Last week’s column “FTAA and all that – what’s it about” generated quite a few calls. And if I’m to judge by some of the reactions there’s need for a second look, this time with a tad more focus on Caribbean perspectives and implications for these small economies.
These have been comprehensively set out in a brief prepared late last year for the regional media by the Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC).
The CPDC is a coalition of Caribbean non-governmental organisations established in 1991 to sensitise NGOs and the public on key policy issues and to impact policy-makers on decisions which put the interests of Caribbean people at the centre of the Caribbean development strategy.
The brief was prepared in the build-up to the Free Trade Association of the Americas (FTAA) Ministerial in Quito Ecuador late last year.
It was premised on the stated position that unless fundamental changes of benefit to smaller economies were demanded by Caribbean policy-makers, these territories could find themselves locked into situations which could have a devastating impact on our economic future.
This concern was echoed by the Caribbean Reference Group on External Relations (CRG) – a grouping of expert NGOs tackling trade liberalisation issues and, through a process of research and consultation, developing alternative trade agreement proposals during the course of the on-going FTAA negotiations.
As my one or two readers will remember from last week’s column, negotiations for the implementation of the 34-member Western Hemisphere free trade area are scheduled for conclusion by 2005.
As had been asserted prior to Quito by the CRG: “An examination of the current FTAA draft agreements to be discussed at the ministerial level clearly shows that if accepted without alterations, they would provide trans-national corporations and foreign investors with the ability to exploit national economies to the detriment of local interests.”
The organisation warned that many of the proposed recommendations would take away the ability of governments to use traditional mechanisms in the national development process, such as control of capital flows, investments and the provision of basic services.
While it was accepted that the proposals tabled for discussion would increase the quantity of investors in the region, considerable doubt was expressed that the end result would be a qualitative increase in the benefits to smaller economies.
The media brief asserted that the current international trade agenda is driven by profit accumulation. “This system uses increases in world trade, capital expansion and increased market openness as the main indicators on its success. Sustainable development is not explicitly identified or recognised as priority.”
The document continued: “It is for this reason that the needs and concerns of ordinary people are continually not being met by the system, while the interest of trans-nationals and large developed countries are being adhered to.
In order to redress this imbalance, we believe that world leaders need to ensure that global processes and institutions refocus their agenda on ensuring sustainable development.”
A major concern of the CPDC, and indeed all Caribbean governments, was that the pre-Quito FTAA draft agreements did not seek to increase commitments for developed countries relative to reduction of their export subsidies, domestic support and other barriers to fair trade.
Further the negotiating text made no significant mention of non-trade issues such as food security, food aid, the environment and rural development.
These are, of course, pivotal to the future of agriculture in the sub-region and, in consequence, the strength of the Easter Caribbean Central Bank and the EC dollar.
The CRG was disturbed, too, about proposals restricting government control on capital flows in a manner that usurped the authority of central banks and threatened the very economic independence of the countries concerned.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.