Unequal partners

Caribbean leaders are to meet once more, next week in week in Barbados, to finalize their position on the controversial Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) due to be signed with the European Union. The meeting has been organized at the invitation of Barbados’ Prime Minister David Thompson after a spate of confusing statements by several of the leaders raised big clouds of doubt as to where the region really stands on the EPA.{{more}} This “Agreement”, negotiated over a three-year period by the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM), and initialed last December, has had its official signing postponed several times. It is expected that next Wednesday’s meeting will set a new date for the signing.

There is much debate in the region as to whether the EPA ought to be signed before serious concerns, raised not just by civil society in the region, but also by Prime Minister, Presidents and trade officials themselves, are addressed. It has painted a picture of a region unsure of itself. At the end if all of this brouhaha, the CARICOM leaders will no doubt dress up their reservations in party garb and honour their commitment by signing. They will explain to us that they really have “little choice” to do other wise and will point to some positive areas in the EPA as “windows of opportunity” for the Caribbean. None of them has dared to call the EPA a “good deal”, preferring to opt for “the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.”

One can hardly dispute that conclusion; the problem lies in the “circumstances.” Even when the 2000 Cotonou Agreement was being negotiated, there had been considerable dispute over whether the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should give up the advantage of global negotiation with an Economic superpower in favour of the regional approach insisted on by Europe. There, the all-ACP approach had its problems of resolving conflicting interests and in co-ordination. But the break-up of the ACP into six negotiating blocs each engaging the same central force, left each region more prone to European manipulation. When it is realized that individual states would have to sign, then the risk increases significantly.

Then there was the process itself. Europe was solidified in an economic bloc, the European Union (EU), which even expanded during the negotiating process bringing in states which historically had nothing to do with us nor seemed to care. The EU gave its negotiating mandate to its administrative arm, the European Commission (EC), a body with clear powers and regulations, integrated into the European systems. And Europe had an elected European Parliament with oversight over the process. Contrast this with the Caribbean with often people unsure whether it was the CRNM or CARICOM (the poor relation of the EC) which was in charge, with no regional Parliament and many national Parliaments never having any EPA issues brought before them.

To add to this, for the purposes of the EPA, CARICOM was locked with the Dominican Republic (DR) in an arrangement called CARIFORUM. (I wonder how many Parliamentarians in the region can give a clear explanation of CARIFORUM). The DR is not a member of CARICOM or the Caribbean Single Market and had already embarked on a deeper level of liberalization than CARICOM. For the purposes of the negotiation, these levels of the DR had to be taken into consideration.

Other “circumstances” created problems too. Our governments did not commit funds to pay our negotiators who were paid out of funds provided by the people with whom they were negotiating. (I understand that a similar thing is to happen with Canada-Caribbean negotiation). At times the CRNM did not always get the full co-operation and support of national governments and bureaucracies while several governments behaved, in my opinion, irresponsibly in regard to their levels of attendance and participation in critical meetings, their input into the regional process, the secrecy with which the process was conducted and the failure to inform and consult with their citizens on an on-going basis. Citizens too, especially the private sector and labour were very much at fault on a reciprocal basis.

With such a scenario, it is amazing that some tangible results have been achieved by our negotiators. At times, I for one, did not always agree with their seeming unwillingness to listen, especially to critical views, but there is no gainsaying that given all the limitations they did make some progress. Yet that is not to say that we must all now stand aside and clap as our leaders sign, one by one. Our reality is that, as Guyana’s President Jagdeo admitted, we were in a negotiation with virtually a gun at our heads. We in banana-producing countries were told, “sign or lose your banana preference.” The development commitments are even by the admission of our leaders, vague. And we have had practical experiences of funds being plentiful on paper but extremely difficult to access. While we were negotiating, the European Union dangled the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) before us, promising a “pot” of sweeteners for those prepared to dance tango.

We must call a spade, a spade. It was a negotiation between vastly unequal partners, the weaker side being continually backed into a corner. That is why, even as we understand the predicament of our leaders, we cannot accept the arrogance in some quarters or the hostility to those with divergent views.

What is wrong with engaging the so-called “detractors” and “nay-sayers?” Whatever the outcome, we will express our reservations and call for each government that signs to ensure that there is a proper Monitoring and Implementation mechanism with proper civil society participation.

We cannot wait 10 years to say “It ain’t working.”