That EPA as it stands could be a millstone

Sep 10, 2008 Features / Columnists

---

When Guyana and the other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries began discussing the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union, there was immediate recognition that the agreement was more in favour of the European Union.

There was a threat that failing to sign the EPA would see the country losing trade opportunities.
Guyana, however, has serious reservations because the leaders believe that the EPA represents a case of master dictating terms to the minions, and Guyana has been a sovereign nation for a long time.

Sir Ronald Sanders explains the situation most succinctly. “Our leaders have been placed in the invidious position by the EU whose negotiators have said that if Caribbean governments don’t sign, their important exports will be placed under GSP terms, which means that they will become uncompetitive in the EU market.”

But the EU has dictated that it enjoys the best of both worlds. Sanders writes, “There will be no restriction on EU companies entering Caribbean territories to set up businesses in competition with local businesses, and if they have deeper pockets and can put the local companies out of business, then so be it.

“Governments will not be able to regulate effectively the sectors in which these companies are involved since the EPA requires government regulations to be ‘not more burdensome than necessary’.

“The EU argues that the EPA is reciprocal, and that Caribbean companies can enter the EU market to compete with EU companies.

Since the Caribbean has no more than a handful of firms with the resources to establish pan-Caribbean companies, the likelihood of the region developing companies with the capacity to establish and compete in Europe seems somewhat remote.

“And, as for the export of services, the EPA prioritises accounting, architecture, engineering and tourism for mutual recognition agreements. S

o the question is: how many professionals in these areas does each Caribbean country have who are qualified to sell their services in Europe in competition with well-established European firms?”

This is what President Jagdeo knows and he is objecting, and instead of criticizing him, the people should recognize that they are no longer slaves to a colonial master and that they must not accept any pittance hurled their way.

However, Guyana has decided to hold a public consultation to solicit the views of the stakeholders since the EPA covers a range of trading opportunities and involves many goods and services.

It was a teeth and tongue struggle to get the Europeans to include regional artistes as part of the package. As far as they were concerned, the regional artistes would have had to apply for visas and seek permits to perform in Europe.

But the regional leaders recognised that the performers were de facto cultural ambassadors and they needed to be allowed to ply their craft in the same way the European performers are allowed to do theirs and earn valuable money for their respective countries.

In the same way, there are other areas of the EPA that Guyana does not find favour with and during the past week President Bharrat Jagdeo began talking about a goods-only EPA for Guyana.

The fact, however, that the President has made his position known, even before the end of the consultations, is being condemned by some critics, not least of all, a writer using the sobriquet Peeping Tom.

Everyone who enters into a meeting or engages in consultation is expected to have a position. No one goes into a consultation like a clean slate waiting to be written upon.

The government went into the consultation with a position which it stated. It is for the stakeholders to present their position and so far it seems as if they are in support of the government.

Yet the critics are overlooking this point. They want the government to accept whatever the stakeholders say as though the government should have no position at all; as if the government is seeking a position. That is not the case.

The critics also ignore the fact that the main opposition party, aware of the ramifications of Guyana appending its signature to the agreement, has openly voiced its support for a goods-only EPA.

This may be a wise decision because Guyana’s main contribution to any EPA would be for the export of its goods.

But in the end the stakeholders will have their say, and the government will make a decision. If it is to be a goods-only EPA, then so be it. Let the nation not be used or fooled by promises.

Guyana and the Caribbean have been exploited for too long. Instead of criticizing the government let us support this proposal for a goods-only EPA.

---

---