HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 201863,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/201863/?format=api",
"text_counter": 155,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Dr. Kituyi",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Trade and Industry",
"speaker": {
"id": 293,
"legal_name": "Mukhisa Kituyi",
"slug": "mukhisa-kituyi"
},
"content": " Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to mention, from the outset, that when the World Trade Organisation (WTO) decided that the traditional preferential market access we have enjoyed with the European Union for 25 years must come to an end because it was unfair to other countries which were trying to get to that market, it was not an act for our development. It was a hostile act. We are negotiating a new regime where we have been promised to have as much market access as we have been having, but where we must start opening our doors. We must make concession. This is painful! We are trying to find the most vulnerable sectors and industries and draw up a list of the most sensitive products and services which we will reinvest and say that we cannot reduce tariffs on them for the next 25 years. We have 1,700 products. So, it is not true that immediately we sign an economic partnership, our market will be flooded by cheap goods from Europe. Our market is protected through a list of sensitive products over a staggered period of time from such a flood. That is one. Secondly, let me take up the issue hon. Lesrima raised before I come to what hon. Raila raised; the issue of popularising the negotiations. At my Ministry, we have operated an open door of all organised sectors of society with an interest and a capacity to contribute in developing Kenya's position. We are involved in the national negotiating mechanism under the KEPLA Trade. We even give them training to understand the issues and then they contribute to the negotiations. The problem we have is that some sections of the civil society which come with us to develop the Government negotiation position, later on join the European Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to demonstrate against the position they have helped to develop. European NGOs do not help in shaping the position of the Government. Similarly, over the past three weeks, there have been two forms of communications. One, the bombardment to Parliamentarians to ask their Governments to stop negotiating Economic Partnerships Agreements (EPAs) and buying space in newspapers declaring why we should stop negotiating EPAs. Yes, we can stop EPAs. However, that is like the prerogative of a harlot. The NGOs can say that we stop negotiating and walk away. They do not carry any bucket. You and I know that unlike the Less Developed Countries (LDCs), Kenya will totally lose, at least, 70 per cent of its horticultural exports to Europe by January next year if there is no successor to the current regime of negotiations. So, saying that we should just walk away is walking away from responsibilities. Some people have suggested in published articles that we should negotiate for a Generalised System of Preference (GSP). A GSP is a unilateral offer! It is a favour! It can be withdrawn any time. It cannot be the basis of long term finances of, for example, infrastructure. On the issue of Development Matrix by hon. Syongo, there are two key components. One is that since the Fifth Ministerial Meeting of WTO in Hong kong on 6th December, 2005, there is a new commitment to aid for trade. All major development partners said that we were going to discipline the development aid to strengthen the trading ability of developing countries to address infrastructural constraints for reaching markets competitively. All EDF funds, EDF 10 and 11 on infrastructure is now being parcelled as part of aid for trade, which is being negotiated in the development matrix. Similarly, there are the traditional development concerns listed in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). We told them to discipline their commitments to make aid contribute to achieving the MDGs as agreed by all the developing countries. Regarding the issue that hon. Raila raised, I wish to make a certain clarification. I have been vilified in the Parliament of Tanzania as an enemy of East Africa negotiating EPAs together. I need to bring out this clearly. I share the fact that we have strength in numbers. If you are looking forward to negotiate for 1,700 items as sensitive products, the more you are, the better it is for you. Where is the difference between I and Tanzania? Tanzania, having left the Southern Africa Configuration, because it is now exclusively SACU and it can never be a member of SACU, wanted to join and negotiate with us on the same side. However, Tanzanians said that they had done a patriotic duty as East Africans by pulling out of the SACU. We now want Kenya, Uganda, October 2, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 4253 Rwanda and Burundi to do a similar patriotic duty by pulling out of the Eastern and Southern African configuration (ESA). In ESA, we are 16 countries. In the EAC, we have five countries. If it is a matter of strength in membership, the logic is that we should invite Tanzania to join us with other ESA countries and not to sacrifice the larger configuration to become less. That was the issue of contention."
}