our services and goods to the EU market which the EPA affords us, and after 25 years when the phasing process is over on those commodities/services the EU has graciously agreed to gobble-up last, where will our people be? Let us face the home truth. For the most part and we exclude the Jamaicans, but our Caribbean people are hooked on behaviours which make them dependent on foreign goods and services, the reverse is not true. If the current attitude persists the imbalance will become ingrained and to what end?
What we need to see from our leaders is LEADERSHIP. What we see is a continuation of the status quo. We need fundamental change strategies that will lead to a change in attitudes of our people where we become 100% nationalistic, only then can we as a region benefit from the enormous intellectual capital which is circulating in our region. The fact that we are small developing states should not be used as an excuse to suppress our pride and our acumen when negotiating with the Goliaths of this world.
If we had gone to the negotiating table with our heads held high with a posture that we are equal we may have garnered the respect which is afforded to a courageous foe.
Here is what Nobel Laurette Dereck Walcott had to say at CARIFESTA 2008:
Banned Again From BFP // August 26, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
“CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
I very best friend is battling CARICOM for acting in bad faith leading up to the World Cup and this is his biggest obstacle. I wonder how many West Indians are aware of the fact that “CARICOM is NOT recognised as a legal representative body (or juridical entity).”
Donald Duck, Esq // August 27, 2008 at 12:13 am
Pat
As far as I am aware Ron Sanders is not english. He used to be high commissioner for antigua and barbuda to the court of st.james for a while. I believe he got knighted twice!!!
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 1:05 am
I tell you. Now I have to rename you Unsteady. Part of the BLP Government? Receiving benefits? That would have been the day.
You mean I worked with Hammie La? That did not qualify me to be among the boys in the club and really, I had no desire.
Let me make it plain that I ain’t no B or D but maybe what you can convict me for is association with Hammie La.
Even as Hammie’s Personal Assistant, I did not let up. I remained Civil Society and when the time came and I could not deal with the strain of the two anymore, I resigned as Hammie’s PA.
I think I have to tell this story because this association with the BLP is inaccurate. I will start by saying that Hammie owes his MP status to me. It was in 1982 when I started working steadily in the Pinelands community with Hammie. I was the Coordinator of Culture at the time with responsibility for Pinelands Creative Workshop.
During those times we used to fight for housing, welfare, assistance for the elderly, programmes for the youth, etc. As a matter of fact I believe that I still hold the record for pulling out the most residents to any one single event in the Pine.
It was during these times that Hammie used to push me to the limit. I was the forefront for Pinelands for a long time because I was always called upon to defend these ordinary people.
It was during this time that that I started to tell Hammie that I will see him in Parliament. 12 years before it could have happened. If at that time the people of the Pine had a true representative it was Hammie. When elections came around people would come and ask Hammie who to vote for and whomever he called was the candidate that would get in.
Thing is he only had to answer two or three people and it would spread like wildfire. We knew who would win and it always happened without fail.
The time came 1993-1994 when Erskine Simmons announced that he would not be coming back. It was then that I perceived the time had come for Hammie. I called the Prime Minister and told him that I had the perfect Candidate for St Michael South East and he asked, who? I said Hammie La and he said “bring him.”
It took me about three or four months before I could get Hammie to go and see the PM. During those four months I would meet Hammie every evening at Parkinson Centre where he used to lime. I used to sit and counsel Hammie to try to win him over and convince him that he could do it.
I then started to let the secret out that he was being accepted as a candidate by the DLP and solicited the help of close friends and the members of Pinelands Creative Workshop because for me it meant a Civil Society representative in Parlament.
We went through a lot together. I remember one day during that time. I was at home and the phone rang for me. When I picked up the phone a voice came at me, “Ty King, You get me in this get me out!” What happened, “I getting phone calls telling me that the only thing between Braddie and this seat is a bullet.” I told him that I coming. He said, “… and when you coming bring a bottle!”
I eventually found Hammie in a hole under the Community Centre hiding out. The Same Minister of Foreign Affairs would testify to that. It took me, him, PM David Thompson and a whole crew from the Pine to stabilise Hammie.
