Toolbox

Jagdeo proposes signing goods-only EPA

President Bharrat Jagdeo says he is prepared to sign a goods-only Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union, “even if it means doing it alone,” as this would make the Cariforum grouping World Trade Organisation compatible.

Guyana was prepared to enter into a full EPA with the EU after it was determined what the implications would be, he said. He added that this would be his argument when he meets Caricom Heads of Government on the issue in Barbados on September 10, 2008.

The President, who had expressed concern about the EPA before it was initialled last December, declared his intention at a one-day national consultation on the Cariforum-EC EPA at the Guyana International Conference Centre, Liliendaal yesterday. His announcement was also well received by the majority of the participants.

Signing a goods-only agreement was first suggested at the meeting by economist Dr Clive Thomas.

Meanwhile, Deputy Director of Trade, European Commission, Karl-Friedrich Falkenburg said that since the EPA negotiating process the region had been strengthened. However, he said the issue of whether the region was going to sign the agreement individually, and ratify and implement it will test the solidarity of the region and regional integration.

Falkenburg said he has been in contact with other leaders in the region and has noted a clear resolve to sign the EPA. He warned that anyone not moving along was, in one form or another, putting the EPA at risk and causing issues with the regional integration that was so much at the centre of Cariforum’s work in the past and its workload in the future.

The EU, he said, has stated that it wants to assist the existing regional integration and not, as some are saying, to divide and negotiate. “That has not been the motivation nor the reality,” he said adding that over the years different regions in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping have defined their own reality and one size cannot fit all. Cariforum, he said, was more advanced in its negotiations in some areas but in others the other regions were more advanced.

Sir Shridath Ramphal, a former head of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) who spoke about the implications of reciprocity in keeping with the EPA, suggested that Guyana not sign the EPA until after the ACP heads of government summit to be held in Accra, Ghana on October 2, 2008.

However, the President told the media at a press conference held shortly after the consultation that he would not attend that summit because of a speaking engagement in China. But he would send a prepared statement with Minister of Foreign Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett.

He also told the consultation he did not know whether the Caricom heads would buy his suggestion not to sign the EPA, but to sign onto a goods-only agreement or whether they would wait until after the ACP meeting to do so.

“I will champion that. It is up to civil society to speak about this too because when governments alone speak about this they are caught in the middle. You have your networks in the region. Share with them some of the concerns here,” he told the gathering, adding that they “have a sense of what the challenges are… We will continue to take this matter up even if it means doing it alone.”

The suggestion of a goods-only agreement was picked up and supported by several participants, who were drawn from a wide section of civil society.

There were nine panellists but only two — Head of the CRNM Henry Gill and Falkenburg — were pro-EPA.
Jagdeo, in his introductory address and throughout the day asked many questions. However, he did not give Gill or Falkenburg enough time to answer most of the questions raised.

Jagdeo reiterated that the current agreement did not support the development aspirations of the region and the only reason why Guyana would sign onto it was because of the threat of tariffs and the General System of Preferences. He noted that Guyana had a lot to lose because it was among the largest exporters from the region to the EU of rice, sugar and rum.

Gill opposed Jagdeo, saying that the CRNM considered the EPA development-friendly as it had been well negotiated. He said too that it had obtained market access, with the exception of sugar and rice not receiving immediate liberalization; full access of goods on a duty-free and quota-free basis. It also offered the security of access to investments on the ground knowing they would be accepted and Europe could not pull the plug. The EPA, he said, committed the Europeans to assist in meeting sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards as well as providing technical assistance.

Issues that were of concern to Jagdeo included good faith negotiations, which he claimed the EU lacked based on its unilateral denunciation of the sugar protocol and the absence of an assessment of the social impact the EPA would have on the region. Other issues included how much funding would be available for adjustment and aid development; whether the EPA would conflict with regional integration efforts and impact negatively on the Caricom Single Market and Economy.

Gill and Falkenburg held the view that the good-only suggestion might not be a good one given the fact that apart from Guyana being a major exporter of agricultural products to Europe, other Caribbean countries were service-oriented.

Gill noted that services formed a large part of the agreement and that just about all the countries of the Caribbean were involved in the service industry. “We can’t disregard that,” he said adding that there were linkages between the goods and services sector in terms of production and efficiency, particularly in telecommunications, banking and port services. He said that when they signed onto the negotiations they were not entirely clear about the issues but they became clearer as the negotiations progressed to include competition policy, intellectual property rights and innovations.

Sir Shridath in his presentation said that Caribbean countries were not obliged under international law, treaty law or WTO rules to sign the EPA in its current form. “They are not precluded by international agreement from renegotiating that agreement or signing a part of that agreement,” he said noting that a previous speaker, Dr Chris Stevens, had already mentioned how regularly this was done.

He said there was no one option as to how this could be done noting that too many in the region have taken the view that because they initialled the agreement they must sign it. “To sign in its present form may be the wrong thing for generations of West Indians,” he said.

He said that in the final stages of the Cotonou negotiations, after looking at all of the options, it was stated that there might have not been an EPA at all. Provision was made for it in Article 37 (6) in the event the EU would examine all alternative possibilities in order to provide these countries that are not signing the EPA with a new framework for trade, “which is equivalent to their existing situation and in conformity with WTO rules.” The EPA before the region, he said, was not equivalent to the existing situation.

He said reciprocity was recited throughout the text like a mantra, but he felt the Europeans would know that reciprocity required not equity but proportionality.

Gill explained that while reciprocity was mentioned it did not mean full reciprocity but asymmetrical reciprocity.

