Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Category: Trade

  • President Biden’s Trade Policy Agenda 2021 Released

    President Biden’s Trade Policy Agenda 2021 Released

    Alicia Nicholls

    The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) today released the eagerly anticipated 2021 Trade Agenda and 2020 Annual Report to Congress. This annual report outlines the President’s trade policy priorities each year and is the first to be released under the Biden presidency. Readers would recall that last week, USTR nominee Katherine Tai had her Senate confirmation hearing, giving us some greater glimpses into what possible directions the Biden-Harris administration might take on some of the major trade issues of the day. Her opening statement to the Senate Finance Committee may be read here.

    The Biden administration’s trade priorities reflect a generally more inward-looking trade policy disposition than the more open approaches that defined most contemporary pre-Trump US administrations. The priorities include shoring up the COVID-19-hit US economy, promoting US job creation/preservation and a pledge to ‘stand up” for American industry and workers. The report notes that the President’s trade agenda will be ‘a critical component’ of the Biden Administration’s plan to Build Back Better. As expected, there is also a commitment for a comprehensive strategy on curbing China’s “unfair trade practices”.

    A marked departure, however, from his predecessor is the inclusion of a stated focus on climate action and on racial equality and a more concerted effort to work with ‘friends and allies’.

    Biden-Harris’ trade priorities according to USTR report

    The trade policy priorities identified are

    1. Tackling the COVID-19 Pandemic and Restoring the Economy

    2. Putting Workers at the Center of Trade Policy

    3. Putting the World on a Sustainable Environment and Climate Path

    4. Addressing China’s Coercive and Unfair Economic Trade Practices Through a
    Comprehensive Strategy

    5. Partnering with friends and allies

    6. Standing Up for American Farmers, Ranchers, Food Manufacturers, and
    Fishers

    7. Promoting Equitable Economic Growth Around the World

    8. Making the rules count

    The report can be accessed here.

  • A Conversation with Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and Chairman of CARICOM Keith Rowley

    A Conversation with Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and Chairman of CARICOM Keith Rowley

    Please join the Atlantic Council on Friday, February 26, from 10:00-10:30 a.m. EST / 11:00-11:30 a.m.  AST, for a conversation with Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Keith Rowley, on “Re-Setting US-Caribbean Relations.”

    The Prime Minister will be speaking in his role as the current Chair of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which will have just concluded its intersessional Heads of Government Meeting. The conversation will launch the work of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center’s new Caribbean Initiative. 

    The programme is as follows:

    Dr the Honourable Keith Christopher Rowley
    Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
    &
    Chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

    In conversation with
    ​​​​Jason Marczak
    Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center
    Atlantic Council

    Introduction by

    Frederick Kempe
    President & CEO
    Atlantic Council

    Closing by

    Melanie Chen
    Board Director
    Atlantic Council

    COVID-19 has highlighted a new iteration of great power competition in vaccine distribution and commercialization. The pandemic brings to the forefront why the future of the Caribbean — with a population of almost 50 million – is critical for the United States. Tied together by geography and history, Prime Minister Keith Rowley will speak about the region’s global challenges and how resetting US-Caribbean relations can contribute to hemispheric security and prosperity.

    This live event is part of the Atlantic Council Front Page event series, our premier ideas platform spotlighting global leaders who are championing constructive solutions to global challenges. To participate, please register below. Once you have registered, you will receive a confirmation email with information on how to join via zoom.

    To participate in the Q&A with Prime Minister Rowley, please submit questions on twitter using the hashtag #ACFrontPage and following @AtlanticCouncil. To ask questions in advance, please email Wazim Mowla at wmowla@atlanticcouncil.org.

  • Vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone: Vaccines, viruses and the war for immunological supremacy

    Vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone: Vaccines, viruses and the war for immunological supremacy

    Image by hakan german from Pixabay

    By Dr. Garrey Michael Dennie, Guest Contributor

    In the late 60’s and early 70’s the polio virus swept through St. Vincent in waves of fearsome fury. In Rose Place, it killed eight year old Sandra Culzac. As a child in Rose Place I still remember the fear as the invisible and lethal enemy stalked our homes, broke the bodies of children, permanently crippled their lives, and brought death to our doors. The virus was merciless. Chance and chance alone decided who lived, who died, who became crippled, and who escaped the deformities that polio inflicted on our young bodies.

