Robert Buddan, Contributor
IT IS reasonable for the press to investigate the cost of travel of the Prime Minister.
But I believe Aubyn Hill's article on Wednesday makes clear that this has to be balanced against the benefits, and his own research and travels show that the Prime Minister has used less of the travel allowance to which he is entitled and stays in more modest accommodations than, say, Jamaican CEOs.
In fact, very often, the Prime Minister takes a private sector delegation with him to explore trade opportunities abroad and this is a benefit to the country.
The real issue for me is the cost and benefit of Jamaica's foreign policy, especially economic policy.
Jamaica is the leading international player in CARICOM and carries the burden of having probably the most costly international apparatus in the bloc.
It is more important, therefore, to consider Jamaica's present role in international affairs in a complex world of trade diplomacy whether we are talking about the plight of small sates, the impact of natural disasters, trade rules for sugar and bananas, debt, governance or achieving the UN's Millennium goals.
BIG ROLE FOR SMALL STATES
One European diplomat noted that less developed states with fewer diplomatic resources and personnel can end up in trade agreements balanced against them.
This means that it is important for developing countries, especially small ones, to mobilise their collective diplomacy to win fair trade agreements and Jamaica is more committed to this than most.
It is a credit to Jamaica's international role over the years and to Mr. Patterson's international prestige that Jamaica is chair of the Group of 77 and China representing over 140 developing countries in the developing world's largest alliance. This group speaks for hundreds of millions of farmers and their families.
At stake are billions of dollars that developing countries are losing because their agricultural exports are not allowed to compete with the subsidised agricultural products of the developed countries.
The G-77 is, therefore, trying to get the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to agree to fair rules of trade for the farmers of Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and Asia.
When its leaders meet, they are representing sugar, banana, rice, cocoa, tobacco, citrus, livestock and indeed, all farmers. We cannot talk about reviving agriculture and doing more to feed ourselves without a foreign policy that makes the rules of agriculture fair.
One of the most important achievements of the G-77 was to initiate the ongoing DOHA round of negotiations to get developed countries to end their subsidies for agriculture so that trade would not only be free but fair.
These are the most important trade negotiations going on at this time and Mr. Patterson sits at head of the G-77 table.
SMALL STATES AND G-77
But things are more complicated than this. Within the G-77, there are large countries like Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria that want developed countries to remove their subsidies so that their exports will be competitive in the home markets of those developed countries.
Brazil, for example, a big exporter of beef, wants the U.S. to end subsidies to its cattle industry.
At the same time the small developing countries like those in the Caribbean want the WTO to grant special and differential treatment, that is, some protection for their industries and a longer time over which to remove protection.
This is the case with our sugar and banana industries. However, these small economies are caught in the crossfire between the larger developing countries and the developed countries. For instance, Brazil and others have asked the WTO to remove EU protection for sugar, the consequence of which we well know.
To cope with larger countries, Jamaica has decided to establish embassies in Brazil, China, South Africa and Nigeria.
This brings cost to our foreign policy but Jamaica hopes to have the political and economic influence on these countries that will compensate for the disadvantages of liberalised trade.
Brazil's cooperation in ethanol is one example. China, of course, is an important international player.
The President of Nigeria is currently chairman of the African Union, a continent with many international votes, many Commonwealth countries, many small countries, all of which are developing countries.
COMPLEX DIPLOMACY IN THE AMERICAS
Right here in the Americas there are complex negotiations going on as well. The U.S. wants a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) with rapid liberalisation of trade. However, the U.S still protects many of its own industries.
Brazil has challenged the U.S. to remove this protection and Caribbean states back Brazil with their own claim for special and differential treatment which Brazil in turn supports.
The resulting stalemate in the FTAA negotiations has prompted the U.S. to pursue separate free trade agreements in the Americas as a backdoor strategy towards an FTAA.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), recently passed by the U.S. Congress, is regarded by the Bush administration as its model agreement for countries in the Americas.
Yet, even this will take some lobbying and lobbying is costly. CAFTA was barely passed and U.S. agricultural lobbies will strengthen their resolve to defeat other CAFTA-like agreements that would bring competition from the Americas.
Jamaica and CARICOM will still have to explore whether the CAFTA model is good for CARICOM. Panama, for instance, has opted out of CAFTA, trying instead to negotiate a separate and more suitable agreement, which seems some years off.
At the heart of these negotiations is development. There are competing visions of development in the Americas. Venezuela and Cuba lead a Bolivarian vision of sustainable development that concentrates on poverty and is critical of the so-called free trade idea behind the FTAA and CAFTA.
However, the recent visit of Mexican President, Vicente Fox, indicates an attempt by the NAFTA countries (U.S., Canada and Mexico) to trump the Bolivarian Initiative and get countries of the Caribbean to distance themselves from Venezuela and Cuba and to side with the NAFTA model through Mexico.
There is, in fact, a proliferation of trade agreements between South America, Central America, Europe, the U.S. and Canada.
As chairman of CARICOM's prime ministerial sub-committee on external negotiations, Mr. Patterson has to be involved in all of these goings-on for Jamaica and CARICOM's sake.
FOREIGN POLICY PAYOFF
What is the pay-off?
In the 1970s, Michael Manley was criticised for spending too much time travelling overseas. But it was Manley's diplomacy that led to the San Jose Accord which alone has paid for all the costs of Manley and Patterson's trips many times over.
By 2000, most of the $7 billion dollars invested in Portmore came from the San Jose Accord and 10,000 of the 14,000 houses built in Portmore were paid for out of the accord. Today, over 160,000 people live in Portmore.
In today's world of high oil prices, the upgraded concessional Caracas oil agreement with Venezuela will pay for four years of Mr. Patterson's travel costs in one year.
Mr. Patterson's travel to China benefits the island's investment needs in aluminium refinery, railway, and sports. In fact, no private sector leader can meet with the highest levels of government and business leaders the way leaders of governments can. Political diplomacy has direct benefits to the economy.
They key for a country like ours is to have an active and engaged foreign policy without extravagant costs. When all is said and done, Mr. Patterson seems to have provided this.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, University of the West Indies. You can send your comments to robert.buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or infocus@gleanerjm.com
