|
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Introduction
Guyanese will continue to argue over whether President Bharrat Jagdeo
should have skipped the Summit of the Americas in favour of going to India
to participate in the Indian Pravasi Summit, later upgraded to a state
visit. There is a logical other than an emotional case which both sides can
make. The President must be acutely aware that if Guyana is to have a
cricket stadium in time for World Cup 2007, India will have a big hand in
that.
On the other hand Guyana
has some rather pressing hemispheric problems including its preparedness for
the establishing of the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA), border
dispute with an increasingly volatile neighbour, strengthening its
relationship with another giant neighbour Brazil, the small matter of the
mobility of its Minister of International Trade and maintaining contact with
President Bush. After all, the Guyana President had shown that he was not
averse to breaking ranks with some of his Caricom colleagues and chose to
attend the 82-minute breakfast session with President Bush last year while
several of them were not invited. President Jagdeo was no doubt rewarded for
his concession to Mr. Bush (agreement to support exemption from the World
Court)but it is fair to assume that President Jagdeo did not come away
empty-handed. Yet was there not something more he could get from Uncle
George who is in a particularly generous mood in this (re-) election year?
Domestic
problems
Almost all regional heads
have domestic issues including Bush, President Lula of Brazil, Chavez of
Venezuela, Aristide of Haiti and Manning of Trinidad, who appears to be
finding the opportunistic relationship with the Muslimeen ‘brothers’
increasingly embarrassing and which, according to popular talk in T&T, is
the real reason for his absence from the Summit. Yet at least for a few
days, the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico from the 12th
– 14th January 2004, allowed some distraction for the leaders who
attended. With a security cordon that now defines all of Bush’s ventures
abroad, the leaders still managed to do what they always do at such
occasions - talk, talk and talk- all the time the majority of them getting
increasingly bored.
This however did not apply
to President Bush, the newest head, Prime Minister Martin of Canada and host
President Vicente Fox, representing the countries of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) sealed by President Clinton in 1994. The War on
Iraq, which has made Bush arguably the most unpopular US President ever
among the people of the world, caused the warm friendship which Bush and Fox
initially shared to dissipate, while Canada felt slighted in being left out
of the juicy contracts available to those countries which had supported
Bush’s war in varying degrees.
Electoral
generosity
Within a month
prior to his departure for Mexico, President Bush announced sweeping reforms
that would regularize illegal workers in the US – mainly Mexicans crossing
the huge porous border – to remain in the US for a period of three years.
This was consistent with one of Bush’s 2000 elections campaign pledges but
on which for three years he appeared to have reneged, embarrassing and then
estranging Fox. He has now kept good on his promise though more with his
eyes on his re-election in 2004 rather than on honour. Whatever the motive,
all is forgiven and Bush has invited Fox to his Ranch at Crawford, Texas –
the ultimate accolade – hoping that the joint television appearances will
score points for Bush. And Paul Martin seemed to be as surprised as anyone
when he was told by Bush himself that, contrary to an earlier announcement
by the US Government, Canadian companies would be eligible to bid for
billions of dollars’ worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq.
President Bush had as a
result of these acts of generosity assured himself that when he took his
seat, he could count on at least two friends in the grand room. There was
too, the ultimate ring-winger Urebe of Colombia, the largest recipient of
military aid in the region but which perhaps not unsurprisingly, the US does
not crow about. Of course Castro was excluded as he has been from all
regional summits but he too knew that he could count on his friend and soul
brother Chavez, President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina and Lula of Brazil to
keep him informed.
The
dream
If everything goes to plan, and that is clearly a
dream which few seem to take seriously, the Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) will come on stream by the end of 2005. This was the decision made
when the leaders of 34 countries of the hemisphere held their Summit of the
Americas in Quebec, Canada.
The FTAA would create a
market of close to 800 million people accounting for approximately 11
trillion dollars in GDP. This is a colossal and ambitious move which could
have serious political, economic and social repercussions and transform a
number of the smaller member countries almost beyond recognition.
Essentially the leaders had agreed that negotiations would be completed by
January 2005 with systematic tariff reduction following rapidly thereafter.
As they did at the Quebec
Summit in 2001, Brazil and Venezuela, two of the region’s most powerful
countries entered the Summit with grave misgivings about the rush to
complete the process. Brazil had sought unsuccessfully to get the support
from other countries in the region to apply a more cautious approach to the
plan. The Bush Administration’s strategy at that time was to undermine any
such initiative by offering to enter into bilateral trade agreements, such
as the one proposed with Chile thus isolating those troublesome countries
showing any hesitation. With several changes at the leadership of quite a
few more countries such a ploy was unlikely to succeed this time round and
it is to Bush’s credit that he did not try. Readers will recall that just
about that time, President Bush hosted the Chilean President where the
possibility of such a deal was again put on the table. Canada and Mexico all
over again!!
Second tier ‘axis of evil’
Perhaps emboldened by the
growing prestige of Brazil in building an international coalition against
the American brand of free trade, Venezuela was even more opposed to FTAA
particularly the clause that implicitly provides for the exclusion of those
countries that where democracy does not exist. President Chavez must have
been conscious of the danger that “democracy” will be defined by the USA and
that his own flavour of it may not be accepted by the USA. He must suspect
that Bush would consider him as among the second tier ‘axis of evil’ and
consider the public identification with influential and powerful heads a
form of insurance against possible acts of destabilization.
Bush sees only terrorists
and friends and that therefore his war on terror must dominate any bilateral
or multilateral agenda. Yet he did not quite succeed in imposing his will on
the summit and led by Brazil and the issue of fair trade loomed large given
that FTTA is due to begin on 1st January 2005.
Judging by results, the
summit was not a success. The USA’s wish that the group recommit itself to
the 2005 in the final communiqué was not allowed. While the heads restated
their commitment to 2005, there is now no firm date and there are sufficient
reasons to believe that NAFTA is now not imminent. The non-NAFTA countries
seem to want to retain some political distance from those of NAFTA and to
build regional integration first based on their renewed self-confidence,
dissatisfaction with the Washington Consensus model and their discomfort
with Big Brother from the north.
Conclusion
It is apposite to ask where
do Guyana and Caricom come into all of this? Thirty years after the
launching of CARIFTA we do not have full compliance by all member countries
and regional countries seem to change trade policies and practices without
rhyme or reason. FTAA will have enormous implications for Guyana whose
economy depends on a few commodities for which we are price takers. Our
exports of manufactured goods are negligible and with the exception of a few
products like rum, our manufacturing base may find competition unbearable.
The big question is how are we going to pay for the imports, which with
lower import taxes and fewer barriers to entry, will become more attractive?
Many Caricom countries had
appeared to treat the CSME as a treaty obligation rather than a practical
necessity, and as irrelevant given the perceived imminent commencement of
FTAA. Trinidad had gone so far as to announce its intention to jumped over
the heads of its poorer Caricom partners and to join NAFTA, while others had
taken a fairly cavalier view of some of the import and duty provisions. Will
they now be prepared to give the CSME and Caricom integration their best
shot? That seems more sensible and desirable.
(Back to top)
|