    Today, no Vincentian child has to fear polio. Indeed with a few exceptions, the threat that polio posed to earlier generations of children all over the world is no more. And the reason for this is simple: mass vaccination campaigns have virtually eradicated polio from the world.

    In fact, what is true for polio is even more so for another killer virus: small pox. In the 20th century alone, small pox killed more than 300 million people worldwide. Indeed in 1492 when Columbus and the Spaniards who followed him arrived in the Americas, they brought with them small pox and a cocktail of other lethal viruses. But small pox was the single greatest instrument of conquest that destroyed indigenous civilizations. With no immunity to small pox, indigenous people died in the millions.

    Today, however, small pox is gone, utterly and completely eradicated from the face of the earth. Again, the reason is simple: mass vaccination campaigns removed from the planet a lethal virus that had slaughtered humanity for thousands of years.

    The Covid-19 pandemic that currently afflicts us certainly bears deep comparison to these great viral killers of the past. It has shattered economies, destroyed international flights, shuttered borders, infected more than 100 million people, and killed more than two million. In the face of such immense suffering some people have sought refuge in their faith. And faith indeed can provide comfort in times of great stress.

    Others, however, have sought to traffic and profit from legitimate human fears by promoting false cures to the fearful and the uninformed. And more dangerous still, some have embraced a Cult of Death, essentially declaring that our most treasured medical research institutions and our strongest scientific minds cannot be trusted to guide us through this medical crisis that currently engulfs the world. They would therefore have us do nothing as Covid-19 rages around us killing and maiming at will.

    However, we should be clear on this point: the defeat of SARS 2, the virus that causes Covid-19 is absolutely certain. We do not know the precise time when we would declare victory. But we do know the manner by which that defeat would be administered: the mass vaccination of the world’s population against the SARS 2 virus would immunize the vast majority of the people against contracting Covid-19.

    It is highly unlikely that every person on the planet would take the vaccine. But that is not necessary. The key concern is that the global population achieves what immunologists describe as herd immunity. In the instance of Covid-19 it simply means that if around 85 percent of the population in every country is vaccinated that would squeeze out the opportunity for the virus to replicate. Without the opportunity to replicate, the virus ultimately faces extinction.

    Vaccines defy viruses by denying them the capacity to seize our cells and transform them into viral replicators. They do this by a simple trick. They expose our bodies to a dead virus or a protein from the virus that cannot harm us. Our immune system interprets this as a dangerous assault against us and goes into full combat mode producing antibodies designed to destroy the invasive pathogen. And this is where the magic happens. Our immune system remembers this attack and the next time it meets the virus it is fully prepared to repel it from our system.

    Our scientists have known this for more than 200 years. We produced the first vaccines in the 1790s. And over the next 200 years we continued to perfect our capacity to make vaccines. We therefore stand today in a world of extraordinary medical, scientific, and engineering expertise without parallel in the past 200 years of medical history.

    The proof of this is staring us in the face. For whereas the virus has already killed more than two million people in just one year, in the USA alone, American health officials have administered more than 50 million vaccinations and not a single person has died from any vaccine. Indeed, in Israel, more than 700,000 people took the Pfizer and Modena vaccines and 99.95 percent of those vaccinated have failed to contract the virus. These numbers are simply incredible, a testament to the intellectual firepower we have brought to bear against the virus. In fact, what we do know is that although the vaccines vary in their capacity to prevent illness, every single one of them prevents an infected person from dying of Covid-19. These numbers clearly tell us that after a year of tears, the reign of Covid-19 should come to a swift end.

    Some caution, however, is due. The struggle to defeat this virus might take longer than it should because of scientific illiteracy. Anti-vaxxer communities proliferate on the Internet and they have used the Internet to propagate lies, scams, and deceit about the vaccines. Their ignorance of medical history guarantees that they will continue to direct their misinformation at the ranks of the uniformed.

    Quite frankly, anti-vaxxers lie, and people die. For the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines, however, whose first duty is to honour the scientific and historical truths in the fight against Covid-19, the way forward should be plain: vaccinate now, vaccinate everyone, and crush this virus. It is a war we must win.

    Dr. Garrey Michael Dennie is an Associate Professor of History at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

    The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the guest author and are not necessarily representative of those of the Caribbean Trade Law & Development Blog.