After the elections, I was back at #10 Garrison getting on with the beginnings of BANGO. It was then the Commonwealth Liaison Unit of Barbados which I was heading up with Bob Taylor. Then one day Hammie turned up with a mile of notes; Letters he wanted written on behalf of his constituents.
I became the most prolific letter writer in Barbados and Hammie became known as the man who submitted the most letters to Government Departments. One client could have as much as ten or fifteen letters, helping them look for jobs in every possible government department and business house, accessing welfare assistance, housing, wringing arms to get water turned back on and houses reparied, etc.
When Hammie decided to cross the floor, he again came for me but this time to work for pay. I refused but he won’t have it. Kept telling me I got him in it and after some time I started to work as his PA. That was around 1997
Nobody can tell you that they have ever seen me at BLP conferences, party functions; none of that. Hammie went to those things sometimes but by himself. I could only say that I did what I had to do as PA in terms of the party but by 2001, while still working with Hammie, I was back at BANGO.
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 1:06 am
From 2001 until today, I was undaunted in my task as a Civil Society advocate. The PA thing was aside. Even at that time many will tell you that if I had to call the PM a spade he would get called a spade.
When at one of the Public/Private consultations the PM took a turn in the then President of BCSI, Grenville Phillips. As far as I know (I was not at the Conference) the only body that came out in his defence was I and it was based on hearsay from others, i.e. without the full facts, but I knew i had to write it, so I confined myself to the principle of free speech and expression.
Excerpt from the said Advocate News article written by me: “The right of freedom of speech goes deeper than any law protecting these rights. Freedom of speech must be a political liberty empowering the citizen not to feel threatened. (See the Charter of Civil Society). We have the police for protection, the law courts for justice and elections that allow people to rise up and change their governments.
“While this may be so we suffer as the result of the deficiencies in the system and especially by our lack of participation. The young man should be praised for his bravery to seek to be outspoken.
“The Prime Minister could only be chided for the manner in which he responded only in so far as his behaviour may have deterred others from being as brave as the young man. The lingering question is, why does one have to be brave to speak up?
“From a Civil Society perspective, we on this side have similar concerns as to the effectiveness and efficiency of Government programmes. Far from nip-picking, if you added Civil Society concerns to that of the private sector’s there cannot be much more left that is positive in government’s relations with its subjects.” Full article: http://www.bango.org.bb/newspaper/policywithpotential.htm
All the articles written here were written during the time BLP was in Government: http://www.bango.org.bb/platform.htm
Furthermore, see report from BANGO to UN Human Rights Committee: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/microsoftw
See also UN Committee response especially paragraph 14: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/unhrcc~1
We are not an opposition party, we are advocates for ordinary citizens and it is our duty to work with Government for the benefit of the people, but at the same time if the Government is insensitive to suffering and poverty, then BANGO will rise up.
While you see me as some BLP stooge (God forbid) there are others who used to seek me out for the opposite qualities. For example, a worker at one of the social agencies was organising a seminar. I found it strange that I was invited and I declined. I got a visit (not a phone call) from that worker telling me I have to come, not only because the topic was important, “but” he said, “You are the only body I know that will call the PM a fool if you had to and the workers want somebody who will represent them.
All I can say is that Owen never got drunk enough to call me.
The experience of being a DLP and then getting a first hand peep at how the B’s operated, I have vowed that I will never leave the side of the people. I have to apologise to those who is left with the impression that I was some big-time B. When I stopped working for Hammie in 2003, the BLP stopped seeing me because I had no reason to be in Parliament anymore to him.
I have never looked back and all I can say is that the only thing that motivated me from back in the 80’s until now has been the plight of the unfortunate. Can’t help. It is a calling.
This is Barbados and of course Steady is one of those typical Bajans who take some pride in attacking the characters of those they do not know anything about. Anybody close to me will simply laugh at you and and your comments becase they would know that you don’t have the first clus and that is a guarantee.
