EPA precipitants

Sep 11, 2008 Editorial

The dust has not settled over the ongoing contretemps within Caricom and with the European Union (EU) over the signing of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), but the robust discussions have precipitated several questions that need to be addressed urgently by our policy makers.

Right up there on top of the detritus is what role is the Ministry of Foreign Trade and International Cooperation playing in all of these negotiations, consultations, discussions, evaluations and appraisals on a subject that indubitably falls in their bailiwick?

When this Ministry was carved out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there were reflexive accusations by the opposition that a sinecure was being created for Mr Clement Rohee.

The explanation that the forces of globalisation had unleashed a dynamic that demanded every country, especially small and vulnerable ones like ours, be institutionally vigilant in the almost continuous rounds of negotiations that sought to define the new economic relations of trade, was given short shrift.

However, very quickly the Ministry became embroiled in the furor precipitated by the decision of the EU to unilaterally slash the price of our sugar shipped to their markets – contrary to the terms of the contract that had sealed the arrangement.

The Minister and his Ministry represented the interest of our country with great aplomb and his comprehensive periodic reports to Parliament convinced the sceptics that indeed, such a ministry was vital to our overall international economic security.

One had to assume that the institutional arrangements had been put into place, to deliver the goods, so to speak.

The administration had to be credited with admirable foresight. The EU’s action on the sugar arrangement, of course, was the precursor to the negotiations on the EPA, which was supposed to incorporate development aspects, vitiated by the loss of the preferential sugar prices.

Minister Rohee was then moved to Home Affairs and suddenly, for all intents and purposes, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and International Cooperation fell into a black hole.

There is no other explanation: we assume that the individuals within the organisation – including the Minister, Dr Henry Jeffrey – are at their desks receiving reports etc, but there has been no sighting of them in all the above-mentioned activities that should have been consuming their time and attention.

One wonders why Dr Jeffrey, for instance, was not one of the panellists at the national consultations on the EPA at Liliendaal, last week? Surely, he should have been one of the most fully apprised Guyanese on the merits or demerits of the EPA.

Then we were informed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms Carolyn Rodrigues, rather than Dr Jeffrey would be representing us at the ACP meeting in Ghana in early October to coordinate our stand on the EPA.

Now Dr Jeffrey was the point man from his Ministry that had been engaging the ACP since Mr Rohee’s departure and surely one would not lightly dismiss the value of the relationships honed during that time?

Another issue goes to the substance of the initialled EPA agreement, at which we are balking. The Europeans have held out the stick that our sugar and rice, which will continue to receive some special treatment (for a specified period), might be at risk if we do not sign the agreement.

The administration, in the person of the President, and the opposition have sought to protect our interests by proposing that we sign only a “goods only” agreement.

But even if the EU goes along with this proposal (and this is highly doubtful because most of the other members of Caricom will undercut our stance) are we not saving our present unfortunate dependence on primary products at the cost of future value-added products that we would want to get into?

However, this would assume that we had a National Development Strategy in place that would identify those goods, since no partner, however benevolent, much less Europe, would wait on us to make up our minds.

We cannot cry over what should have been done, but it is obvious to us that we should utilise the unanimity achieved over the iniquities of the EPA to craft a new and concrete National Development Strategy.

Latest News

EPA precipitants

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 31st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Saints and GTI dominate as YBG Georgetown Regional Conference...

Carty misses ton, Hamilton (80) sets up tense...

Annandale Sec’ dominates latest fixtures in...

GPF FC to tackle Slingerz tomorrow as GFF Elite...

Permaul’s Trading & Distribution joins...

All set for Rotary Club of NA Childhood Obesity...

Features/Columnists

The reciprocal tariffs

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Tariffs – American game, American imagination

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

EPA precipitants

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 31st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]