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".
If that's the case then we need to find an article about business deregulation that perhaps at least mentions Marx. This article did not once mention either "Marx" or "rhetoric", but it did specifically mention farm subsidies several times and described what a Republican commerce negotiator was doing to have them ended.
This is the core of our disagreement. I hate farm subsidies and you protect them by saying that any talk about ending them is "Marxist rhetoric". For all I care you can go right ahead and call these government shrinking spending-cuts "Marxist" or anything you want, but I still say you can't have any more of my money for any more of these stinkin' welfare subsidies.
Do we have any domestic oil producers left? I guess they'll be put out of business in the next WTO round. Like Al Gore, maybe you think that selling off the navy's oil reserves to a company you own stock in, is a better way to promote national security?
If you mean the original post where what's his name was using class warfare statements to justify ending farm subsidies.
No Wolfawitz did use the wrong language but lots of conservatives are against farm payments. Myself I know there will be times like say Canadan beef is undercutting American beef due to unfair advantage such as Canadan government support. A pure free trader will say let the market decide but I have no problem using our tariff policy to protect our domestic producers. The tariff was used since our earliest days and means higher prices for the product I can choose not to buy it. On the other hand I have no say over how my Income Tax being spent and I seen too much abuse of direct farm payments to support that form of welfare.
A nation that expands government into all parts of our economy will soon find that they will stifle our economy in order to save it.
If we need to depend on the government to save us, then God help us.
" They also weren't set on creating a global socialist utopia"
Yep. Even the former president of Boeing said in a speech when they were opening a new plant in China that it wasn't right for Americans to live so much higher lifestyles than the rest of the world, and that basically we had an obligation to share the wealth.
First of all, he should be making business decisions based on what is good for the company and shareholders, not for social change.
Second of all, here is a guy who makes many times what the average American worker makes, and he is lecturing us on the immorality of our living a higher lifestyle than people in other countries?????
The Wealth of Nations wasn't even written until 1776 (I think). Economics was still a new "science" at the time of the Civil War.
Free Traders, as far a I can tell, simply want to chase the cheapest products around the globe in the hopes that everything will pretty much equal out in the end. Will the farms in the U.S. become like our heavy industry, exported overseas? Probably not, but free trade will almost definitely signal an end to the family farm and consolidation of agri-biz into a handful of companies taking advantage of economies of scale. So, again: is the family farm worth saving?
As for Marx, I'm not an expert. I refuse to dedicate 20 years of my life to understanding the guy, which is what I calculate it will take. On the other hand, I'm fairly confident that if you went up to a free trader and called him a Marxist, you might get punched in the nose.
Boeing, huh? Got a source?
I agree that this 'Eat The Rich' rhetoric is undesirable, and unnecessary. The problem is not that some countries are richer; but rather that the externalities of corruption in rich countries disproportionately strike producing farmers in poor countries.
Distorting the economics of agriculture by subsidizing farmers only marginally affects our Western standards of living, but it destroys the economic foundation of most poor countries.
Wolfy is essentially correct in this matter, imho.
The words "Marxist," "Socialist" and "Communist" have been so over-used and misused in recent years as to lose all meaning. Several weeks ago I read (and then re-read, and re-re-read) a post in which some guy called insurance companies "socialist."
Now I just look at them the same way I look at the misuse of words and intentional misspellings in rap songs.
You win, I'll agree to find all that stuff abhorrent too, and I promise to abhor anything you want for the rest of the week, if you agree to pay all my import taxes needed to fund all these farm subsidies.
“The agricultural trade proposals put forth today by the United States will significantly advance that position within the WTO agriculture negotiations. We call on U.S. Trade Ambassador Portman and Agriculture Secretary Johanns to continue their strong advocacy to secure enhanced market access for U.S. farm products that would be worthy of further reform in the area of U.S. domestic supports….It must be emphasized that real trade reform must include substantial, ambitious and quantifiable expansion in access to markets. We will do our share on domestic support but developed and developing countries must do their part in reforming and expanding market access opportunities.”
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation“We are pleased that the U.S. is once again leading the way in the WTO on agricultural trade liberalization. We fully support the U.S. negotiating objectives and look forward to the conclusion of a comprehensive, meaningful Doha Round agreement…. For the U.S. pork industry, the key to a successful Doha Round agreement is a big market access package. The U.S. has taken a bold step today by showing real flexibility on domestic policies. It is now up to our trading partners to make an agreement possible by offering substantial market access liberalization.”
