Title: Regulation, Not Restriction, is a Sovereign Right and Necessity to justly and fairly protect and preserve Guyanese businesses

Oct 05, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I write in response to Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent assertion that restricting Chinese businesses in Guyana would violate international norms and could lead to foreign policy issues with China. While his concerns regarding international relations are valid, they fundamentally overlook the sovereign right of a nation to regulate its economy in a way that protects and preserves its national industries. Across the globe, many countries, including the United States, European Union, China, India, and even smaller economies in the Caribbean, have implemented mechanisms to safeguard their domestic industries from foreign competition. These policies are not about outright restrictions but rather about non-discriminatory regulation, which ensures that local businesses are not undermined while maintaining compliance with international law. Global Precedents for Protective Regulation:

The United States: Strategic Trade Defense Mechanisms:

The United States has long been a defender of its domestic industries against foreign dominance, particularly from China. Through the imposition of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the U.S. has taken a strong stance against unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, which have disadvantaged American businesses.

Moreover, through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the U.S. government has scrutinized foreign acquisitions, particularly by Chinese entities, that could threaten national security. A prominent example of this was the 2019 ban on Chinese telecom giant Huawei, which posed a significant risk to U.S. technological infrastructure and national security (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2020).

These measures reflect the fact that regulating foreign participation in domestic markets is not only permissible but essential to preserving economic sovereignty. The U.S. demonstrates that protective regulation of foreign businesses is crucial to ensuring fair competition and preventing economic dominance by foreign entities (U.S. Trade Representative, 2020).

The European Union: Protecting Against Unfair Competition:

The European Union (EU) is another prime example of how regulation, not restriction, ensures market fairness. The EU has employed anti-dumping measures to prevent foreign entities, particularly from China, from selling products below market value and destabilizing local industries. A notable example of this is the imposition of tariffs on Chinese steel and solar panels to protect European manufacturers (European Commission, 2021). These anti-dumping regulations illustrate how protective regulation serves to shield domestic industries from unfair competition.

Furthermore, the EU’s foreign investment screening framework scrutinizes investments in critical sectors, ensuring that foreign control does not threaten its industrial capacity or economic sovereignty. This mechanism ensures that foreign investments are beneficial and do not lead to economic dependency or loss of control over key industries (European Commission, 2021). Such balanced regulation could easily be adapted in Guyana’s context to ensure that foreign businesses, like Chinese supermarkets, do not displace local entrepreneurs.

China: The Quintessential Example of Domestic Protectionism:

Ironically, China, the very country Dr. Jagdeo fears may retaliate, has itself been a staunch defender of its local industries against foreign competition. China employs a range of restrictive measures, including joint venture requirements and regulatory barriers, which make it difficult for foreign firms to operate independently in key sectors. Foreign companies in industries such as telecommunications, finance, and technology face significant restrictions and often must partner with local firms to gain market access (OECD, 2017).

China’s practice of limiting foreign influence in strategic industries exemplifies the very regulatory protection that Guyana should adopt. In shielding domestic firms from foreign dominance, China has allowed companies like Alibaba and Tencent to thrive without the threat of competition from foreign giants such as Google or Facebook, which are effectively barred from the Chinese market.

This approach underscores the importance of strategic economic regulation that Guyana can emulate without violating international trade laws.

India: Protecting Local Retailers from Foreign Giants:

India has similarly adopted a protective stance, particularly in its retail sector. Through its limitations on foreign direct investment (FDI), India has shielded its small, family-owned retail businesses, known as “Kirana Stores”, from being overwhelmed by global giants like Walmart and Amazon. India’s policies place strict conditions on foreign multi-brand retail operations, ensuring that local businesses remain competitive (Government of India, 2021). This approach reflects the principle that non-discriminatory but protective regulation can maintain fair competition between local and foreign businesses, preventing the former from being squeezed out by the latter’s financial power.

The United Kingdom: National Security and Economic Sovereignty:

The United Kingdom’s approach to foreign investment, especially post-Brexit, offers another clear example of how non-discriminatory regulation protects national interests. In 2021, the UK government blocked the sale of a British semiconductor firm to a Chinese company due to national security concerns (UK Department for International Trade, 2021). The UK’s decision highlights how economic sovereignty can be maintained through strategic regulatory measures, ensuring that foreign ownership does not erode control over key industries.

The Caribbean: Supporting Local Business Dominance:

Even in the Caribbean, where economies are often smaller and more reliant on foreign investment, governments have taken steps to protect local businesses. Barbados, for instance, has implemented restrictions on foreign ownership in certain industries, ensuring that local enterprises retain control over key sectors (CARICOM, 2018). This approach shows that even smaller nations can assert their economic sovereignty through balanced market regulation.

Regulation, Not Restriction, as a Necessary Approach for Guyana:

Guyana must recognize that non-discriminatory but protective regulation is not only permissible but essential. The influx of Chinese businesses, while contributing to some economic activity, poses a significant threat to local enterprises that lack the capital and supply chains to compete on equal footing. Regulation that ensures foreign businesses adhere to the same standards as local ones, without favoritism, is critical to maintaining a level playing field.

Dr. Jagdeo’s fear of retaliatory action from China overlooks the fact that China itself employs

some of the most stringent regulatory frameworks to protect its industries. Guyana should not shy away from asserting its economic sovereignty, particularly when foreign competition threatens to marginalize local businesses. Moreover, by ensuring that foreign enterprises, including Chinese businesses, are subject to fair but stringent regulation, Guyana can safeguard its domestic economy without violating international trade laws.

Conclusion:

Vice President, Dr. Jagdeo’s assertion that restricting Chinese businesses would violate international norms is a misreading of global trade practices. Across the world, nations have implemented non-discriminatory but protective regulations to safeguard their domestic industries from foreign dominance. From the United States to China and from the EU to the Caribbean, countries have recognized that regulation, not restriction, is the sovereign right of any nation seeking to protect and preserve its economy. Guyana must not hesitate to adopt similar measures to ensure that its local businesses can thrive in an increasingly competitive global market.

References:

1. CARICOM. (2018). Trade policy review mechanism. https://www.caricom.org
2. European Commission. (2021). Anti-dumping measures. https://trade.ec.europa.eu
3. Government of India. (2021). FDI policy in retail. https://www.dipp.nic.in
4. OECD. (2017). Regulatory reform in China. https://www.oecd.org
5. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2020). Entity list – Targeting China’s trade practices.

https://www.commerce.gov

6. U.S. Trade Representative. (2020). Section 301 investigation. https://ustr.gov
7. UK Department for International Trade. (2021). National security and investment.

https://www.gov.uk

Sincerely,
Prof., Dr. Stanley A. V. Paul.

---

• American, businesses, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo’s, Guyana, regulation, transfers

---