Robert Buddan, Contributor

When Dr Kenneth Baugh, the deputy prime minister, made his administration's maiden speech at the United Nations on October 3, 2007, a month after coming to office, there was no difference evident between his administration's position and that of the previous administration's position on international trade negotiations. Dr Baugh said that the new government would continue to pursue the widely accepted principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries under the DOHA Round of WTO negotiations, and that the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) being negotiated with the European Union was inequitable and violated the principle of global partnership.

First major treaty negotiation

The EPA was the administration's first major treaty negotiations. Prime Minister Bruce Golding's own speech in Montego Bay around the same time directed clear concerns with Europe's management of the negotiations process. He complained about the frenetic pace of the negotiations, the pre-set deadlines that gave no time to consult with the people, Europe's own subsidies, and how to sell the idea to the Caribbean people that the EPA will lead to their development.

Thus, by October 2007, Jamaica had stated its position on international trade to the world and on the EPA, to the region. But by December the Government had made a sharp about-turn. Golding suddenly supported the EPA and gave a commitment to sign the agreement, thus abandoning the more global DOHA/WTO principles and approach that Dr Baugh had promised, and his own concerns about the rushed and pressured negotiating process.

Caught by surprise

The Caribbean was caught by surprise. The people knew precious little about the EPA. So, in January 2008, Concerned Caribbean Citizens called upon Caribbean and European governments to make the negotiations public and hear people's views about the agreement before governments signed it.

The signatories have grown to more than 100 individuals and organisations across the region since. Golding's response was to attack those concerned as suffering from 'mendicancy', meaning a mentality of depending on the favours of others. Mendicancy was a condition caused by colonialism and slavery, he said. The Caribbean, therefore, should not depend on Europe for special treatment.

The critics of the EPA say they do not. They tend, in fact, to be the strongest critics of slavery and colonialism, and believe that the EPA represents a modern-day system of trade domination. But more specifically, they say the Caribbean was giving up too much, even beyond what the WTO required; was compromising its special relations with non-European countries like the United States and Canada, and emerging giants like Brazil, China and India; that it could get a better agreement by entering into an interim EPA as African countries have done; and that it made better sense to stand with the African and Pacific countries in global DOHA-WTO negotiations rather than stand alone, being very small and weak states. At a minimum, the region's people, they say, should see the agreement and be consulted about it before they were locked into it forever.

Strong Reservations

Developments between December last, and the just concluded 29th CARICOM Heads of Government Summit of last weekend, indicate that the concerns were valid and go beyond the churlish charge of mendicancy. First, CARICOM governments have discovered reasons to hesitate about signing the EPA after all. Initial deadlines of March and July were talked about. Now we hear of other deadlines, such as August and September.

Second, Guyana retains strong reservations about the EPA, as it had from the start, especially about how far the Europeans can be trusted and how much the EPA will benefit the Caribbean. Its president, Bharrat Jagdeo, said so at the recent summit.

Third, a number of regional voices and voices beyond the region have expressed concerns about the EPA, too. They include Caribbean Civil Society (with Christian Aid and Oxfam), Concerned Caribbean Citizens, The Caribbean Congress of Labour, Manchester Trade Ltd, and noted individuals like Sir Shridath Ramphal, Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Laureate), and leading Caribbean economists like Norman Girvan and Havelock Brewster.

All of this has forced Caribbean leaders to delay signing the agreement. Perhaps, they are embarrassed too by the great irony of slowness in implementing CARICOM's own decisions, a problem often referred to as an 'implementation crisis', and the contrasting speed with which this European rather than CARICOM agreement is being implemented, putting even CARICOM projects like the CSME on the back burner.

Putting people second

Instead of putting CARICOM and its people first, the EPA seems to put them second, or worse. Take the EPA and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) with the United States. CARICOM's trade with Europe is only 12 per cent but trade with the US is much greater. Stephen Lande, writing for Manchester Trade Ltd, in Washington, says that American exporters are not likely to accept a CBTPA that gives the Caribbean special and preferential trade benefits in the US market without giving American exporters the same access to the Caribbean market as the EPA gives Europe, since Europe is a major global competitor for world markets with the US. The implication is that the US might not extend the CBTPA next time, but negotiate a free trade agreement along the same lines as Europe's EPA.

Yet, in January, CARICOM asked the US to make the CBTPA permanent. Isn't this a sign of mendicancy? Will Golding advocate scrapping the CBTPA when it expires and replacing it with a CARICOM-US free trade agreement? Lande concludes that the Caribbean's new leaders, like Golding, really need a breathing space to understand the complexities of the EPA and "to allow other options to be explored".

Agriculture and food crisis

The EPA could not have come at a worse time for the Caribbean, either. First, as France takes over the presidency of the EU the forces of protectionism will strengthen and highlight the mockery of free trade, especially in agriculture. Second, with rising food prices the EPA threatens attempts in the Caribbean to resuscitate rice farming and food security more broadly. David Jessop says these price rises are causing many states to rethink trade liberalisation.

European sympathisers, therefore, call for the EU to "recognise the right of poor countries to feed themselves by allowing them to exclude agricultural goods from trade liberalisation". This came from a report produced by Christiane Taubira, a member of the French National Assembly, and submitted to French President Nicholas Sarkozy. It criticised the high-pressure tactics of European negotiators. Are French MPs like Ms Taubira suffering from mendicancy, too?

Guyana had initiated a food security plan for CARICOM but the EPA has ignored it and will undermine it. Food security means getting agricultural production, infrastructure, technology, transport, and marketing right. There is nothing in the EPA that does this.

Ultimately, what the critics want is renegotiation of the EPA to emphasise the development of Caribbean people rather than the market access of European firms. Mr Golding was concerned about selling the idea that the EPA will lead to people's development. Nothing since he expressed that concern has changed.

The critics want the EPA to reflect (1) a greater emphasis on social and economic development; (2) development of the Caribbean's productive sectors; (3) monitoring the impact of the EPA on the region's socio-economic sectors; and (4) a review of its progress after three years. Nothing unreasonable is being asked.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.