Elizabeth Morgan | Another foreign policy dilemma for Jamaica?

In my Gleaner article of Wednesday, July 26, titled ‘The EU’s relationship with the Caribbean on two fronts’, I pointed to the statement issued by the European Union (EU) announcing that their members had finally reached an agreement, paving the way for the signing of the post-Cotonou Agreement in Samoa later this year. The date was set as Wednesday, November 15.

This overarching cooperation agreement, with regional components, will govern the relationship between the members of the Organization of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS) and the EU and will be known as the Samoa Partnership Agreement. It provides, among other things, the legal basis for the European Investment Bank to lend to OACPS countries. This agreement replaces the Cotonou Partnership Agreement signed in 2000 and which was scheduled to expire in 2020, but was extended to September 2023. Note that the Caribbean OACPS Forum (CARIFORUM) is now chaired by The Bahamas.

I have been writing in The Gleaner about the OACPS and the OACPS/EU relationship since 2018. My articles have included information and commentary on the OACPS/EU post-Cotonou negotiations, also launched in 2018. Members of the public and private sectors and civil society are usually invited to consultations prior to the start of negotiations of these types of international agreements. The EU is a strong advocate of transparency and the involvement of civil society.

Guyana and Jamaica were lead negotiators for CARIFORUM. These were rigorous negotiations as there were several sensitive issues for OACPS members, including on human rights. To break deadlock on sensitive issues, there is usually resort to using previously approved and acceptable language from other agreements in the United Nations system.

The post-Cotonou Agreement was negotiated over two and a half years. These negotiations were slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic, among other things. The OACPS and EU lead negotiators finally initialled the agreed text in April 2021, signalling the conclusion of the negotiations. A legal scrub, involving lawyers from both sides, would have been undertaken to ensure that the text was that agreed by both parties. Throughout the negotiations, the OACPS legal team, including lawyers from CARIFORUM, including Jamaica, would be reviewing the text. At the national level, the agreement would then be sent to the Cabinet recommending approval for signature. This agreement should have been signed in 2022.

In 2021, signing was further delayed by objections from members of the EU, Hungary, primarily on migration, and later by Poland’s reservations.

In Jamaica, the Christian civil society group, Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS), raised objections about articles/paragraphs, which they felt could be promoting alternative lifestyles. Their objections came to my attention in the latter part of 2022. It appeared that they had just become aware of this agreement. I pointed to their concerns in my article of October 12, 2022 titled ‘Discussing the EU/Caribbean Partnership’.

OBJECTION TO JAMAICA SIGNING

So, after a nearly two-year delay, the EU obstacles were cleared and the members of both parties were ready to sign at a ceremony in Samoa. The OACPS, including Jamaica, had said, over this period, that they were satisfied with this agreement and were ready to sign. They were waiting on the EU to solve its problems.

Now, surprisingly, on Friday, November 10, a press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade announced that the Government of Jamaica would be delaying signature of the post-Cotonou Agreement to facilitate ongoing consultations, which turned out to be with the JCHS.

This coalition had issued a press release on Thursday, November 9, declaring that the Government of Jamaica was selling off Jamaica’s sovereignty by signing the new ACP/EU Agreement in Samoa. Primarily, their fear seemed to be that the EU would compel Jamaica, whoever forms the Government, to legalise homosexuality and change national laws to accommodate it, whatever the popular view in Jamaica. This, they fear, would destroy Jamaican family life, degrading moral values, and, thus, shredding the fabric of society. The coalition wants the agreement amended.

The Government, seemingly yielding to pressure from this civil society coalition, announced in its press release that it would delay signing the agreement. The ministry, however, states that “the Government was satisfied that the language of the text in the final agreement would not supersede Jamaica’s domestic legislation”.

So, what is to happen if there is no compromise arising from further consultations with JCHS?

WHICH COUNTRIES ARE SIGNING

The OACPS Council of Ministers Meeting was convened in Samoa on Tuesday, November 14. Reporting from there indicates that most of the 79 OACPS members, including CARIFORUM, will be signing the post-Cotonou Agreement. At this point, those countries indicating their intention to delay signing or not signing at all, for various reasons, are Jamaica, Namibia, Tanzania, and Trinidad and Tobago. It appears that Guyana, Rwanda and Uganda may also not sign, but this is not confirmed.

The European Commission and the 27 EU members are to sign.

The agreement needs to be signed and ratified by the EU members and two-thirds of the OACPS members. It will be applied provisionally after signature. Those not signing have six months to do so.

FOREIGN POLICY DILEMMA

So, it seems, here we are again with another foreign policy dilemma for the Government. Does Jamaica sign the post-Cotonou Agreement or not? What happens if, at this stage, texts cannot be amended, which I doubt. A reservation requires agreement by all parties and I do not think that is likely. Can a single country declaration be added? This may not be possible. In this situation, what are the implications for Jamaica of not signing this agreement with one of its significant development partners?

Where does the Government now go with its consultations with the JCHS? What precedent could this set going forward, when a narrowly scoped civil society group can scuttle signing of an international cooperation agreement?

A lesson from this is that in preparations for negotiating international agreements, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries should make a public announcement in the media, inviting consultations with interested civil society groups. These groups should not be able to say that they were not invited, knew nothing about the negotiations, and had no initial input.

It must also be recognised that negotiations require compromise at all levels, including in domestic consultations, while securing national interests.

Elizabeth Morgan is a specialist in international trade policy and international politics. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com