  • The need for a CARICOM Trade and Development Strategy

    The need for a CARICOM Trade and Development Strategy

    Alicia Nicholls

    Last week the European Union (EU), one of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)’s largest and key trading partners, released a communication outlining what would be the elements of the EU’s new trade strategy over the medium term.

    This article discusses the elements of the new EU trade strategy, but does so as a backdrop to explain why a similar exercise by CARICOM, as well as a comprehensive review of CARICOM’s existing trade agreements, is long overdue.

    The elements of the new EU trade strategy

    The EU has indicated that in light of new internal and external challenges, which include its more sustainable growth model, it will be formulating a new trade policy. According to the Commission’s communication, the EU needs a new trade policy strategy which “will support achieving its domestic and external policy objectives and promote greater sustainability in line with its commitment of fully implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals”.

    The new ‘open, sustainable and assertive’ trade policy would be based on what the Commission has termed ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’. This concept is defined in the EU communication as follows: “Open strategic autonomy emphasises the EU’s ability to make its own choices and shape the world around it through leadership and engagement, reflecting its strategic interests and values”.

    The communication outlines the core objectives of what will be the EU’s new trade policy for the medium term. These are (1) supporting the recovery and fundamental transformation of the EU economy in line with its green and digital objectives; (2) shaping global rules for a more sustainable and fairer globalization and (3) increasing the EU’s capacity to pursue its interests and enforce its rights, including autonomously where needed.

    While the document notes that multilateralism and open trade remain central tenets of the EU’s trade strategy, it strongly hints at the possibility of the EU taking unilateral action on enforcing its rights against what it terms ‘unfair trade practices’. It is likely this assertive tone is aimed at China and the US, in particular.

    To deliver on the objectives of its new trade strategy, the Commission has indicated that it would focus on several deliverables, including “reinforcing the EU’s focus on implementing and enforcing trade agreements, and ensuring a level playing field for EU businesses”.

    Considering the EU’s recognition that the majority of global growth is expected to take place outside of the EU in the coming years, it is not surprising that another deliverable for its new trade policy outlined in the communication is “deepening the EU’s partnerships with neighbouring, enlargement countries and Africa”. The Caribbean is not among the regions prioritized. While it could be argued that this is because of the longstanding relationship between the EU and CARIFORUM under the EU-ACP relationship, many African countries are part of the long-standing EU-ACP relationship as well.

    One of the things the African region has over the Caribbean and why so many countries, including China and now those in the Caribbean, are making greater overtures towards the African continent, is that Africa is clearly one of the new hotspots for global growth. Some African countries, like Rwanda for example, are becoming shining examples of post-conflict growth and development. Moreover, Africa’s growth prospects will be boosted with the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) which came into effect January 1, 2021 and is currently being operationalized. Meanwhile in the Caribbean, with the exception of Guyana which has benefited from its new oil exporter status, growth among our countries remains lacklustre, beset by several shocks, with the COVID-19 pandemic being one of the latest.

    The need for a CARICOM trade and development strategy

    The EU’s announcement of its new trade strategy made me wonder, and not for the first time, does CARICOM have a trade and development strategy? After several inquiries, I am none the wiser as I am yet to see any public document which outlines a comprehensive CARICOM trade and development strategy.

    Some individual CARICOM Member States, for example Belize, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago, have clearly outlined and documented trade policy/strategy documents which can be easily found with a simple Google search. But there is a need for a comprehensive and clearly articulated region-wide strategy for trade and development. Why? Quite simply, we are stronger when we are unified. Among the objectives of the Community outlined under Article 6 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is the enhanced coordination of Member States’ foreign and foreign economic policies. Enhanced coordination does not mean a requirement to consolidate, but it stems from a recognition that the region is stronger on any given matter of a foreign policy or foreign economic policy nature when our approach is unified. In much the same way, a unified approach on a regional trade and development strategy would be beneficial to the region.

    There was a CARICOM Strategic Plan for the period 2015-2019, which was the first of its kind and which outlines a strategy for repositioning CARICOM, including its trade and investment relations. However, there is no publicly available information, as far as I am aware, on whether the goals under this plan have been achieved or whether its operation was even assessed. Will there be another five year strategic plan? One is certainly needed given the changing realities our countries confront.These are questions that should be easily answered by being able to look on CARICOM’s website.

