PRESIDENT Bharrat Jagdeo may be one of the most savagely-attacked Presidents in Guyanese politics, vis-à-vis media letters and columns, not to mention invidious politicians. The recent Clico-President tête-à-tête comes to mind, and where the policyholders’ interest was not in political power play, but rather in securing their appropriate policy funding. That meeting was not the time and place for playing political games; and the President quite rightly made sure of that.
It is clear that this President does not stoop to political correctness, which generally embraces a framework of dubious protocols. It is clear that this President does not concern himself with calculated ambiguity, encouraging another framework that allows politicians to ‘play the game’. It is clear that this President does not comply with a depressed situation of candour in political discourse, embracing a framework that worships panache and a calculated indifference to substance.

‘…lest we forget, it is this President’s disregard for dubious protocols, his disregard for playing the game, and his ultimate disregard for any depressed candour, that induced the European negotiators to agree to inject some modifications into the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA)’

And lest we forget, it is this President’s disregard for dubious protocols, his disregard for playing the game, and his ultimate disregard for any depressed candour, that induced the European negotiators to agree to inject some modifications into the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). The modifications did not come easily. The modifications arrived as a result of mounting criticisms, not only from this President, but elsewhere, too; criticisms that came with the flow of political incorrectness, political forthrightness, and political substance. Political correctness does not work with the politically astute, and has a flair for being weak on substance; lest we forget, the Caribbean was dealing with the European Union.
Norman Girvan, Havelock Brewster, and Vaughn Lewis, in a Memorandum titled ‘Problem Areas in the EPA and the case for Content Review’ to the Reflections Group, argued that renegotiation was mandatory, for once the EPA was in force, it would be arduous to change. They cited 19 areas that made the case for renegotiation.
Other critics of the EPA were the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Sir Shridath Ramphal, OXFAM, hundreds of academics, and the Christina Taubira Report of France.
Nonetheless, President Bharrat Jagdeo was the only CARICOM Head who judiciously bared the EPA’s deficiencies; this President and Government carted the good fight, not once, but over the life of the EPA negotiations process, inclusive of various EPA consultations in Guyana.
Some of the Guyana Government’s issues with the EPA, among others were: (1) inclusion of the ‘Singapore issues’; (2) inclusion of the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause; (3) no provision to address supply-side shortfalls; (4) no ‘development’ element in the Agreement.
In any event, President Jagdeo and the Government of Guyana fruitfully obtained two substantive Clauses from the European Union’s concessions.
Clause # 1: A five-yearly review of the EPA to mull over its socioeconomic impact on the Caribbean region and an obligation by the European Union to address the impact; and to unearth areas of the agreement and/or their implementation necessitating amendments.
Clause # 2: The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas to prevail should there be conflict with the EPA; this Clause  intends to preserve Caribbean integration.
President Jagdeo and other critics’ concerns about the EPA were well founded. To understand some of these aspects, just review Diana Thorburn et al’s work in the Caribbean Papers, September 2010, of The Centre for International Governance Innovation. They noted the following: Guyana as St. Lucia, will suffer a loss of 6% in indirect tax revenue due to tariff reductions, equivalent to 1% of GDP; and they argued that increasing GDP by 1% from alternative taxation sources in a largely agricultural economy as Guyana becomes problematic; the inadequate structural match between Guyana and the EU economies will produce for Guyana only 0.8% income gain from the EPA; the EU Parliament allocated £580 million to implement the EPA, and right now Caribbean governments need assistance to meet revenue shortfalls from tariff reductions; render help to firms likely to be disadvantaged by import competition, and it is still not definitive how Caribbean governments will apply the EPA funds to transform the region; and in the end, the EPA will provide few benefits without the full implementation of the CSME.
Clearly, had President Jagdeo bothered too much about dubious protocols, engaged in playing the game, and complied with a depressed state of candour, then the requisite outcomes vis-à-vis the two Clauses would have remained in the realm of improbability. And, indeed, if other CARICOM Heads had embraced the Jagdeo political line on the EPA, then the Caribbean would have been the recipient of better EPA outcomes. Perhaps, today, the world needs more political incorrectness. (First published on September 19, 2010 but repeated due to its relevance in terms of what is happening presently in the sugar industry)