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".
Without representative governments, the world's poor are always going to be the world's poor. The call by the WB for "richer" countries to stop subsidizing their own growers is nothing but an attempt to lower those countries standards and bring them down to the level of the poorer countries, not bring up the poorer countries.
As head of the WB, Wolfowitz has a goal; the best interests of the United States isn't it.
Never forget: neocons are liberals.
And Wolfowitz's plan to precipitate food shortages also reflects his belief that the global population must be reduced.
He is a very evil man.
If we gut and cut subsidies over false reasoning, there is no reason we actually have to listen to Wolfowitz on anything else.
He serves a purpose for a misguided reason that can be ammunition to cut government spending.
Wolfowitz is an idiot, but in this case, he can at least be a tool.
They're not my friends and not my kin. They need to look after themselves.
Duh. Who is arguing to the contrary? Wolfowitz is advocating that such an approach be adopted, not claiming that the WTO has the ability to require it. That's the power of persuasion and logic, not force.
Wolfowitz is dead-right with this, and it is in our own national interest. We save money by not subsidizing agriculture, open up markets for products we can produce more efficiently than the Third World, and save huge amounts on foreign aid and debt relief by letting the Third World develop in a free market. We are better off here if Africa prospers in a free market.
The subsidies are part of the problem, but the real crime is paying farmers NOT to grow things.
(Which they do anyway, and never get caught.)
Wolfowitz can say whatever he wants, if he says that all the extinct animals of the world will appear out of his rear end if we cut taxes, then so be it.
If he argued that shrinking government will bring about the socialist revolution, then so be it.
The fact that he is a jackass isn't the point, just because he wants to cut subsidies for a dumb reason, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for good reasons and it also doesn't mean we can't take advantage of Wolfowitz poor thinking if it benefits us.
I don't like Wolfowitz logic or reasoning, and would (will) just as soon as disregard them, as soon as we gut and cut spending subsidies, use him as a tool to get what we want, then throw him away.
There is nothing that says we have to follow through on what he wants, get what we want (cutting spending) then ignore the rest.
Let me get this straight, it is not marxist for the government to control food output by use of farm subsidies.
But it is marxist to have markets open to world free trade and to let the market set the price?
Are you using the Alinsky Method?
Is food too expensive?
Some corporations is moving candy factories out of the USA do to the higher price of sugar.
(He just wants to subsidize the "global poor". )
That's not what he's saying. In fact, it's the opposite of what he's saying. He's basically pooh poohing the EU's generosity and forgiveness of third world debt and telling them that it means nothing compared to letting the third world compete on a level playing field. Domestic subsidies act as a trade barrier regardless of how one looks at them.
The bottom line is that the third world is struggling to feed itself and stop depending on welfare from rich countries (through donations, forgiveness of debt, etc). The only comparative advantage they have is their low cost of labor in unskilled or low-skilled industries, agriculture being one of them. The first world is sabotaging their only comparative advantage by throwing billions at domestic farmers.
The bottom line, I'd rather have a welfare recipient become independent rather than continue to send him welfare checks. Let's hope we conservatives allow the third world to become self-reliant, in the face of France's hypocricy.
By the way, for those who worry about the quality of third world agricultural products, I am here to tell you that you haven't lived till you have eaten some non-first world fruits. They are more delicious than the best desert, so much so that it will be tough to get back to eating georgeous-looking American fruits that taste like nothing. As a proud American I was horrified when I realized that.
The topic is the marxist rhetoric of "free trade". Do you care to discuss that?
As soon as you understand that capitalism, wherein the workers can vie for control of the means of production by purchasing shares of stock, is also a form of marxism, you'll have this thing licked.
= )
Not all the food industry is provided with farm subsidies, Pork for an example isn't covered I think. We are exporting more pork than ever before.
On the other hand our world share of soybeans has dropped but I think it is subsidied.
You've broken the hedgetrimmer code. She has also said it's unfair for us to buy cheap, subsidized, Brazilian sugar because we're exploiting Brazilian taxpayers. But I guess it's okay for us to buy expensive subsidized US sugar because that only exploits American taxpayers.
You can't look for logic from hedgetrimmer, you'll never find it.
Since the topic is the marxist rhetoric of "free trade", I knew you'd pitch in with a personal slur and an off topic comment.
And then they can start their own farm subsidies.
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.