    A comprehensive CARICOM trade and development strategy is especially important now that it is pellucidly clear that the overreliance on a single sector for economic activity, employment and foreign exchange, which is tourism for most of us, remains a perilous development strategy. It has long been recognised that there is a need to not only diversify our trade through higher value-added goods and services, but expand links with non-traditional partners, such as China, African countries, India and countries of the Middle East. How can our existing trade agreements with current major partners be leveraged to support our goals of export diversification and expansion? Do we need trade agreements with some of our newer partners? How can we better utilise economic diplomacy and our diasporas as part of our trade strategy?

    Any CARICOM trade strategy must be clearly undergirded by the region’s strategic development objectives, and logically linked to an industrial policy. It must complement and not be divorced from strategies to promote MSME growth and internationalization or diaspora engagement. Of course, formulating such a strategy would be an involved process and should involve extensive consultations with key stakeholders both at the regional and national levels, including the private sector, civil society and ordinary citizens. Much could be learned from the process of how the EU does its consultations.

    This brings me to another critique, the lack of transparency which remains a problem in our region. It is not good enough that those of us who follow trade know more about what goes on in other regions, especially the EU through its excellent website and other communications infrastructure, than what happens in CARICOM.

    Although CARICOM has introduced some commendable outputs like its use of social media, weekly video summary of what is happening in the Community and its summary of business news across the region, it would also be helpful to see more substantive information on what is discussed in COTED and COFCOR meetings. The issues discussed in these meetings have an impact on the ordinary CARICOM citizen and it is regrettable that often there are no communiques released after these meetings or where there are, the information usually appears generic with little substance.

    Need for review of CARICOM’s trade agreements

    Lastly, there is also the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the region’s trade agreements in much the same way as I called for a review of our existing bilateral investment treaties in a previous article. CARICOM has partial scope agreements with Colombia, Venezuela and Cuba. It has free trade agreements (FTAs) with the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica.  The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement is CARICOM’s first FTA with a developed country partner, and the CARIFORUM-UK EPA rolls over the provisions of this agreement to cover CARIFORUM-UK trade now that the UK has exited the EU. Most CARICOM countries also benefit from non-reciprocal preferential market access for their goods to the Canadian market through CARIBCAN and to the United States (US) through the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Individual CARICOM countries also have partial scope agreements, often with neighbouring countries in South or Central America.

    Unfortunately, most of the data on the utilization of these agreements are via reports published by our partners, and not through our own publicly available independent studies. In the case of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have to rely on the biennial reports published by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) for data on the operation of that programme.

    In the case of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA, it is through the review reports commissioned by the European Commission . The most recent European Commission report on the monitoring of the EPA, though noting some progress with implementation, highlights several remaining implementation deficits. It also shows that the Agreement remains underutilized and that in some cases, there is limited awareness by firms of the existence of the Agreement and the opportunities thereunder. This is despite the many sensitization workshops, seminars and literature conducted and disseminated on the EPA. Why is this? And how can it be fixed?

    An excellent study by McClean and Khadan of 2014, which was published by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), found that the situation of under-utilisation is endemic with all of the region’s trade agreements. A key paragraph from the study is deserving of particular attention:

    In spite of the various trade agreements negotiated, CARICOM export performance has not
    improved significantly and there has been little movement up the value chain, particularly since
    subregional economies have been unable to transform their production systems in order to take
    advantage of the market access opportunities provided by these trade arrangements. In addition,
    production and exports of Caribbean goods are extremely specialized and along with its services sectors
    have been declining in competitiveness. (McClean & Khadan 2014)

    Is it not time that CARICOM conduct its own public review of the operation of its trade agreements to empirically ascertain the reasons for the poor utilisation by regional firms of its trade agreements, but also whether these agreements are making any contribution to regional development? Larger countries and regions, like the EU and US, do periodic review of their agreements. I see no reason why we should not be doing the same. Moreover, any report from such a review should be made publicly available.

    In summary, the EU’s recognition of the need to rethink its trade strategy in light of changing economic and geopolitical developments and its more sustainable growth model reiterates why a similar exercise is long overdue in CARICOM.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. All views herein expressed are her personal views and should not be attributed to any institution with which she may from time to time be affiliated. You can read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.