Finally, you must promise yourself that someday you will take off your cloak and dark glasses because I doubt very much that you have the guts to stand up and be recognised. Prove me wrong.
Your humble servant!
Anonymous // August 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
Wha la, wha la, wha la, wha la.
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 2:03 am
@ Banned Again From BFP
That is an interesting scenario and only goes to show how something you did not visualise can happen.
This matter of the legal status of CARICOM came up some time ago. It is intersting that something could happen for which CARICOM could be sued. I suppose this must relates to words said; guarantees, etc.
The question is to what extent can the CARICOM Secretariat make any guarantees. Is that how it operates? CARICOM is a union of sovereign states and it would seem to me that it has to depend on decisions from the Heads so CARICOM can say only what the Heads say.
However, the Secretariat must be an agency of CARICOM which was established by Treaty. This puts CARICOM within the ambit of international law, so don’t be sidetracked by a legal status as like registration. Thjis happened by declaration and from this point of view, the Secretariat is an agent of CARICOM. Its executive arm.
So check the principles of agency and check the Treaty of Chaguramus. CARICOM has legal status and is certainly recognisable by international law. There is also something called “jointly and severally” (together or individually) and together is known as CARICOM made up of individual sovereign states. A tall order though!
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 5:27 am
@ Unsteady…. as I was saying…
From 2001 until today, I was undaunted in my task as a Civil Society advocate. The PA thing was aside. Even at that time many will tell you that if I had to call the PM a spade he would get called a spade.
When at one of the Public/Private consultations the PM took a turn in the then President of BCSI, Grenville Phillips. As far as I know (I was not at the Conference) the only body that came out in his defence was I and it was based on hearsay from others, i.e. without the full facts, but I knew i had to write it, so I confined myself to the principle of free speech and expression.
Excerpt from the said Advocate News article written by me: “The right of freedom of speech goes deeper than any law protecting these rights. Freedom of speech must be a political liberty empowering the citizen not to feel threatened. (See the Charter of Civil Society). We have the police for protection, the law courts for justice and elections that allow people to rise up and change their governments.
“While this may be so we suffer as the result of the deficiencies in the system and especially by our lack of participation. The young man should be praised for his bravery to seek to be outspoken.
“The Prime Minister could only be chided for the manner in which he responded only in so far as his behaviour may have deterred others from being as brave as the young man. The lingering question is, why does one have to be brave to speak up?
“From a Civil Society perspective, we on this side have similar concerns as to the effectiveness and efficiency of Government programmes. Far from nip-picking, if you added Civil Society concerns to that of the private sector’s there cannot be much more left that is positive in government’s relations with its subjects.” Full article: http://www.bango.org.bb/newspaper/policywithpotential.htm
All the articles written here were written during the time BLP was in Government: http://www.bango.org.bb/platform.htm
Furthermore, see report from BANGO to UN Human Rights Committee: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/microsoftw
See also UN Committee response especially paragraph 14: http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/peacesoc/unhumanr/unhrcc~1
ROK // August 27, 2008 at 11:22 am
This is real people. Just an idea of what can happen to us in these trade agreements from the live and living example in the excerpt below:
“The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to west Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal’s marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country’s waters fell from 95,000 tonnes to 45,000 tonnes. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997.” See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/26/food.eu
before we “follow -pattern” we should look at the society who we are following and it will give us an idea of what our society will look like in time.
David // August 27, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Based on latest news Prime Minister Thompson has indicated that the EPA signing will be delayed. He expressed disappointment with his fellow leaders. His main point was our region cannot afford to be marginalized by having their goods and services blocked from the EU market.
STEADY // August 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm
David where and when did Thompson say this
David // August 27, 2008 at 11:15 pm
@STEADY
We watched the CBC News earlier and thought that is what we heard. If we are wrong we stand corrected.
Here is what the Nation has reported him as saying. Is the delay in signing implied?
What benefits.. // August 28, 2008 at 7:18 am
“PRIME MINISTER DAVID THOMPSON firmly believes that there are benefits to be reaped from the proposed Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Europe.”
