| Viewpoint/ Trade: PACIFIC FINALLY SAYS “NO!” TO EU |
Robert Sisilo
When asked about the Caribbean and Pacific EPA and Doha Round trade negotiators, a good friend of mine, who has been working very closely with the two regions, puts it this way—“Well, in the Caribbean, they never say ‘yes’, and in the Pacific (looking at me) you never say ‘no’. Well, not any more in the case of the Pacific I will surely tell my friend.
 |
Welcome to the WTO... Tonga admitted to the WTO as its 151st member.
|
For in a demonstration of unprecedented solidarity, Pacific Trade Ministers meeting in Port Vila on August 1, 2007 pronounced “No! No! No and No!” more than once and loud and clear.
This was in response to an e-mail from the EC informing them that the 95 million Euros already earmarked for their region can only be finalised once EPA negotiations are concluded.
Of particular concern is the reprogramming of 48% of the 95 million Euros if there is no EPA. Another concern is the reprogramming of 26% of the same funds should there be a “Goods only EPA.”
Such linkages, the ministers agreed, flagrantly violates the spirit of partnership the Cotonou Agreement embodies. It must therefore be rejected outright. And should the EC insist, the ministers were adamant they will just have to walk away from the EPA negotiations.
“Since we are still in the delicate negotiating process to finalise the EPA, if indeed this communication is tantamount to establishing a precondition on the development of the EDF regional indicative programmes (RIP), the ministers registered their grave concern and deep disappointment and will not accept the EC imposing this type of linkage on the RIP with respect to the EPA.”
Chair of the Trade Ministers meeting, Trade Minister James Bule of Vanuatu, told Louis Michel, EU Commissioner for Development, in no uncertain terms, in his letter of 1 August 2007.
Swift response: As expected, the EC’s response was swift, thanks to the wide media coverage the issue attracted and the heat it was going to generate among NGOs already full of misgivings about the EU-inspired EPA.
That response came within 48 hours, on 3 August. It denied making the regional funds conditional on the outcome of EPA negotiations, and linking its level of allocation to an EPA being successfully negotiated.
“... our position - i.e. that there was no such conditionality, and that the RIP allocation would remain the same with or without an EPA ...,” the Suva-based Head of the EC Delegation for the Pacific, Roberto Ridolfi, clarified in his letter dated 3 August 2007 to Greg Urwin, Secretary-General of the Forum Secretariat.
He also said that Commissioner for Development Michel will be replying to Minister Bule separately.
It therefore remains to be seen what assurances Commissioner Michel will give in his letter to Minister Bule.
What is obvious of course is that it will certainly have implications, for better or worse, on the current EPA negotiations.
It could either enhance or jeopardise a process to assist Forum Islands Countries in their efforts at regional integration. It could also either create an opportunity or result in a lost opportunity to expand and deepen a long-historic EU-Pacific relationship that has spanned more than 30 mutually-productive years. That we shall wait and see and it will not be long as our year-end deadline is only three months away.
Deadlines never dead: Talking about deadlines, if there is one thing that is certain about WTO and the Doha Round negotiations it is that deadlines are never dead. But it is a deadline nevertheless and we are therefore at the cross-roads. And here it would be instructive to remind ourselves of the wisdom of Shakespeare when he said:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.”
To use this analogy, we are now at the flood and must act now. For the tide of opportunity may well recede; and recede quickly if we do not seize the potential provided by the EPA.
And if not seized, what would be the consequences? What shallows and miseries would a failure mean?
The EC, EU member states and Forum Islands Countries must recognise they all have a responsibility. They must also recognise that there is too much at stake to allow this venture to fail. And the chances are it will fail if at the end of the day Pacific Islands Countries do not get something on labour mobility, improved rules of origin and adjustment costs—some of their few asks. This is where the EC and EU member states can deliver and therefore have a particular responsibility.
As the wisdom of Shakespeare continues:
“On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
• Robert Sisilo is the Permanent Representative of the Pacific Islands Forum to the WTO, based in Geneva, Switzerland. The views expressed here are his own.
|
|
