Posted on 10/25/2005 9:32:46 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Rich countries must abandon farm subsidies and give more market access to poor states if the Doha trade talks are to succeed, the head of the World Bank said today. Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz made his appeal amid fears that the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting of ministers in Hong Kong was in jeopardy because of the absence of progress on farm subsidies.
Writing in the Financial Times, Wolfowitz said the need to reduce protection on agriculture was a central element of the Doha talks. He warned that unless serious concessions were made by all sides, the Doha talks would fail "and the people who will suffer the most are the world's poor".
Wolfowitz, formerly a leading Pentagon official, called on the U.S. to step up efforts to cut farm subsidies and urged the European Union to do more on market access for products from poor countries. He added, however, that developing countries also had to open their services and manufacturing markets and lower their own agricultural protection.
Wolfowitz said it was not morally justifiable for rich countries to spend $280 billion (£158 billion) - nearly the total gross domestic product of Africa and four times the total amount of foreign aid - on support for agricultural producers.
The current round of WTO talks stalled in Geneva after wealthy countries failed to reach an agreement on lowering domestic agriculture subsidies and tariffs earlier this month.
Mark Vaile, the Australian trade minister and deputy prime minister, said the E.U. and "particularly France" were responsible for the deadlock because they had refused to accept a plan to cut European farm aid.
"They need to understand they are threatening the future of global trade and cheating millions of the world's poor out of new hope," Vaile said. "It's not enough for them to provide aid and debt relief when the benefits of liberalizing trade are so much greater."
An agreement in Hong Kong is supposed to pave the way for the conclusion of the Doha development round next year, but deadlock on farm subsidies has threatened to scupper the entire process.
The E.U. - generally seen as the villain of the piece by developing countries and the U.S. - is working on a second and final offer this week. The move follows what the U.S. described as its "bold" proposal for trimming the most damaging of its multi-billion dollar agricultural subsidies by up to 60% and phasing them out within a decade.
Development activists say the U.S. scheme is double-edged because it insists on poor countries opening up their manufacturing sectors, a step that could lead to the sectors' collapse in the face of foreign competition.
The U.S. plan has put the E.U. on the spot, and it has struggled to come up with a unified position. France believes the latest round of common agricultural policy reforms - which cut the link between the level of subsidy and the amount farmers produce - went far enough, and is refusing to budge.
The idea of cancelling the Hong Kong meeting has been proposed, but Australia has rejected it. "I don't believe the meeting should be postponed, even if the E.U. does not put forward a better proposal," Vaile said. "I believe the E.U. and France would need to account for their actions before the parliament of world opinion."
Wolfowitz increased pressure on the industrialized world when he said the temporary discomfort of industrialized countries in getting rid of farm subsidies was "nothing compared with the daily discomfort and deprivation faced by the world's poorest people".
Well, mine too. To see how far you have to climb, you need to look no further than the fact that the same bunch of imbeciles are once again trying to kill "Country of origin" labeling on our food.
What's the harm in knowing where your food comes from? The American people want it...why don't they?
HINT: ChaChing!
But seriously, why would we EVER need our own food supply...we live in the new global utopia!
>>>""free traders" don't like COOL laws and have lobbied our congress not to enact them."
You're right, I have noticed that.
I also believe that on the country of origin label, we should put icons depicting the approximate amount of tariffs that a country levels against the U.S. The key is to let the consumer decide, but give him information he needs. On agricultural goods, those products passing themselves off as "organic" need independent inspectors approved by the governmental agency overseeing the domestic labeling.
Anyone who makes U.S. policy by crying crocodile tears for the world's poor is not someone I'd trust in government.
If this article is accurate, then I am ready to vote for Hillary.
The end result will be no worse.
Let them suffer. The fewer of them, the more world for us.
I want my food produced in the USA. When I started seeing all the frozen broccoli is from Mexico, my choices went down. Besides having amebas rather common there, irrigation with water contaminated with effluence is not out of the question. Many countries still use pesticides banned here.
I cringe whenever I buy some fruit or vegetable grown in a foreign country--often I'll put it back on the rack and go without it.
I do not trust food grown overseas.
(But even if I did trust it, I hate giving my money to foreign country.)
Do we really, really need to trade with anyone?
Might international trade be a kind of economic vice--an economic addiction?
A short term economic high for our masters?
If the rest of the world sank beneath the seas like Atlantis, couldn't we get along without them?
Title of thread: Wolfowitz Calls For End To Farm Subsidies.
Other than bananas, I don't buy fresh, foreign produce. (The mangos here are horrible.) There was a move not to long ago to not tell if food was imported. I'm so glad that went away. But, I'm sure it will raise it's head again. Just like the labels in clothes that tells from where the clothing comes. I'm never going to buy something from Vietnam, where former anti-war players and John Kerry's former brother-in-law are the manufacturer. And read Julia Child's 'The Way to Cook". The best lamb is American.
You're correct, I did. What is it, Jacque Chirac's campaign slogan?
Out of context, the statement was referring to the "poor countries". Wolfowitz is attacking only the "rich countries". But of course you knew that.
So, what do you think about the marxist rhetoric that the president of the World Bank uses to defend "free trade"? Conservatives are appalled by it.
"No, Wolfowitz is correct in saying that the U.S. government should not artificially "reduce" the cost of U.S. agricultural products by subsidizing U.S. farmers. Wolfowitz is correct in saying that, without this artificial price adjustment, Americans would be able to buy cheap agricultural products on the international market - not as a "subsidy" to the countries from whence such products come, but as a mutually beneficial business transaction wherein we get cheaper goods and they get our cash."
I know that the arguments get quite heated on this subject, but the Founding Fathers believed that reasonable tarriffs were necessary to balance international trade with favoring domestic business enterprises.
But, then again, many of the Founding Fathers were businessmen first, and politicians second, so they were more acquainted with reality than the entrenched power brokers of D.C.
From your article: " . . . Wolfowitz said the need to reduce protection on agriculture was a central element of the Doha talks. He warned that unless serious concessions were made by all sides, the Doha talks would fail 'and the people who will suffer the most are the world's poor'". [emphasis added]
Just because your article chooses to de-emphasize that fact does not mean it can be disregarded.
My reply #149 was slander? I can see why you might think so. LOL
If you read my comment, the reason I posted the article was to discuss the rhetoric that the "free traders" use. So why are you trying to hijack the thread?
You have a short memory. The topic is marxist rhetoric of the "free traders".
I refer you to my comment #50.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.