Nation newspaper (28 Aug 2008).
What benefits.. // August 28, 2008 at 7:26 am
Word in financial circles is that construction slowing down, inflation and unemployment going up and ‘our man in Havana’ ain’t batting an eyelid.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 9:21 am
I am not sure about all this. The Chief Negotiator is saying that this is the best deal ever. The Foreign Minister said it is the best deal in thrity years. Thompson is saying trust our negotiators.
None of this makes sense in the face of the evidence. There is more in the mortar. When you see a man fishing in a dry pond, he knows what he is doing.
Some further analysis:
Thompson, by saying that we have to trust our negotiators, makes one believe that he himself does not know what is in the EPAs. Well if he don’t know how are we to know?
Second, I think that by putting up that kind of front he is seeking to cast blame elsewhere and when the thing does not work out, blame the negotiators. Thompson has to understand that the responsibility must fall in his lap, because when if it fails, we are going to be saying that the NGOs told you so, academia told you so, Europe and all told you so, but you still went and sign.
If by chance Thompson knows that this is really not a good deal, especially with the inclusion of the Most Favoured Nation clause, it means that he is setting us for the fall.
It does not take a genius to know that the MFN clause means that you have no flexibility without automatically giving the same concessions to the Europeans.
Neither does it take a rocket scientists to understand the flood of services and goods that will hit our market and cripple our local economy.
On those two factors alone one can clearly see that this agreement is no more than an expansionists agreement where we are being asked to give Europe all that we can produce at cheap prices in exchange for a pitiful amount of foreign currency.
And for a negotiator to be saying that this is the best deal is sufficient to question his competence and his ability to understand the implications of trade and what are good terms for a developing or underdeveloped country or region.
I don’t know what is in it for the politicians and am not privy to the pressures that the EU may be heaping upon them. Maybe if any one of us was in the same position we would make the same decision, but one thing for sure is that whatever the influence it would have to out weight all the above considerations.
The other thing is that statement about being marginalised if we don’t sign, is nothing more than a joke. You can’t marginalise a country?Whatever it is we have that they want we still have it and it has to be worth something for them to be pushing this agreement down our throats.
We belittle the great value we have while others see it and gobble it up; at our expense and their gain.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well! Well! Well!
CARICOM Story leaking from EU NGOs (OXFAM):
“The latest news from the Caribbean is that the EU as of yesterday has indicated to CARICOM that its funding under the EDF programme could be in jeopardy if the EPA is not signed . A large part of the EDF funds are for EPA funding. The communication apparently also reflected that a number of countries also had integrated EPA implementation in their National programmes and that this could also be under threat with no EPA.
“In that context, CARICOM is trying to get a meeting of Heads for signing as soon as possible. The meeting on the 8th still has to be confirmed. The President of Guyana has indicated that he will not attend. And yesterday Trinidad indicated that as far as they were concerned the time for talking is over, as there will be dire consequences for the region if they don’t sign.”
Oxfam works with others to overcome poverty and suffering.
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 612172.
Registered office: Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY.
A registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SCO 039042)
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 11:18 am
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE EPAs:
In an effort to answer the requests for more information on the EPAs that would allow people to understand the reasons for not signing, the list of objections below gives some clarity:
• The impact of the substantially all trade threshold on future Bilateral and Multilateral negotiations:-
Means that whatever better prices we negotiate with poorer nations will automatically be given to the EU
• The implications of the Most Favoured Nation Treatment (MFN) and Regional Preference on our future bilateral trading relationships:-
Means that whatever better conditions we negotiate with poorer and lesser developed countries will automatically apply to the EU
• The implications of Market Access liberalisation on Tax Revenue and the impact this may have on taxation and the maintenance of social services to which we are accustomed:-
This means that our Government will be getting less taxes and this will have an impact on social services and programmes.
• The implications of the safeguard clause on infant industries:-
Effectively protects foreign interests.
