We appreciate Mr Archer's efforts to bring more information to this debate.
We do not claim to be economic or trade experts. Our objective is to encourage debate and elicit information so that citizens can make the most informed judgements about matters that affect their lives, which is the essence of democracy.
The ambassador says the Bahamas participates in most Caricom activities, but these activities are ignored by the press. That may be true, but the only activity which is given any prominence by the government and its agencies is the annual talking shop known as the heads of government conference, where the politicians bask in their own glory.
Last year, Caricom secretary general Edwin Carrington noted that "It was almost three years ago, when our heads of government, recognising the important role of civil society in the integration process, decided to stage an encounter catering for the widest possible participation. This forum would provide for a free and wide-ranging interchange of ideas aimed at arriving at a consensus on a strategy for the development of the Region and its peoples."
If the Bahamian authorities and experts feel it is so much in our interest to join the CSME, why aren't we participating in this exercise? There are national consultation reports from almost a dozen member states on Caricom's web site. But we do not recall any discussion of this initiative by our government (either FNM or PLP).
And while we may take part in 75 per cent of Caricom activities ﾖ we venture to say that this regional technical cooperation would likely operate whether or not Caricom or the single market existed. (A sidebar in today's paper outlines Caricom's structure and gives an idea of some areas of functional cooperation from which we benefit).
While we do not deny our own inadequacies,it seems that the Bahamian political and technical directorate pays just as little attention to these activities as the Bahamian media does. We suggest that there is probably a reason for that.
In his letter, Mr Archer asks us to be more explicit about the economic divergencies between the Bahamas and the rest of Caricom. So we have presented a snapshot comparison of the economies of each of the member states in another sidebar. Readers can make their own judgement.
He dismisses our argument that a regional common market would discriminate in its external trade policy by pointing out that the Free Trade Area of the Amsericas would do likewise. Our reply is that while it is true that the FTAA will also have external tariffs, it will not exclude our natural trading partner ﾗ the United States.
As for the rules governing world trade, we note that regional trade blocs are permitted only via Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which requires that they cover 'substantially all trade' of member countries and lead to external tariffs that 'shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive'. We do not know what external tariff a regional common market will apply.
On Mr Archer's point that the CSME is a sort of rehearsal for wider and more complex trade talks, we say again that the investment of our limited time, effort and expertise in a lukewarm approach to regionalism reduces the capacity of our government and civil society to invest in multilateral negotiation.
And while the CSME may bestow 'special privileges' on the Bahamas as part of a regional bloc, in all likelihood we would be able to claim the same privileges on our own. 'Not normally available' is not the same as 'unavailable'.
Finally, we would like to see a balance sheet listing what we pay into Caricom and what we get out of it. If the government is really keen to join the CSME, this would be a good place to start.
By Leonard Archer
Letter To The Editor, The Nassau Guardian
