|
IS THIS PARTNERSHIP, OR WHAT |
|
ON 23 June 2000 the European Community (EC) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group signed in Cotonou, Benin, what is now referred to as the Cotonou Agreement. Among other things, that agreement called for the establishment of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EC and the ACP. These negotiations are now taking place between the EC and six ACP regions; between the EC and six ACP regions; between the EC and Cariforum in the case of the Caribbean. According to Article 34 of the Cotonou Agreement, which deals with Objectives and Principles: "Economic and trade cooperation shall aim at fostering the smooth and gradual integration of the ACP States into the world economy, With due regard for their political choice and development priorities, thereby promoting their sustainable development and contributing to poverty eradication in the ACP countries". Article 35 is even more promising. "Economic and trade cooperation shall be based on a true, strengthened and strategic partnership. ..." EPAs are about trade liberalisation, but a liberalisation rooted in a developmental perspective. In other words, liberalisation should not be an end in itself but should take place in a manner that will aid the development agendas of the various regions. As a result, there has been much debate surrounding the development dimension of the EPAs that are being negotiated. So much so that at one point in the process our regional spokesperson on EPA matters, had this to say of the process. "There is a definite contradiction between the narrow focus on trade liberalisation and the EU's argument that, EPAs are instruments for development rather than to force open regional markets". One would have hoped that at this late stage this kind of difficulty would have been behind us and that we would be in the process of designing truly developmental arrangements. But the approach and offer that is being made in the case of the Sugar Protocol (SP) show that this is far from being the case. In an article "EU's 'About Face' on Sugar Protocol" (Chronicle 17/07/07), Phil Pascal suggested, among other things, that the European Commission approach on the matter of the Sugar Protocol is one of divide and rule. Of course, three EU Commissioners attempted to dispute this claim and essentially argued that the removal of the SP is good for the Caribbean and, by extrapolation, for the ACP. ("Why has the EU proposed to end the EU ACP Sugar Protocol?" Chronicle 25/ 07/07). Yet even in the above mentioned attempt to convince Caribbean people that a renunciation of the SP is advantageous, we are provided with the following: l. "Such an arrangement is not compatible with an agreement that provides special prices and volume guarantees to some Caribbean countries on sugar but not all". 2. "... it makes no sense to maintain a system that will see some Caribbean countries trade on one set of terms and others on different terms" 3. "It's not, as a writer in this paper has suggested, a policy of divide and rule: the current policy gives privileged treatment to some in the Caribbean while denying it to others." 4. "And it (EPA) will offer those benefits to all Caribbean countries not just some". All of this "some and others" in a two column letter! It appears to me that the EPAs have much to commend them but that the EC is unable to make a case for ending the Sugar Protocol without conceptualising an explanation which could be construed as an attempt to put Caribbean people against each other: divide and rule! In any event, Caribbean people have lived through this kind of thing for too long to be so easily deceived. Turning to the SP itself, Article 36:4 of the Cotonou Agreement states: "In this context, the Parties reaffirm the importance of the commodity protocols [the Sugar Protocol is one of these] attached to Annex V of this Agreement. They agree on the need to review them in the context of the new trading arrangements, particularly as regards their compatibility with WTO rules, with a view to safeguarding the benefits derived there from, bearing in mind the special legal status of the Sugar Protocol." The ACP is not against renouncing the SP once its benefits can be safeguarded in the new trading arrangement or otherwise taken into account. A detailed study which identified some of these benefits has been completed but to date the EC has refused to agree to an All ACP review to officially identify and attempt to safeguard these benefits. Its position appears to be that reviews will take place at the regional level. In the context of an All ACP request for such a review, there are clearly sufficient grounds to view this as an EC attempt to divide and rule: an attempt to create the conditions to play the various regions against each other. So far, all the EC has done is put its market offer on the table and continue to tell the world, as in the above mentioned article, how wonderful it is. There is a united ACP position that the offer is insufficient as it does not safeguard the benefits of the Sugar Protocol. Resulting from an All ACP Ministerial meeting, the ACP Ministerial Spokesperson on Sugar wrote to the EU Trade Commissioner on 7 May 2007: "The ACP states concerned had commissioned a study which has identified the benefits under the Sugar Protocol. They are, therefore, of the considered view that the EC offer on market access under EPAs does not safeguard the benefits as required under Article 36:4 of Cotonou nor does it comply with its provisions. Indeed, the offer is tantamount to a unilateral renunciation of the Sugar Protocol and as such it is totally unacceptable". As regards the benefits of the SP which should be maintained in the new trading arrangements, the ACP Spokesperson stated that: a) In the Cotonou Agreement, the EC and the ACP have agreed to review the Commodity Protocols, in particular as regards their compatibility with WTO rules, with a view to safeguarding their benefits bearing in mind the special legal status of the Sugar Protocol; b) In our view, the benefits of the Sugar Protocol, which is a legally binding inter governmental agreement, are both tangible and intangible underpinned by legal and political commitments by both parties. These benefits include: * Guaranteed access for individually agreed quantities; * Guaranteed price negotiated annually within the price range obtained in the EC, taking into account economic factors relevant to the ACP; * Exemption from the guard clause of the safe guard clause of the Lome/Cotonou; * Obligation of the EC to buy in Intervention the agreed quantities as the buyer of last resort; * Indefinite duration of the Sugar Protocol independent of the life of Lome/Colonou. It does not take much to see that the present EC offer does not safeguard these benefits. But what is even of more concern is that the EC is unwilling to have and All ACP review of this matter. Referring to the Article36.4 review, the ACP Spokesperson also stated that: "The ACP Sugar Protocol states are now ready to undertake the joint review". On this issue and the other Article 36:4 requirements, on 25 May 2007, the Commission somewhat contemptuously responded: "We can assure you that in preparing its market access offer, the Commission has taken the requirements of Article 36:4 of the Cotonou Agreement very seriously." There the matter still rests: take it or leave it. Is this partnership or what? Henry B Jeffrey Minister of Foreign Trade International Cooperation CARlCOM Ministerial Spokesperson on Sugar |