Continued from
Considering Special and Differential Treatment for Disadvantaged Countries, Regions and Sectors
“The most unfair treatment is to treat things that are different the same. What is more unfair is to perpetuate the dependence of the already disadvantaged by creating a culture for derogation from the norms and obligations under the system, that promotes dependence and hinders adaptation.”
Notwithstanding the laudable objectives of the Caricom Single Market and Economy, a xenophobic culture among its constituents has threatened to undermine the CSME, even before its inception. Although boastful of its regional identity and interdependence, the xenophobia and dependence that has long plague this emancipated region, has instigated a myopic insistence on special and differential treatment for countries, regions and sectors disadvantaged under the system.
It is beyond challenge, that the proposed regional trading arrangements would lack equity and prospects for longevity, if it made no allowance for special and differential treatment. However, arguments for special and differential treatment for various countries, regions and sectors, although having some merit, have for the most part taken the form of highly politicised and emotional arguments, often lacking objectivity. The politicising of the debate without recourse to constructive application of established rules and principles of trade has unfortunately resulted in some legitimate economic and social concerns being undermined. While there is need to advance the notion of special and differential treatment for disadvantaged constituents, there is a prevailing need to distinguish the two cases in which special and differential treatment is being advocated. The first relates to situations in which the introduction of competition under the system has created a transitional or temporary disadvantage. The other speaks to circumstances where lack of competitiveness through blind adherence to inefficient trade practices and policies has created a permanent inability to adapt to the new trade climate. While the rules1 provide a remedy for transitional or temporary disadvantage, there can be little tolerance for inefficiency under the proposed trade system or any other liberalised trade arrangements.
Regrettably, arguments for special and differential treatment although occasionally meritorious, have generally been in defence of inefficient trade practices. Additionally, these approaches are generally based on the same lines or argument rejected by the WTO2 , despite many failed appeals. The gist of these arguments have generally been that less developed countries assume a disadvantaged position within a unified system of trade and should therefore assume the same privileges and rights as their more developed trade partners, with limited requirement for reciprocity and lesser obligations under the system. Slowly the principle of non-reciprocity, under the WTO and its multilateral agreements, is being whittled away, with beneficiaries of the system being required to reciprocate to some degree or to justify derogation. Proponents of non-reciprocity under the Caribbean Single Market and Economy may therefore be hard pressed to defend this proposition.
Special and differential treatment under the CSME is essential in maintaining an equitable trade system, which is consistent with, and supports individual national development objectives and strategies as well as continuing regional commitment to its advancement. It is conceded that uniform rights and obligations, among similar but in many respects diverse member states, could not serve the best interests of individual states or the region. However, derogation from rights and obligations under the system ought not to revolve around deviation from rules to protect sectors permanently incapable of suitable adaptation. Rather, the pivotal objective ought to be the upholding of individual economic and social rights and interests that promote the advancement and sustainability of the region.
There is need for countries, regions and sectors that claim transitional or temporary disadvantage as a result of the implementation of the CSME, to assess the impact of liberalisation and to explore measures that may effectively address the particular adversity. In so doing, they must seek to exploit the established rules of trade in developing strategies for minimising the negative impacts of trade liberalisation while maximising the benefits of its advantages.
Footnotes
1 Chapter Seven, Disadvantaged Countries, Regions, Sectors; Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the Caribbean Community including the Caribbean Single Market and Economy provides for transitionary initiatives to stem the dislocation and disruption to economies and industries that may affect disadvantaged countries, regions and sectors following the implementation of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy.
2The World Trade Organisation (WTO)
I can’t seem to find information on the CSME on how it affects me the small buisness will it be positive or negative can I make a diffrence and how
javed bacchus
I have not read your entire statement but it appears to me that you are not speaking about CSME in general but about your self
It seems to my 15 year old mind that you Mr . Speaker are the xenophobic one…. you are the racist one
You are the one not believing in change.
a wise saying i heard from an equally wise woman is….”In order to make an omelette….one must break the egg”. which means that in order for good things to happen sometimes things that you do not agree with must sometimes happen.
Sedio Gregoire
With all due respect, I am not clear what your objective was – to illuminate that nations are of different sizes and require such considerations in the CSME Framework, or that a nation’s size has affected its position in the larger trading groups, e.g. WTO. Further, the language used is written in somewhat legalese, with such technicality, that it appears most appropriate to “experts” and easily leads to disinterest increasingly adding to the divide between those who know about CSME and world trading arrangements vs. those who do not. I venture to say we must bear in mind who our audience is and getting the discourse into as many circles on numerous levels as possible increase the likelihood of a greater fundesrtanding, interest and following of CSME implications. If people do not understand what is being articulated, they will remain clueless. I am very interested in CSME, am a fellow Trinidadian living in the US, a graduate of an Ivy League University and having worked in organizations I can tell you true institutional change occurs at the middle with the masses. The people will make CSME work so give them the knowledge, not just information, to bring them into the fold of operational and implementation challenges CSME faces. Establishing this blog was a great initiative on your part. Thank you.
C. Smith
Brooklyn, NY