Google Ads

Showing posts with label Lisbon Treaty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lisbon Treaty. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The EU and the Caribbean - An engagement of political discourse

By Rebecca Theodore


As the Cold War languishes in the mausoleum of time, and twitching agonies of ghosts resonate in the void, reminding us of the long lived bi-polar days of the US and the Soviet Union, the European Union proves that it is a force to be reckoned with on the global international stage. Although not a nation state, the long-awaited Lisbon Treaty elevated its ranks to legally binding status and strengthened its foreign, security and defence policy even though the General Assembly recently sought to weaken its role in the UN. Hence, these developments come as guaranteed provisions, with political and diplomatic status to match the EU’s undoubted economic and commercial clout in the world at large. And now, the post-Cold War period, when the US was the only undisputed superpower, is over.

Rebecca Theodore was born on the north coast of the Caribbean island of Dominica and resides in Toronto, Canada. A national security and political columnist, she holds a BA and MA in Philosophy. She can be reached at rebethd@aim.comThe EU is not only the biggest donor of aid to the developing world, and the leader in the Kyoto drive to reduce air pollution that causes global warming, but also leads the way in the struggle to safer food and a greener environment, better living standards in poorer regions, joint action on crime and terror, cheaper phone calls, and elimination of border controls facilitating freedom of movement thereby enhancing its reputation as a community of democratic values and liberal market economies.

Seeing that the EU’s influence in world affairs is on the increase, it becomes necessary to redefine political discourse with Caribbean states not only with France’s overseas regions of Martinique, Guadeloupe, St Martin, and French Guiana, which share cultural affinities with the Caribbean and use the euro as their common monetary unit, but the entire Caribbean at large, since the perceived distinctiveness of Caribbean states emerges from their shared historical experiences.

Critics have argued that political discourse with the EU means being bound by European Union law, as agreed in the European Parliament, and administered by the European Court of Justice and its various branches; but we cannot allow the quality of our thoughts to be polluted by ideology, as the EU and most of the Caribbean's political systems are based on pluralist democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Herein lies the predicament. If the Caribbean is to effectively tackle its socio-economic and environmental problems, the cost of energy, and communications, then the proposed solution for CARICOM and CARIFORUM to ensure a smooth integration of the region into the world economy is through partnership with the EU. On the other hand, if CARICOM’s main objective is the promotion of the assimilation of its member states through the integration of a single market economy, co-ordination and functional co-operation of foreign policies of its independent states; then the establishment of a more stable and transparent framework for the growth of businesses, and the security of investments in the Caribbean can be achieved through political co-operation in the diversification of political, economic and trade relations with the EU, as the EU supports the creation of a regional unit in the Caribbean.

The Caribbean faces a number of challenges, and political discourse with the EU will emphasize how these challenges can be transformed into opportunities. A decisive political partnership based on shared values, addressing economic and environmental vulnerabilities, promoting social cohesion, and combating poverty will see the birth of good and effective governance, respect for human rights, and improvements in gender equality in the Caribbean.

The presence of the EU in the Caribbean evokes a study in political discourse. The Caribbean can soar to heights unknown and anchor its zenith of economic freedom through political discourse with the EU. Therefore, CARICOM and CARIFORUM states should begin formulations and advising on conciliation strategies with the EU to enhance political, economic and social co-operation for a better and safer world.

November 10, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Saturday, November 28, 2009

ACP Countries: Sidelined by Europe again?

Sir Ronald Sanders is a business executive and former Caribbean diplomat who publishes widely on Small States in the global community. Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.comThe European Union (EU) has not included in the Lisbon Treaty a crucial article that was a feature of treaties between the EU and African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.  The Lisbon Treaty is the new "constitution" of the EU and it will replace the previous treaties that guided the policies of the EU and the work of the European Commission (EC).


Representatives of EC have offered reasons for this omission which might have had a ring of credibility had the Caribbean not been put through the threats and demands that characterized the negotiations leading to individual Caribbean countries signing up to an unequal Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU.


