.jpg)
Dichotomy in EU/Africa, Caribbean, Pacific EPAs
There are seven regional groupings comprising ACP EPA countries, with five in Africa, one in the Caribbean and one in the Pacific. The 15 signatory Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific (CARIFORUM) States to the Economic Partnership Agreement(EPA) are the independent CARICOM member states and The Dominican Republic.
| Note: The Wikileaks exposes have revealed that the diplomatic community in Guyana has largely joined the local opposition forces, and one newspaper columnist who calls H. E. President Bharrat Jagdeo an ‘elected dictator’, in criticizing Guyana’s Head-of-State for his firm stances and principled positions on anything inimical to his office, the sovereignty of the nation, or the dignity and the unity of the Guyanese people. The diplomatic community, which engages in a great deal of rumour mongering and anti-PPP/anti-government rhetoric with persons pursuing their own agenda, without caring about the sources of these rumours, or attempting to contextualize the rumours within the sphere of national political dynamics; and with the historical anti-PPP bias of their nation-states, use the gleanings from these rumours to write reports to Washington. Some of the cables emanating from the US embassy in Georgetown to Washington are libelous in nature, and more than one outlined an expectation that the Roger Khan contretemps would have spelt the end of a Jagdeo (and probably PPP) administration. If it had done so history would have repeated itself, when external forces strategized with local opposition elements to bring down a legitimately-elected PPP government. Tragically for the welfare of this nation, the collective international diplomatic community, including representatives of donor institutions, in their reports skewed against the PPP/C administration, based on the prejudices of the consolidation of PPP-haters, has often redounded to negatively impact the welfare of the Guyanese people. One US Ambassador David Robinson communicated to Washington in 2007 that “…major chiefs of mission, including the British, Canadians, IMF, World Bank, IDB, UNDP, and the USA agreed at a donors’ lunch that the (Stabroek News) ad controversy is just the latest in a growing list of moves by Jagdeo to consolidate power in himself.” He also commented that “Our collective concern about an increasingly arrogant chief executive (President Jagdeo) is unlikely to cause Jagdeo much heartburn.” The international community could relate to S/News and the opposition collective, because they are all rich elitists who think that the Guyanese poor should always bow their knees to the “massas”, and they will always hold “lil country boys” Cheddi Jagan and Bharrat Jagdeo with contempt, because they do not originate from their rarefied milieu; neither do most of their supporters, The supporters of the PPP/C are the ordinary Guyanese men and women who recognize that the strong leadership of Dr. Jagan and President Jagdeo has won for them respect and dignity – individually and as a nation. Guyana’s President should never bend his knees in servility to any other nation, because he represents the sovereignty of Guyana and the pride of the Guyanese people; and the reasons for their calling Guyana’s incumbent President arrogant is for his strong representation for this nation and the region. In this and following articles Guyana Chronicle will put to the readership some of the issues on which Guyana’s President did not fold to imperial bullyism. Readers will have to judge whether he is being arrogant and a dictator; or instead a strong leader defending the rights of his people and the sovereignty of the nation that he heads. (PPE) |
This was the construct in trading blocs ostensibly configured, taking into consideration the peculiarities of the particularities of individual countries, to create synergistic dynamics that would optimise the development paradigm of ACP member states and enhance their trading leverage to influence and facilitate the expansion of the growth parameters of these developing nations, especially in relation to global financial equations, and extant and emerging challenges in the international trading demographics.
However, the fears of the once-colonized nations that their former colonizers would once again use the peculiar vulnerabilities of the ACP states as leverage to enforce a dichotomy of advantages skewed toward benefiting the European confederation of nations, at the expense of ACP states, did not prove groundless; especially with 39 of the world’s 49 least-developed countries (LDCs) being ACP countries, most of them in Africa.
The genesis of the EPAs lies in the trade chapter of the Cotonou Agreement, which was formulated to reduce poverty, promote sustainable development and growth, with better governance and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the world economy being essences of the broad agreement.
Also, the Lome Convention had not lived up to expectations, so the Economic Partnership Agreements evolved as a scheme to create a ‘free trade area’ (FTA) between the European Union (EU) and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and are key elements of the Cotonou Agreement, which reached its lifespan in 2010.
The non-reciprocal and discriminating preferential trade agreements offered by the EU being incompatible with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules were also an agenda item at most international trade fora and this, too, served as a catalyst to the development of a friendlier and more equitable model.
According to the broad framework agreed upon, EPAs are projected to focus on: individual ACP country’s geography and structure – emphasising vulnerable landlocked and island topographies; the need for ACP countries to take ownership of their development and design their own strategies for achieving growth and prosperity; the involvement of non-government bodies in EPA negotiations, including civil society and members of the business community; and development levels – focusing on the least developed countries.
The three main planks are political dialogue, development support, and economic and trade. cooperation
The major area targeted is the development of trade capacity because, although ACP exports have had preferential access to EU markets for the last 30 years, the volume of their exports has actually gone down and the EPAs were ostensibly structured to counter this trend by providing a menu of measures to aid and facilitate the expansion of ACP trading parameters.
However, all the EU-structured EPAs were instead configured to shaft the ACP countries and, in the instance of CARIFORUM, as expressed in a statement by the president of the ACP Council of Ministers, Hon. Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guyana at the 20th Session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly on 4 December 2010 in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, who said, inter alia:
“You will recall that the ACP entered into EPA negotiations under the premise that EPAs would be tools for development through trade. We never envisaged the latter as being an end in itself, and that is why we have been very concerned to see the trend that these negotiations have taken. We contend that the conclusion and smooth implementation of comprehensive and balanced Economic Partnership Agreements, that would help to speed up the sustainable development of the ACP States and the strengthening of regional integration, must remain a joint and shared aim of the ACP and the EU.
“The demands of ACP States in this regard are very legitimate, as they are founded on the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement. However, as my predecessors in the ACP Council have stated in various fora, there is a big difference in policy pronouncements at EU level and actual practice at technical level during negotiations. For this reason, we feel that there is need to issue new policy guidelines for the negotiations.
“Co-Presidents, Ladies and Gentlemen, the ACP Group welcomed the willingness expressed by Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, during the EU-Africa Summit held in Lisbon in December 2007, to hold discussions at the highest level to propose guidelines for ACP and EU players involved in the EPA process. In response to this gesture from the European Commission, ACP Heads of State and Government at their 6th ACP Summit held in Accra, Ghana, in October 2008, called for ACP-EU political discussions at the highest level possible to unblock the technical impasse in the negotiations. Two years later, and even with the unwanted addition of a global financial and economic crisis, I regret to say that we are yet to have such a dialogue.”
“We maintain that while the provision of resources and support in the framework of Aid for Trade is highly appreciated, the EU cannot make reference to this in the context of the support requested for the EPAs because this is a general-scope mechanism.