Don Buhl, President, National Pork Producers Council“The U.S. proposal creates an environment to make great strides in opening up global agricultural trade for consumers and producers worldwide by bringing about meaningful improvements in all three pillars of the agricultural negotiations – export subsidies, trade-distorting domestic supports and market access… We urge that nations participating in the WTO negotiations use the momentum provided by this proposal to redouble efforts to make substantial progress toward an agricultural trade accord prior to the meeting of trade ministers in Hong Kong in December. By advancing a bold proposal for agriculture, the Bush administration has shown its leadership and commitment to advancing free trade, a tremendously powerful engine for economic growth.”
Kendell W. Keith, President, National Grain and Feed Association and Gary Martin, President, North American Export Grain Association“We recognize the proposal advanced by the Administration today in Zurich sends a credible signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is prepared to make substantial cuts in trade-distorting domestic support if, and only if, market access barriers are greatly reduced and export subsidy practices are eliminated.”
Bob Metz, President, American Soybean Association2 “The bold position put forward this week by U.S. trade negotiators in the World Trade Organization Doha Development Agenda negotiations, puts the U.S. back in a strong offensive position. The U.S. proposal for substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic supports should remove any excuses countries may have had for refusing to accept major reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers. We hope that the leadership demonstrated by the U.S. on the sensitive issue of domestic supports in agriculture will clear the path for a successful WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December.”
James H. Sumner, President, U.S.A. Poultry & Egg Export Council“The scope of the U.S. domestic support proposal would likely bring comprehensive change for most developed countries, including U.S. agriculture. There must be corresponding gains in market access, particularly changes in market access to China.”
Woods Eastland, Chairman, National Cotton Council of America“This proposal by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman is a bold step forward to ending tradedistorting subsidies, here in the U.S. and in countries around the world. Such decisive action and leadership is necessary if we are to break the deadlock that currently exists in the agricultural negotiations for the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Agenda. The Food Products Association applauds Ambassador Portman for his leadership on this issue. It is our strong hope that the European Union, Japan and other countries around the world respond positively to these proposals and engage in discussions to end existing barriers to the free international trade in agricultural products.”
Cal Dooley, President and CEO, Food Products Association"USTR's aggressive proposal is exactly what is needed to get the crucial WTO negotiations back on track. This should prompt real movement during December's Hong Kong WTO Ministerial. The Doha Round has the potential to have a deep impact on liberalizing agricultural trade, and we hope that other countries will reciprocate with meaningful market access commitments to keep the talks moving ahead."
Clay Hough, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, International Dairy Foods Association“We commend the U.S. government for its leadership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agriculture trade negotiations. The ambitious U.S. proposal regarding domestic supports and export subsidies is a necessary first step toward breaking the current stalemate in the talks. When implemented, these changes will increase the export potential for the food industry, which is a significant component of the U.S. agricultural sector. The successful conclusion of the WTO Doha Round of negotiations requires that we dismantle the existing barriers to trade in agriculture, especially in the area of market access. Going forward, we hope other governments will respond with equally ambitious proposals.”
Sarah Thorn, Senior Director, Grocery Manufacturers Association“It is an aggressive proposal that encompasses many of the Northwest Horticultural Council’s goals and objectives for the next round of WTO negotiations. We hope that this proposal will encourage other trading partners to join the U.S. and support an ambitious undertaking in Hong Kong.”
Mark Powers, Vice President, Northwest Horticultural Council“It demonstrates the Bush administration’s commitment to get the Doha round of trade talks on a fast track for completion. We enthusiastically support the tariff cutting formula suggested by the United States earlier today. If adopted, this would cut the highest tariffs imposed by our trading partners by 90% and could be of enormous benefit to California agriculture. The U.S. proposal also proposes to eliminate all export subsidies by 2010, something that we in California agriculture strongly support. It should also bring broad support from agriculture through out the world, particularly in the developing and less developed countries.”
Roger J. Baccigaluppi, Chairman and CEO, RB International“This bold U.S. offer presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-assess the purpose of public financial support to agriculture and to re-align that support with things that strengthen the future for farming and respond to taxpayers’ expectation of farmers to produce clean water, wildlife habitat, healthy foods, food security and energy independence.”
Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust
The 1830s were a period of speculative land investment for the construction of canals/railroads and cotton production. Interestingly, growing wheat fell out of favor during this period and we actually imported much of our needs during 1836. So when the harsh winter of 1836 reduced crop production, the speculative investment bubble also burst, weakening our financial ability to import wheat.
We would've been much better off having the self-sufficiency to supply our own needs.
Interesting enough I can't recall a single depression caused by crop failure. I admire your logic but have to dispute the facts behind them.
You won't find ANY economic recessions that are attributable to a single factor.
Well, it seems to have escaped you in all your self-created kefuffle about 'Marxist' rhetoric, but "free trade" is what has permitted mankind to advance from hunting and gathering.
Trade ends poverty. Always has, always will.
Figure it out - in a voluntary transaction, both parties become wealthier!
Beyond this, I cannot help you.
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.