Calling the EPA anti-development, Sir Shridath said it would become a benchmark for future negotiations with other developed nations. “This is an agreement with the world. It is a global giveaway,” he said adding that “at the very least signing onto the EPA is premature. Whistling in the dark is sometimes understood but signing in the dark is positively reckless.”

On ACP solidarity, he noted that the ACP was conceived in Brussels by the Caribbean and came into being 33 years ago in Guyana with the Georgetown Accord and the Caribbean being the trustees of the ACP charter.

Noting African solidarity with the Caribbean over the years and particularly on the issue of the rum industry, which would have had a negative impact on Guyana, he suggested that the region collectively put signing of the EPA on hold. “Is our partnership with Europe now more special than with the ACP? ACP solidarity is not an abstract concept,” he said.

He posited that the EU needed the six EPAs even more than any one region needed it.

Comments

About Comments

We thank all readers who have contributed to this site since its relaunch. This section of the website is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and we hope that readers make full use of it as many have already done.

The comments section is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness.
In recent weeks a large proportion of the comments posted have contained attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity. Comments of these types will be deleted.
Comments which contain gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity will be struck.
We reserve the right to edit/delete comments for length, any libel and taste. We moderate all comments so be patient while your message waits to be approved.
Curious about the little images next to each commenter's name ? Go here and sign up using the same email address you used to register for Stabroeknews.com then upload your image and confirm it.

6 Responses to “Jagdeo proposes signing goods-only EPA”

Satish
on September 6th, 2008 7:18 am

Tough talking by various bureaucrats in this article does not seem to have shed much clarification. This is indeed a complex matter and a changing one too.

Therefore pragmatism suggest we do what our president says.
He has an extensive track record of getting richer countries to do things for Guyana. Sometimes for free too!

Sir Shridath’s record is lack-lustre. He has done more to feather his own international reputation than any direct international input into his home country.

As for Gill, can anyone give 2 cents for why he should reign supreme?

[Reply to this]
Yerodin Anthony
on September 6th, 2008 12:56 pm

Jagdeo proposes signing goods-only………….

I agree with him 130%. Jageo is seeing the wolve in its sheep clothing (EU) and so

should all the rest of the caribbean. So whatever he’ s doing he should keep it up

and don’t be discourage on behave on the EPA.

[Reply to this]
bgsbny
on September 6th, 2008 3:25 pm

….. the way i read this report ,, — albeit poorly crafted — is that Sunny is advising ,,— as well he should — that the ACP agreement is of much more value to the c’bean and should be maintained ,, for unity,, and that the premature signing of the EPA now ,, would be a “yoke” for many future generations from the c’bean to come ,, the filmsy suggestion that sevices ,, in and from the c’bean would be affected is just that ,, filmsy !….. we have need of all that they choose to tell us abt ,, that will be affected ,, how ? when we use them every day 24×7,,,

the sugar protocol as is written by the EU, is the reason why the SKELDON modernised factory will soon become a white elephant ,, tho,, not nearly as visionless as the scrapping of the rail in GY by the “dictates of burnham !
Dr. Thomas’s contribution is as well invaluable,,,, since all that he has ever advocated for Guyana is only the “best ” !…..

the President in the same mould ,, is making his understanding of the document
the EPA is advancing,, known ,, to his counterparts of the region ,, about his intentions ,, and if the unity of the region is to be known as one ,, then in his mind
the wisdon of strenght in numbers should hold tight the resolve not to sign it until and unless it is re - written to reflect the human and,,economic development of the region !……

[Reply to this]
Joe Coxall
In reply to the above comment on September 7th, 2008 2:49 am:
bgsbny,
The Caribbean countries should stay with the ACP agreement. However it is a rough and dangerous direction since the EU will do everything in their power to keep these countries subjugated to their money mongering system of naked greed and exploitation.

Remember the non aligned movement? That was the first attempt to develop trade among former British empire countries and to be free from the dictates and tariffs inposed by the money mongers. The EU destroyed it completely, and brought to flock back under their control.

This is really an unending war between good and evil, and evil has been winning so far.

Joe.

[Reply to this]
jayjee
on September 6th, 2008 7:12 pm

Jagdeo is doing a grate job with eu , these people is teeling yo what to do, and control the country, that why these other get rich, how does the big fish live in the ocean? answered by eating the little ones.

[Reply to this]
Joe Coxall
on September 7th, 2008 1:53 am

I am glad to see that all the bloggers so far are on the same page in this matter. The EU bring gifts of hunger, despair and death to the region.

The products of Guyana, which are real tangible goods must be subjected to their high tariffs, but the goods and technology they provide to the service oriented countries of the region must flow in the form of free trade.

The following statement, made in the article by Mr. Falkenburg is a total and shameless lie.
“The EU, he said, has stated that it wants to assist the existing regional integration and not, as some are saying, to divide and negotiate. “That has not been the motivation nor the reality,”

The Europeans, never relenquished control of the region. First they came with mighty conquering armies, then they came back with a weapon of even greater destruction than any atom bomb.

Than weapon is in the form of interest on loans. Today they “suck out” far more wealth, in the form of interest payments from countries than they give back as loans. It is a vicious cycle from which there is no escape.

The EU’s purpose is not to assist, their single and only purpose is to exploit. They and the rest of the banking cartel is the single and only reason why Forbes Burnham and all other third world leaders of his time, failed to bring their respective countries into full prosperity. They are the single and only reason why President Jagdeo will not suceed either.

Why would they want it that way? Simple- A prosperous country will have no need for their preditory loans and hence no profit to them. But a country on the brink of starvation, fighting over non issues and blaming their government, will see them as gods prayers being answered, when they arrive bringing their treacherous gifts of despair.

Joe.

[Reply to this]