By Phil Pascal (Special Correspondent in London)
WITH the forthcoming Sixth Summit of Heads of State and Government of the 79 Member Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, scheduled for Accra, Ghana on October 2 – 3, exciting interest has been generated on the prominent place the future of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with Europe will receive.

The debate on both the process and substantive issues of EPAs with the European Union (EU) has generated strong criticism of the rigid ideological stance by Commissioner Mandelson and his technocrats in the Directorate of the European Commission (executive arm of the EU).

Even when the ACP and EC Joint Council met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in June 2000, the EPAs discussion on the negotiating tactics by the EU Trade people had led to calls for more flexibility. African regions in particular, demanded more understanding of the serious reservations they had raised as “contentious clauses” in the Interim EPAs.

These clauses were mainly about “the pace of liberalisation”, that was disruptive of regional integration movements, the demand of the EC that “export duties” be abolished or no new export duties be introduced, and the “Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause”, that would grant to the EU any benefit an ACP country negotiates with developed or developing countries.

At the same time, African and Pacific countries were strongly resisting such provisions, which made them perplexed and disappointed that CARIFORUM countries (CARICOM plus Dominican Republic) had conceded by “initialling” a so-called “full” EPA.

As was known, only “interim” EPAs in which “goods only” provisions were agreed, had to be met so that “WTO-compatibility” can be obtained for duty free, preferential trade of ACP with the EU to continue after December 31, 2007, when the Cotonou Accord waiver expired.

Moreover, many of the “services” issues, pushed by the EC and accepted by CARIFORUM, were not settled at WTO in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). How then could CARIFORUM have been so short-sighted on the so-called

“Singapore issues”? And, as result, facilitated the EU negotiators by agreeing to contentious issues in a comprehensive or ‘full’ EPA, that could be used as obligatory benchmarks in negotiations for interim EPAs with Africa and Pacific states?

In the Caribbean, amid sharp demands from networks of non-government organisations, leading scholars and legal experts, who kept urging a review of the EPA initialled last December between CARIFORUM and the EU officials, a special summit of CARICOM leaders was held in Barbados on September 10 to discuss a proposed signing of the full EPA in October.

Guyana was to stand alone in its position in favour of a partial EPA on “goods only, to satisfy WTO requirement, pending a review of outstanding contentious clauses. Haiti, also deferred commitment to agree to a sign off on the EPA in its present form, until its registered reservations on some clauses were resolved.

What is quite worthy of note is the cordial atmosphere and political maturity at that special summit meeting where both those in favour of signing the EPA as it is and those against, expressed their positions and had their views mutually respected, as reported in the region’s media.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE
This principle of mutual respect for each country’s position has direct bearing in law because obligations and sanctions of EPAs will be applied to countries individually.

Moreover, “signing”, in contrast to “initialling” (as happened last December when negotiations were concluded between CARIFORUM and EU), an Agreement or Treaty, carries obligations enforceable in law.

It is understandable, therefore, that each country will rigorously assess its national needs in the time, prior to signing, and determine its strategic policy interests, taking account of its economic conditions, institutional capacity and principled political choices it wishes to make, with due regard to arriving at a national consensus.

For Guyana, that was precisely the outcome of a National Stakeholders’ Consultation on September 5 in Georgetown, at which there was “particular concern about the implications of the EPA for the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME)”, as disclosed in a released statement.

In taking account of the voices of a broad spectrum of considered opinion from trade unions, academics, political parties and religious organisations, Guyana has been highly complimented by diplomats and technocrats of the ACP, with one envoy recalling that Guyana’s position against the EPA in its present form, was consistent with the contributions made to ACP and Africa.

He recalled, for example, the outstanding contributions of the slain brilliant scholar, the late Walter Rodney, who gave “us in Africa and the world as a whole, his classic study: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa!…” Later, Sir Shridath Ramphal was to play a most creative leadership role in the formation of the ACP, whose existence is based on what is known as the “Georgetown Accord”

Moreover, at this time, the ACP is known to be closely monitoring Guyana’s position arising, from deeper probing and reflection, helps the debate on EPAs to be better informed by reference to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, so recently revised in 2005 in which the principles and objectives of Economic and Trade Cooperation between ACP and EU are described in Part 3 Article 34.

The Cotonou Agreement states: “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 choices and development priorities, thereby promoting their sustainable development and contributing to poverty eradication in the ACP countries.” (my emphasis).

That is Cotonou. And that is exactly what Guyana has decided to do in a consistent and transparent manner.

This is why, from the many voices in support of sustainable development and regional economic integration, Guyana seems to be looking forward to advancing the cause of solidarity with the ACP at the Ghana Summit and building a genuine partnership with all those who really are committed to “poverty eradication in ACP countries”.

The Guyana Government has confirmed that its Foreign Minister, Carolyn Rodrigues, will head a high-level delegation to the ACP Summit in Accra.