• The amendments to the Rules of Origin and the impact they may have on Barbados’ ability to export certain goods to the European Community:-
Means that we cannot export goods that have in components (ingredients) that we did not produce but imported from elsewhere. So if we import essence to put in our lemonade then we cannot export the lemonade unless we exclude the essence (just a simple example)
• The nature of the commitments taken in the area of services and investment:-
We have committed to liberalizing a lot more services than necessary and this will impact on small business and manufacturing
• The potential impact of the Government Procurement arrangements:-
Means that a lot of government contacts that would normally be reserved for the local market will now have to be tendered outside the country as well. This would see a lot of roads and other construction in the hands of foreign companies as well as things like the supply of equipment and services to Government.
Chris Halsall // August 28, 2008 at 11:25 am
@ROK… Thank you!
Please do tell: is there any *upside* for the region?
The scout // August 28, 2008 at 11:51 am
Whether the EPA agreement is good or not for the region, it has highlighted the disunity among our leaders. Eventually our leaders will cause this region to be blacklisted because of their arrogance and insularity.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@Chris
Not sure how to answer that. One of the probelms is that the sweet is coming laced with gall.
Of course EU has opened up their market to us duty free on everything. Can we supply? We have not done so in the past so what magical performance will happen to cause us to suddenly be able to supply?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, they will be flooding our markets duty free too. However, the duty free thing will do two things. First it will mean that Government will collect far less revenue (and who will make up this void?) and second is that we will be flooded with cheap goods to compete with ours in our own market.
So it is all intertwined. Our only benefit will be our most bitter pill.
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:35 pm
@Chris
What I should also point out is that this is not an insurmountable problem but you have to let people make their inputs and you will be surprised how creative solutions would come about; and this is something negotiators can’t do because they just don’t have that kind of local knowledge. That knowledge resides in the residents and citizens of the country.
Can only say it again, that the real solution rests with the people so our governments are hiring the wrong negotiators. The negotiators should come from consultations with the people who should then select a team to lay their case for them; with the relevant technical assistance of course.
That is too radical even to contemplate. What you talking ’bout fella?
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:40 pm
@Unsteady
Why do you proceed so headstrongly mis-informed? or should I say ill-informed? How can you come to positions without information? and how could stories covered in every media slip you like that? You on earth?
Chris Halsall // August 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@ROK… Thank you again for your above.
I agree with you entirely — those affected must be included in the loop. They must be consulted, but (IMHO) even more importantly, they must be educated and informed.
I keep asking (but am never given an answer): what is the upside? What are the opportunities? What should our people be preparing for? HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THUS TO AND FOR *OUR* ADVANTAGE?
Or (and please forgive me for this) are we simply envisioned as consumers and servants?
ROK // August 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I hope I have answered you there as to why people are not prepared to stick out their necks and for those who can, why they are not prepared to.
It is best to remember that for every benefit there is a bitter pill. There are certain clauses we should negotiate the deletion of. The Most Favoured Nation clause is one such deletion.
We should cut down on the amount of services we committed to liberate. Our resource is our people and if they are not performing there are no taxes. So your statement is correct; we are consumers and servants in this deal. Good one! You see what consultation can do?
STEADY // August 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Oh dear. ROK again. Dabbling in things that he knows very little about. Mis-statements, mis-quotes, lack of knowledge. It is sad.
Trust ROK the trade policy i read and forget you ent come into contact with. In fact it is quite clear from you comments that you have not read the Agreement and just picking up information off the web from organisations like OXFAM that frankly dont have the interests of this region at heart. But that is another matter.
Let me for the benefit of the people on this blog put you right. And after this i really hope you go and do some reading.
First of in order to understand this situation you have to know how we got in it the first place.
I really thought this was explained to both David and Chris already but clearly it has to be done again.
The problem with this EPA ent start with the Europeans and it will not end with them. Clearly the EPA and its shaping has its origins in the WTO and the challenges which countries that we feel are our friends and neighbours put up against the EU and force it to change its policies towards the ACP.
As i explained before, from as far back as the early 1980s the entire world trading system shifted its concessions to developing countries. By 1994 with the creation of the WTO that shift was alomost complete.