It is difficult for skeptics to take the EC at its word.  Indeed, since the EC unilaterally denounced the Sugar Protocol leaving Caribbean sugar producers without a market that the Protocol had guaranteed, and since the EC further unilaterally amended the preferential terms under which Caribbean-produced bananas entered the EU market leaving banana farmers in dire circumstances, there is every reason to be ultra-cautious of actions by the EU and its Commission.


What is not clear is why the ACP countries have not protested at the omission of the article which they were entitled to do, and which they were urged to do by at least one activist lawyer in Brussels where both the EC and ACP secretariats are located.


It has to be assumed that the ACP representatives had good reason for not howling publicly in protest and that, at some point, they will let their publics know why they did not.  On the other hand, it may very well be that they did protest but were rebuffed by the EC, and, again, they chose not to let their publics know that, once again, raw power trumped moral obligation.  Then, it could be that the ACP representatives chose to do nothing at all on the basis that since the EC has unilaterally denounced what the ACP thought were other legally binding agreements, there was no point in even raising the issue, since the EU, at some point in the future, might abrogate an article in their own treaty if it did not suit them.  And, the ACP would be able to do nothing about it just as they did not make a legal challenge to the denunciation of the Sugar Protocol.


To be fair to the EU and the EC, my previous paragraph is pure speculation.  It may very well be that no representation was made by the ACP to the EU/EC by representatives of the ACP and therefore, the EU/EC had no reason for regarding any omission of the ACP relationship as an issue.


As background to all this, it should be pointed out that an activist lawyer in Brussells, Joyce van Genderen-Naar, wrote in March 2004 pointing out that the Article which "makes reference to the ACP countries in the previous EC/EU Treaties had been omitted from the text of the proposed Lisbon Treaty that replaces them". 


She said, paragraph 3 of Article 179 of the provisions for Development Cooperation in the current EC Treaty states that: "The provisions of this Article shall not affect cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the framework of the ACP-EC Convention".


Van Genderen-Naar went on to argue that "Article179, paragraph 3, refers to the special relationship between the EC/EU and the ACP-countries, which is the oldest and largest form of cooperation between Europe and countries from the South".  She contended that historical bonds "between Europe and the ACP-countries give Europe a special responsibility for these countries, which should not be forgotten and should be a part of the next Constitution for Europe. This responsibility is even more urgent, because after 37 years of cooperation 40 of the 79 ACP-countries still belong to the poorest countries in the world. Out of the 48 poorest countries in the world 40 are ACP-countries".  (The full text of her presentation can be read at: http://www.normangirvan.info/naar-acp-disappearance-from-lisbon/).


Very few in the ACP countries would seriously argue with van Genderen-Naar's contention.
She advised the ACP "to make an official request to the European Commission and Members of the Convention (representatives of the European Parliament and Member States) to insert a provision concerning the ACP-EC-Cooperation in the new Constitution in view of the special relationship between the EU and the ACP, historical bonds, responsibilities and mutual interest, as agreed by EC and ACP in Article 55 of the Cotonou Agreement" which says: "The objectives of development finance cooperation shall be, through the provision of adequate financial resources and appropriate technical assistance, to support and promote the efforts of the ACP States to achieve the objectives set out in this Agreement on the basis of mutual interest and in a spirit of interdependence".


The EU is redefining itself.  They are describing the Lisbon Treaty as more than a Charter; they say it is the EU Constitution.  Further, they have appointed a President of the EU and a common Foreign Minister.  Beyond this deepening of their relationship, it is clear that the majority of the 27 nations in the EU feel no responsibility for the former colonies of a handful; many of them believe that the EU's obligations are to the development and prosperity of its own member states. 


If there is no reference in the Lisbon Treaty to the ACP countries, the shift in Europe's attitude to them - evident in the unilateral denunciation of contracts and in the tactics of threat used in the EPA negotiations - will be confirmed.  So, too, will be the timidity of the ACP in exercising power that can come from joint action.


The ACP must find the strength to speak with one voice again; to resist divide and rule tactics; to eschew empty promises of aid; and to fund its own institutions particularly those which interact with the EU.  If the ACP countries remain mere supplicants without demonstrating a readiness to stand up together for themselves, then they will be omitted to their detriment from more than the EU's new arrangements.


27 Nov 2009 12:49:05


caribbean360