Wilberne Persaud, Financial Gleaner Columnist

Prime Minister Bruce Golding, speaking at the Michael Manley Award for Community Self-reliance and Environment Foundation of Jamaica Award, at the Little Theatre on Emancipation Day, was critical of the late prime minister.

"It is something of a paradox that while Michael Manley promoted the concept of self-reliance with such ardour and conviction, his equally passionate articulation of the historical causes of injustice and the social and economic inequalities to which the masses of the people had been subjected sometimes collided with the principle of self-reliance," said Mr Golding, as reported by Kimone Thompson in The Sunday Observer of August 3.

This subject was well chosen for the moment. Emancipation and Independence are two events in our history whose importance cannot be overplayed.

Merely end points

Prime Minister Bruce Golding is supportive of the new trade agreement with Europe and has accused critics of the pact of mendicancy. - File

Don't get me wrong. As events they are merely end points of processes that include specific events of great historical significance on our road to self-determination. But as symbols there is no equal.

This occasion obviously has much to commend it. For me its most enlightening aspect is choice of an abundantly non-PNP presenter for the occasion.

This seems a clear break with the past and a good omen. The other aspect of the event is the platform given the prime minister, allowing him to choose a subject critical to Jamaica's economic capacity and welfare of the population. This is the matter of trade, preferential arrangements and competitiveness.

He is quoted as saying that "some felt that there was an economic account created by their historical experience in which a debt was owed to them and the mission of politics was to secure payment of that debt."

He argued that the attitude created by this kind of view of our history was what led to negative views about the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union and the Cariforum states.

This view sees the EPA as opening the floodgates of our countries to European Union imports with which we have no chance of competing.

It appears that such ideas are thought to be expressions of mendicancy and a continuing resolve to avoid achieving competitive status with trading partners. This seems well short of the truth.

Free trade is best

Minister of Agriculture Christopher Tufton (left) and Jamaica Agricultural Society President Senator Norman Grant are seen next to the real sweet cassava at the Cassava Village booth at the Denbigh Agricultural Show on August 1. The big traders protect their farmers, and so should Jamaica. - Contributed

The classical economists demonstrated that free trade is best for nations - everyone benefits. But they benefit under special conditions. The powerful have always been able to avoid what they consider unpleasant impacts of free trade.

For free trade to benefit everyone, some in the trading countries lose while others gain. Welfare of the populations as a whole is improved by sharing the gains of those who benefit with those who lose. And there's the rub.

Workers who lose jobs in the developed countries have votes. Farmers, or rather farming conglomerates have contributions to make to political parties. There is no way that pursuit of any trade agreement will convince the European Union or the United States to abandon their considerable subsidy to agriculture - entirely understandable, if not optimal world economic policy.

But there is no such thing as consensus or deliberative world economic policy. There is no world government and no world voter. So the issue turns on whose clout is the biggest.

The latest Doha round of negotiations was meant to tackle world poverty and enhance world economic growth. They have ended in failure and recrimination.

Geneva talks

The Geneva meeting and talks included Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, India, the US and the EU. The stumble and collapse revolved around treatment of farm subsidies. 'Developed world' representatives clashed with 'emerging or developing world' representatives over measures to protect farmers and farm products from imports.

The French generally do not seem perturbed at the result. The US prefers no deal rather than one that its home base deems awful. Indeed, nobody seems anxious about how their political standing at home will be affected.

The US wants export markets for its farming output to be opened up while many in Europe quietly hoped for failure. India worries about how its farmers will cope with competition from subsidised imports.

China wants to protect farmers and delay tariff cuts for years. The consensus among 'emerging world' representatives seemed to have been that the US had to go a bit further in cutting agricultural subsidies. Is it strange that some EU members entirely share this position? Not really. French farmers are known to dump stuff across the urban roadways. Democracy means politicians have to campaign for votes.

So what does all of this have to do with Prime Minister Golding's and obviously his government's view on the EPA, preferential arrangements and competitiveness? Quite a lot. We generally tend to be railroaded into the situation of accepting trade policy determined elsewhere because we have no clout.

This is the reality with which we must cope. If we wish access to concessionary grain and protein deriving from US agricultural products, we often have to make concessions ourselves. The question is, can we do better? Can we demonstrate the lopsided impact of these arrangements or must we simply accept terms demanded of us?

It seems to me that the least we can do is present the case, scrupulously documented and argued that the impact is skewed; that as a matter of social and economic cohesion, we too, need a vibrant agricultural sector.

With the modal age of Jamaican farmers in excess of 59 years when last I checked, with rural-urban drift, with breakdown of the cohesive influence of a thriving farm sector whittled away, why can we not protect our farmers? We can't because we would seem to be asking others to do so for us.

We need policy change. This, however, requires sacrifice, and sacrifice means both economic and political impact. Manley tried to sell ideas such as these from both economic and political angles. Obviously his salesmanship met with little success.

The reasons though might be worth re-examination.

wilbe65@yahoo.com