No longer was the system tolerant of preferential trade arrangements like LOME/Contonou that the EPA is set to replace. In fact i refer ROK for his benefit to Art. 24 in the GATT and Art. 5 in the GATS. Collectively these are called the “regional trade agreement articles”"
What these artitcles do is that they take away any ability of developed countries such as Europe and the US to develop and maintain preferential trade agreements. What are preferential trade agreements? These are agreements that allow and permit “one way trade”. That is that for example on LOME, CBI and CARIBCAN we were able to send all the goods we produce to the EU, USA, and Canada without attracting any duty some with a guarantee price and with guranteed quantities. While on th eother hand, these countries could could not get such benefits of market access from us. That went on for 20, 25, and in the case of the EU close to 40 years.
But as usual all good things must come to an end. So enter WTO. WTO members said those agreements are unfair to us cause you are offering these countries something which you ent offering us. And, under the new rules of non-discrimination Art. 1 of the GATT and 1 of the GATS what we call the MFN (most favoured nation clause), any country caught doing this would be carried before the WTO “court”
Now everbody including ROK, we hope, are aware of the cases involving bananas and sugar. In these cases the preferential treatment which the EU gave to ACP producers was challenged by the Latinos as unfair and an impairment of their rights to get equal treatment.
What happened. The EU fought the case and lost. LOST ! Sugar came up challenged by the Australians and Brazilians as unfair to them. And what happened? THE EU LOST THE CASE. In both instances the WTO dispute panel ruled that the EU “had to change the regime to accommodate other WTO members.
But what this meant was something even bigger.. It meant that all these preferential arrangement were in danger. Cause they were all alike and offered the same discrimination treatment to the Caribbean and other developing countries. So the EU had to go back to the WTO and ask the countries against whom its preferential arrangements discriminated for a “break” to allow the preferential arrangements to stay in place to help these small developing countries.
What did the WTO members say: We give you eight year 8 from January 1 2000 to December 31st 2007. After that come back with a different agreement which commits to liberalizing “SUBSTANTIALLY ALL TRADE BETWEEN YOU AND THE ACP COUNTRIES” If you do that we will give you another waiver that allows you to allow those countries to get duty free access to your markets.
So David, Chris, please try to understand that it ent the EU it is the WTO that is driving this process. The Caribbean therefore has no other alternative if we want to continue to get access to the EU markets duty free.
Now of course we dont have to sign. We really dont. But they are consequences to it. And when people like ROK come on the blog dont jjust let them tell you all that is bad let them tell you what is worse.
Take an example ROK talks about the rules of origin. Clearly he ent got a clue what he is talking about. Right now we have a major exporter in Barbados who sends product to the EU. An ingredient in that product because of the high price of it has to be sourced from Trinidad. Under the LOME rules of origin Barbados cannot export a product to the EU with an ingredient from any other country. So this company’s products have been stop from entering the market and asked to withdraw.
Fortunately for them the EU has already begun to implement the EPA even though it has not been signed. So the Barbados authorities have been able to point out to them that under EPA those rules have changed and the Caribbean is being treated as a single maket and so under rules of origin anything from another caribbean country will be considered as domestic.
The result. the product continues to enter EU markets duty free, quota free and with out question. Well that is for the time being and unless the the EPA is scrapped. So the ordinary workers at this company and i believe that there are close to 200, plus a whole of other people who provide that company with services can continue to make a living and feed their families.
Yet they are people like ROK who want these people put out of work and a decent living. Trust they are thousands more across this region who will face the same fate if we dont do this deal.
What is the alternative? they have not said any yet except that we must re-open negotiations. It takes two to do that and the EU has said they ent doing it. PERIOD. Besides the time is up. If we dont sign this agreement trust me the challenges in WTO will start. Dont mind Brazil and them, ask them if they thoough about us when they crash the sugar protocol in the WTO? they did not say oh let leave cause we will hurt Barbados. Next year alone Barbados will lose close to 30 million US dollars in FX because of that decision.
