The Week in Europe
By David Jessop

May has been a good month for Caribbean negotiators in Europe. The region
has won a number of small but important victories. Most especially it
emerged as the clear winner in the ACP's first formal encounter with EC's
powerful Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, who is responsible for all of
Europe's international trade negotiations.

As a result the Caribbean, with other key ACP partners such as Mauritius,
has established a new political and moral weight. So much so that if ACP
unity and the present levels of ministerial leadership on trade issues can
be maintained, the more developed ACP nations could become a small but
effective new force in international trade negotiations.

This is remarkable. Regular readers of this column will know that as the
meetings began in Brussels on May 3, the region faced a number of
potentially catastrophic threats. These challenged the Caribbean's ability
to establish a satisfactory basis on which to take forward the final post
preference ACP/EU trade negotiations.

They included the possible melt down of the ACP group, whose solidarity is
required to be able to negotiate from strength a viable post 2008 EU/ACP
economic relationship; the absence of any focus within the ACP on how these
all important trade negotiations with Europe should be undertaken; attempts
by the EC's Trade Directorate to make regional economic partnership the only
basis for future EU/ACP trade relations; the apparent acquiescence on this
by the ACP secretariat; and the corralling by the EU of the least developed
to have the ACP support unreservedly the EC's desire to open this year a new
trade round at the WTO.

Today all of these issues have been resolved if not in detail, then broadly
in the Caribbean's favour. The process may have left some in the ACP
annoyed. It has certainly left the EC's Trade Commissioner bruised and
possibly embarrassed in front of EU member states. But it was an achievement
necessary if the region is to be able to negotiate from strength in 2002 in
order protect its interests.

How did this happen?

Over the period May 3 to May 14 there were a sequence of ACP and ACP/EU
encounters in Brussels. The ability of the region and others to resolve
their various problems at these meetings appeared daunting, most especially
as the agenda and procedural approaches adopted seemed designed to keep key
issues off of the agenda.

In response the Caribbean embarked on a strategy that required as many
Caribbean ministers as possible to be present to undertake a co-ordinated
approach with other key ACP nations equally concerned about what was
happening. This meant that through the information, analysis and carefully
considered strategic direction provided to Caribbean Governments by the
Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery, the eight Caribbean ministers
present were able to pursue a common approach.

Their starting point was to try to create agreement within the ACP on how to
negotiate. This involved establishing a new basis for solidarity. The EC had
earlier this year divided the group by offering the majority - the least
developed ACP nations - an indefinite non-reciprocal trade relationship with
Europe leaving the more developed nations such as those in the Caribbean
exposed. To address this Mauritius proposed a new approach to the next trade
negotiations with the willing support of the Caribbean, Kenya and others.
This envisaged the creation of a separate more developed country negotiating
group within the ACP that the less developed might join eventually if as is
expected they come to recognise advantage in doing so. This proposal the ACP
as a group agreed formally to investigate.

At the same time, Caribbean ministers set about ensuring that future
negotiations were not undertaken, as the ACP secretariat had proposed and
the EC most certainly wanted, through a negotiating configuration that
divided the ACP into separate regional negotiating groups. This approach
would, it was argued, ensure that the only future option to be considered by
the ACP would be Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPAs): in effect
the two-way free trade areas Europe wanted. Instead, the Caribbean and
others argued that analysis was required to see what model or models might
best suit the ACP and its component parts. As a result it was agreed that a
better approach would be to adopt a proposal put forward by ACP Trade
Ministers in South Africa: that is to establish an ACP Expert Group to
investigate options and to recommend how to prepare for negotiations.

The effect of these resolutions was to make clear that there could be no
sudden ACP decision on the approach to be pursued. Instead it would be
necessary to undertake impact studies on the various options for industries,
regions, individual nations or the ACP as a whole. More importantly it
placed the ultimate decision on a future negotiating approach and its
configuration back in the hands of ministers. In other words with those
elected to form a judgement on the overall political and economic impact of
all international trade negotiations.

But perhaps most critical of all was the meeting between the EC and the ACP
that took place on May 13 and 14. This established a better sense of
political equity between the two sides. It involved direct dialogue between
a small group of ACP trade ministers led by Jamaica's Foreign Trade
Minister, Anthony Hylton who for much of the time was engaged in what can
best be described as a very frank dialogue with the EC's Trade Commissioner,
Pascal Lamy.

From an EC perspective the May 13/14 meetings were meant to set the scene
for an approach that would determine how the 2002-2006 ACP/EU trade
negotiations might proceed, establish ACP acceptance of a new WTO round this
year and establish eligibility criteria for ACP participation in REPAS. As a
result of earlier bilateral meetings Commissioner Lamy was initially
placatory. He recognised that the EC's approach to REPAs might seem
doctrinaire. Despite this he wanted to discuss the eligibility criteria for
participation in the next ACP/EU negotiations and sought ACP support for
taking forward a new WTO round.

Space does not allow for a full account of what then transpired. But
speaking with the full authority of the ACP and in the light of the outcome
of the earlier ACP meetings Jamaica's Foreign Trade Minister spelt out why
on all these issues the ACP would reserve its judgement.

In Brussels in May, Mauritius, the Caribbean and other ACP partners began to
establish the ground on which the most important ACP/EU trade battle ever
will be fought. Despite this no one can relax. ACP solidarity remains
desperately fragile. The next few months will determine whether the
Caribbean and other more developed ACP nations can turn present advantage to
long term benefit.

David Jessop is the Executive Director of the Caribbean Council for Europe
and can be contacted at [log in to unmask]
May 17, 2001

Dr. Amanda Sives
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit
Institute of Commonwealth Studies
28 Russell Square
London, WC1B 5DS

Tel: +44 0207-862-8865
Fax: +44 0207-862-8820
Website: http://www.sas.ac.uk/commonwealthstudies/