Where does the buck stop?

Aug 26, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

One of the serious difficulties this column has with the government of Guyana’s position on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) concerns where the blame must be laid.

It is the position of the government of Guyana that the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiated between CARIFORUM and the European Union was a bad deal.

The government has indicated that it is not prepared to sign this agreement until it consults with the Guyanese people.

While this column shares the opinion that a bad deal was signed, we believe that the justification begins and ends with the nature of the agreement.

The issue of consultations with the people of Guyana is not going to change a bad agreement into a good agreement. It may however force new negotiations, but even this seems a remote possibility.

It is paradoxical, of course, that while the Cotonou Agreement called for the participation of civil society and other actors in the process of political, economic and other forms of cooperation between Europe and the Caribbean, in the case of Guyana, at least, there was very little role for civil society in terms of building a national position which would then be taken to the regional negotiators who were engaging their EU counterparts over the Economic Partnership Agreement for these parts..

Somebody needs to come forward and concede that a grave mistake was made when Guyana allowed the region to negotiate this agreement without the requisite participation that was called for under the Cotonou Agreement and which one expects as part of a participatory approach to governance, one of the principles outlined in our constitution, and which was absolutely necessary considering the importance of a regional Economic Partnership Agreement to our country’s future.

Somehow we have taken it as given, that our future is supposed to be tied up with the destiny of CARICOM. I have stated also before that the outcome of the present controversy should decide whether Guyana should continue to be part of CARICOM.

If the leaders of the region cannot fix right this agreement; if the same care and attention that was emphasized during the negotiations in respect to tourism and music, cannot be applied in the case of agriculture; if this agreement cannot be renegotiated to protect Guyana’s interests, then Guyana should have no further part in CARICOM. It is plain and simple as that.

What Guyana does not need as part of these consultations is the bashing of the Europeans. The Europeans looked after their interests; we have to look after ours. If in the opinion of the government of Guyana we failed to do so then we cannot blame the Europeans.

We have to dissect the negotiation process, decide what went wrong, whether we had any other options, and examine if there was any failure on the part of those who were part of the negotiations.

This is why the process of consultations as envisaged by the government of Guyana should not be as planned.

What is needed is for those that negotiated to first explain their side and what were the challenges facing them. Only then will we have a fair understanding of whether the region, and especially Guyana, was failed in these negotiations.

This is all the more necessary since those who were part of the negotiating process have a right to be heard too. It would be patently unfair if the consultations did not give to the regional negotiators, the right to defend the agreement that they negotiated with the Europeans.

I would therefore hope that the consultations would be structured in such a way that civil society and political parties, who will be important actors in this consultation, have the widest possible range of facts, including the side of the CARIFORUM negotiators.

This being done, I believe that this issue should then be considered by our parliament and there should be an exhaustive debate on the issue.

I am disturbed by the fact that the President of Guyana has chosen to lead off this important debate through a recent address to stakeholders in the sugar industry.

I have some issues with things that the President said during that meeting, based on the reports in the media. One of these is the preoccupation with the fact that the Europeans negotiated in bad faith.

It is no use crying now over spilt milk. It is no use bemoaning the fact that the ACP countries were not in favour of the replacement of the traditional agreements between the ACP and the EU with the EPA.

The Cotonou Agreement was signed moons ago. Early notice was given that from January of this year EPAs would become operational between the EU and different regional groupings.

The ACP signed this; so they cannot now turn around and raise the bogey about the breaking of ACP solidarity.

What solidarity are we speaking about? What type of solidarity has there ever existed within the ACP?
We cannot also raise the second bogey about special and differential treatment not being accorded to us.

It is. By virtue of the EPA, each region has an opportunity to negotiate an agreement that is in accordance with its needs and varying levels of development.

This is what CARIFORUM attempted to do. If they failed to safeguard Guyana’s interest we have to ask why and what should be our reaction.

Guyana knew “what was in the works”. We had early notice. We knew about the preparatory period and therefore if there is to be any blame it has to be fairly apportioned.

Let us hope that in the consultations that will begin in September, we will be honest with ourselves and dispassionately – and after being availed with all the facts – cast the blame where it rightly ought to be cast.

---

---