WAKE UP. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. if we dont sign the EU has said it ent going back to court to defend no deal that it knows it will lose. So it will put us under GSP and that means tariffs on our products. We cannot afford it.
ROK talks about revenue we will lose from tariff liberalization. He is right and this will have an impact. But not nearly cannot compare to the amount of foreign exchange we will lose if we dont do this deal. THAT IS A FACT. Barbados stands to lose about 16 million US dollars in tax revenue from this agreement over 25 years. That is less than a million US a year.
But on the Sugar fall out alone when the EU institues tariffs on our sugar we will lose on average 15 million uS a year every year till the sugar industry done. In other words we have to do like Trinidad, St. Kitts and so many others in the ACP. SHUT DOWN THE INDUSTRY.
And that is only in sugar. Could you imagine what it will be like for our other exports.
These people really serious.
Man i gine and watch OBAMA.
Now on to the mis-information.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 3:57 am
@Unsteady
A lot of hot air. I wonder if you ever see a trade agreement far less study one and instead of this knocking at everybody you should read.
If you were really in this for the education of people you would use the opportunity to expand on what I said rather than beat down on one point and have to agree with the rest of it.
You let people know that the reason for CSME (which is the real thing) is to get around some of the rules of origin as you stated happened to your friend. A single domestic market space but for how many ingredients. Well, some better than none.
Which part of the EU agreement is driven by WTO? Joke! As a matter of fact, we are advising our Governments to do only what is necessary to become WTO compatible but this EPA gone far beyond that.
EU is not negotaiting with Barbados. Yes we have to sign but we talking CARIFORUM which is the space EU will recognise and not CSME or CARICOM in this deal. They so powerful they decide who in this. Anything coming out of CARIFORUM is domestic.
Tell the people how much fx we lose on our own from sugar under Lome because increasingly every year we have failed to reach our quota? Tell them too that the EU reduced the quota and we still can’t meet it.
Put people out of work? Tell them how many of our small businesses will shut down. Tell them how many monopolies and duopolies will find themselves in the region? Wherever in this world these things happen the economies slump because these people are able to clear away the competition and then decide how much people they are going to employ and with the competition gone the job market contract while labour expand. What is that a recipe for?
Tell your friend (whatever he exporting) how much competition he can expect to come up against and if he will be able to hold his head above water when he can’t stop the competition from coming in? Tell him how many people he will be able to employ?
Ask him if he will get any raw materials if some European come in and buy up his source and control it so that he can’t get the quota he wants or suddenly finds that the shipments always late? You understand business, sir?
I want you to paint the real story. Help me to help people to understand the possibilities and the implications of the MFN clause? Help them to understand national treatment and that the Europeans want national treatment, i.e. we treat them the same as we treat our own. You really understand the implications?
I would like you to understand that we facing a reduction in our standard of living and quality of life. I want you to understand that the reason we have so little unemployment (comparably) is because people can start a business without being hammered by unfair competition.
Look how one big wig was able to take over all the supermarkets and distribution trade in Barbados and left only Jordans and A1. Duplicate that at least fifty times and see where we are. We selling we land to get money but then we have to live on the streets and in public places. What is that?
You are encouraging people to take the money so that they have a big pocketful now but you did not advise them that if they take the money they have to live on the streets afterwards and have nowhere to raise their children; crime up, street children on the prowl, social frabric in tatters?????
You see what happening in Africa with these so called trade deals? War! I don’t know why we think that Europe is any salvation when really and truly their wealth comes out of their continued plundering of Africa.
This move by the Europeans is purely expansionists and is meant to control as much of its old dominion as possible. With the wealth in Africa and a few more Mugabes, soon Europe would be cut off, so they have to keep Africa fighting and we divided. They know that only too well and with S. Africa independent and backing Mugabe too they perceive that they have to keep stoking fires.
We depending on tourism? Well that is the next key. Don’t grow more food? Don’t try to export to our Diaspora? Don’t try to help African nations pull themselves up? Haynesley Benn saying it loud and clear.
To depend on tourism is to put your fate in the hands of the Imperialists who can withdraw their hands at any time, as they so often demonstrate. Enjoy the benefits of tourism but make an investment in yourselves and do not give up your right to live a quality life.
