Ian McDonald, Contributor
WHO CAN doubt that small developing countries are being given the royal run-around by developed countries?
One aspect of this was once summed up by a correspondent in an email sent to me from remote Kazakhstan: "For every dollar in aid that flows into the developing world, a whole seven dollars flows out in debt repayments which are cruelly enforced on countries trying like hell to make it. And yet the moment they become economically viable in some field and therefore challenge developed country dominance, then tariffs, subsidies and non-tariff barriers crop up to protect these so-called bastions of free trade."
The whole process of renegotiating international trading arrangements, which started decades ago, has been one long, grim tragedy of rich countries outmanoeuvring poor countries.
The infamous Uruguay Round of negotiations was a perfect example of this.
This long process of negotiations between unequals is coming to a head for us in CARICOM in two negotiations which will deeply affect all our futures: The negotiation with Europe in which it is hoped to preserve and prolong the beneficial trading and financial concessions owed to us, and the negotiation in the DOHA Round in which it is hoped to take the iniquities and imbalances out of WTO rules and procedures and to make sure we are not conned as we were in the Uruguay Round.
NEGOTIATION QUAGMIRE
In this quagmire in which seriously under-resourced developing countries are struggling not so much to hold their own, as to limit their losses against the ruthlessly selfish strategies and bullying tactics of countries already extremely rich, it is important to be absolutely clear as to what the realities are. Here, out of many, are two such realities.
In the ACP-EU negotiations, the EU drives the procedures and processes and sets the limits and targets. Of course, the official line is that these are agreed as a result of 'negotiations'. Not so.
For instance, the European Commission proposals for 'reforming' our sugar regime - it is as much our regime as theirs since it incorporates the Sugar Protocol - is a glaring example of an attempt to impose, unilaterally, a change much for the worse in an absolutely vital trading agreement with developing countries.
The EU is determined to get rid of the previous Lome benefits and convert its relationship with the ACP into reciprocity between 'equals' in conformity with the WTO regime.
LITTLE CHOICE
The ACP should be in no hurry to accept the obvious injustice of reciprocity in trade relations between completely unequal partners but it may have little choice in the matter since this particular battle was lost during the very early stages of the 'negotiations' leading to the Cotonou agreement.
Lack of pre-paration on the part of the grossly under-resourced ACP countries is one of the most iniquitous aspects of the current negotiations. There are a host of issues that need to be studied and understood.
Among these are: the costs and benefits of the trade arrange-ments specified in the agreement; what transition period will be adequate; to what extent the existing trade benefits could be retained, and for how long; what the extent of reciprocity would be; what costs would be involved in adjusting for the obligations associated with reciprocity; and whether the financial and other assistance promised by the EU would be at all adequate to offset the costs.
These issues will no doubt be studied between now after the negotiations have begun and December 2007, when the negotiations are scheduled to be completed.
But this is like considering desperately what ways to stop the boat while it is rushing headlong down the gorge out of the control of the paddlers.
If you do not believe that international trade negotiations have so far secured very little, if anything, for poor countries, please look again at the overview of a recent UNCTAD trade and development report.
In the summary, it is admitted that the 'minimum agenda' for rebalancing the equation between developing and developed countries has remained exactly what it was 40 years ago.
Here is what UNCTAD reported: "One voice from the past stands out in the search for a more balanced trading system. In his statement to the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in March 1964, Raul Prebisch, its then Secretary-General, called on the industrial countries not to underestimate the basic challenge facing developing countries in the existing system:
'We believe that developing countries must not be forced to develop inwardly which will happen if they are not helped to develop outwardly through an appropriate international policy. We also deem it undesirable to accept recommendations which tend to lower mass consumption in order to increase capitalisation, either because of the lack of adequate foreign resources or because such resources are lost owing to adverse terms of trade.'
ATTACKING IMBALANCES
Vulnerable, poor, developing countries will continue, it seems, to be outmanoeuvred, sidelined and exploited.
The only chance we have is to act completely together, since at least we have a lot of votes, and 'get on bad' in negotiations since, after all, our very survival is at stake whereas for the rich, only a little extra luxury is what they stand to gain.
Ian McDonald is an occasional contributor who writes from Georgetown, Guyana.
