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".
About time someone noticed the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. Farm subsidies are socialism and wrong.
Yes, but eliminating subsidies is Marxist and also wrong.
(At least according to some people)
Again the topic is the marxist rhetoric of the "free traders".
Is food a necessity or a luxury for individuals? For a nation?
This from someone who thinks it's okay to force Americans to buy sugar from high cost American producers to reduce their poverty.
Consistency was never your strong suit, was it?
Is food a necessity or a luxury for individuals?
Depends where you shop.
You really should stop making personal comments. It damages credibility, especially since you really know nothing about the people you are commenting on.
After this exchange, I am left in the position of merely taking consolation in your tagline:
Sorel: "Nothing, [except ...] gives greater pleasure, than being misunderstood by blunderheads."
Yet you never address the fundamental issue of a global socialist organization determining who gets to trade gold based on their level of poverty.
Farmers are the biggest welfare queens in this country.
I'd like to be able to purchase something that has real sugar and real lard/butter in it for a change.
Well that was edifying.
To paraphrase one of resident trade "experts" on this very thread, "You are really unbelievable. A real conservative would know about the policies he is attacking--."
I am sure everyone on the forum would like to hear your explanation of Amber boxes. Be generous and explain.
Most people exchange their time for money and vice versa in order to reduce their own poverty and I see this as a good way of doing things. Most people also exercise their power I to make sure their government does what they want, and the more people choose to do without government help, the richer they get.
Is this something we really disagree on?
I think you should move to the EU, where they follow the protectionist economic model to their great success.
On general principle, I refuse to spend $4.00 for a tomato or $100 for a pair of sneakers.
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.