Next thing is that we listening to the Europeans telling us that nothing good in Africa when all the time that is where the gold mine is for them.
I ask again, what is the rush? Why all the pressure? Tell me something about that. Why the threats? What do we really have that merit so much pressure? You know, the reason for penalties is not only to punish but also to deter.
So we ain’t shutting down we sugar industry too? We trying to grow fuel, you forget? With St. Kitts and all the rest gone what quantities of sugar do we have to bargain with as CARIFORUM?
I feel like I wasting my time on you but I welcome the chance the debate has of sparking interests and helping to explain. I would risk to bet that somebody fed you the information you put up, you know why? You have not been able to articulate it properly. You deal with one or two issues superficially and you gone for Obama. You just being mischevious.
David // August 29, 2008 at 6:54 am
Please clarify why would the EU specifically demand to negotiate with regional groupings i,e CARIFORUM instead of ACP? We want the rational from the EU perspective because we assume the question would have been raised by the Regional Negotiating Machinery. If we missed it above we apologize.
What motivates the question is the size of the trade market in the CARIFORUM space. Why should the EU fight to compete in our space? What guarantees are in place to monitor the enormous subsidies provided to farming and other industries in Europe which obvious positions those companies to compete fiercely. In fact may of their companies are ready now.
We see a parallel between the lag in development of the BLACK race as a result of slavery which gave the Whites a head start and the industrial development in the EU compared to what obtains in CARIFORUM countries.
STEADY // August 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
Yes David, thanks for the question. This is one of the other pieces of mis-information which critics of the EPA keep spreading as though it is true. It is not the EU that insisted on regionalized negotiating groups. It is the Africans that said they wanted to negotiate as seperate regions.
CARICOM of course would have argued for the continuation of the ACP as a group for trade negotiations but the Africans, sweetened by the Everything but Arms” proposal (which guaranteed them duty free, quota free access for everything they could export except arms) from the EU, and believing that they could get better benefits if they go it alone.
So all of this talk about how the region abandoned africa and the pacific is patently false. If anything it was the other way around.
ROK // August 29, 2008 at 11:40 am
@David,
My only explanation is expansionism; the need to control the markets of other countries because they are producing more than they consume on the one hand and need to get rid of it.
On the other hand, greatly deficient in some key areas such as natural proteins (cheap) and vitamins. The most obvious is fish. We in a sea of abundance.
The next thing is that they have the money to do it. Look at the strength of the British Pound for example, never mind the Euro, it works out the same. One BP is four Barbados Dollars.
We pay a dollar for a sweet drink, they pay a Pound. We charge US$150.00 for a hotel room, they charge 150.00 BP. We pay $40.00 for dining at a restaurant, they pay 40 BP. Understand the wealth.
I am not so sure that the division of the ACP into blocs is due to Africa. Sometimes we should see how we do things. To my mind, even if it had the strongest backing of Africa, this is a natural development because of cultural and other diversity; language too. Africa itself is split up into regions and are being negotiated in regions; so south will be different to east and they different to west, etc.
If we look at recent developments or I should say evolution of trade negotiations, you will see that EU is also negotiating by country as well. So our attempt to have consensus is good for us.
There is nothing wrong with the regions as smaller units coming together making their decisions and then coming together as one. Only, the coming together as one is not happening.
We should blame it on the ACP Secretariat which to my mind does nothing to encourage integration… but even then that is not right. I would say one thing though, we need to get the rid of that South African white man that heads the political bureau.
At the 2006 Civil Society summit, I witnessed first hand, the strategies he employed to create division and he got a piece of my tongue then. Subsequently Owen Arthur took a turn in him, followed by Ralph Gonsalves, but yet he still there.
Not sure how else to answer your question except being privy to the confidential affairs of the EU.
@Unsteady,
Sony Ramphal was there in live living colour, n’estpas? Were you?
Chris Halsall // August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@STEADY: “I really thought this was explained to both David and Chris already but