|
Free Trade and Agriculture
Policies
By: Doyle Canning-Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology
Project www.biodev.org/ / wto@biodev.org
From June 23-25th 2003 the Ministers of Trade, Agriculture and Environment
from 180 nations, including all member states of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), will meet in Sacramento California at a summit hosted by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), USAID, and the US State Department.
An "Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology" will run concurrently
with the Ministerial to host multinational agribusiness and biotechnology
corporations. This summit, hosted by Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman,
will attract thousands of media outlets from around the world, and will be
an important stepping-stone for enshrining the primacy of US interests at
the September negotiations of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in Cancun,
Mexico.
This summit gives social and environmental justice movements in North America
a unique opportunity to converge, act in solidarity with movements around
the world, and to highlight some of the most pressing issues of our time:
the threat of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to ecosystems and human
health; the ever widening gap between the very rich and very poor; the increasing
use of trade agreements to subvert democratic process; and the unchecked
power of multinational corporations to lay claim to our food, our farms,
and our future.
The Sacramento Ministerial is a strategic moment for social movements concerned
with stopping further trade liberalization, the implementation of new trade
agreements inside the WTO, and the implementation of a new round of trade
agreements including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and Central
American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Sacramento Ministerial is a key
preparation time for both the September WTO Ministerial in Cancun and the
Summit of the Americas scheduled for Miami in November. The Sacramento Ministerial
presents itself as a rare opportunity to for activists to confront a policy-making
session, which will have enormous repercussions on all trade agreements.
Without direct opposition, trade policy will continue on its present course-pitted
for US corporate interests and against small farmers, ecosystems, and food
security in the South--through the Cancun meeting and into Miami.
The Agreement on Agriculture
Agriculture could well be the WTO's Achilles' Heel. A failure to reach agreement
on agriculture before the deadline of March 31 could unravel negotiations
in other areas like industrial tariffs, the new issues, services, and TRIPs,
leading to WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi's great fear: lack
of any movement toward consensus prior to the Fifth Ministerial in Cancun,
Mexico, in mid-September. A heavily bracketed text showing lack of agreement
on so many points, WTO bureaucrats know only too well, helped precipitate
the Seattle debacle (Bello, 2003).
By all accounts, it is amply clear that agricultural trade liberalization
(together with trade liberalization and privatization measures implemented
under Structural Adjustment Programs) has indeed harmed small farmers and
impoverished
the poor further, making them more food insecure. Small and subsistence
farmers in developing countries have suffered loss of income and increased
bankruptcies, displacement and loss of land and heavy job losses in agriculture.
The greater emphasis on growing export cash crops in preference to food
crops
and the new trade regime has also eroded the food supplies of low-income
families in many countries, and families are now reported to be 'eating fewer
meals' every day (PANAP, 2002, pp. 9-10). Since its inception at the Uruguay
Round, the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) has been a disaster for rural communities
and food security the world over.
Because of contentions around subsidies, GMOs, and liberalization's impact
on trade in agriculture, the AoA is understood by many analysts as the most
volatile element of the current WTO negotiations. The internal discord at
the WTO over US and EU subsidies in agriculture, as well as the inharmonious
regulations of GMOs, could be the lynchpin to derailing the entire WTO process.
USTR Zoelleck has called the EU ban on GMOs "immoral" and Veneman
recently proclaimed that "our (USDA's) patience is just running out" (Becker,
2003). But recently an anonymous senior White House official explained that, "There
is no point in testing Europeans on food while they are being tested on Iraq" (Becker,
2003).
There is inconsistency in the White House about when the most strategic time
to launch the suit is--not about why. Seen by US corporations as "unfair
barriers to trade" under WTO rules, the US plans on taking the EU to
the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO. Sacramento is essentially a stage to
showcase and force the "benefits" of GMOs to Southern nations,
show up the EU and condemn its precautionary stance on GMOs, and be leveraged
as an instrument for the US to assert its dominance and push for a GMO future
in agriculture, aquaculture and forestry.
USAID: Foreign Policy, Trade, and GMOs Primarily financed by USAID
Food aid is becoming the biggest market mechanism for GM foods from the US
that have been rejected elsewhere. The undue pressure to import GM corn is
not just promoting the dumping of hazardous products that cannot be sold
through free markets, the fact that this corn could be contaminated with
the Bt Starlink corn amounts to feeding our children and nursing mothers
a toxic cattle feed. National Alliance of Women for Food Rights (India) March
7, 2003 USAID, also a co-sponsor of this event, was in the international
spotlight last summer for its aggressive use of "food aid" to southern
African nations to push GMOs. With the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development as a backdrop, this tool of US agribusiness insisted on dumping
whole corn kernels on the famine stricken nations of Zambia, Zimbabwe, and
Malawi--nations that were forced to chose between GMO foods that were unfit
for human consumption, and starvation. They were also being forced to open
their markets to GMOs by default, as once these whole kernels hit the ground,
they could cross-pollinate and pollute non-GM varieties, as has happened
in Oaxaca, Mexico.
USAID, under the guidance of the Bush Administration, also recently launched
a new regime of aid and development policy under the rubric of the Millennium
Challenge Account. The new policy, "Foreign Aid in the National Interest:
Promoting Freedom, Security and Opportunity," was unveiled at the Heritage
Foundation in January. This is the "third major foreign aid policy statement
since the second world war" (USAID, 2003, p. 1)--the third major policy
change since the historic meetings at Bretton Woods at the end of WWII.
[Paraphrasing from the text] The plan works in concert with the IMF and World
Bank to outline a policy of granting aid based on compliance with free market
reforms. Levels of foreign assistance must be more clearly tied to development
performance and to demonstrations of political will for reform and good governance.
When leaders demonstrate willingness to undertake and follow through
on difficult political and economic reforms, they should receive steady
increases
in aid from the United States and other donors (and) be rewarded in other
tangible ways: with debt relief, with incentives for foreign investment,
and with trade liberalization-such as the bilateral free trade agreement
recently granted to. The United States should use its voice, vote,
and full influence within the World Bank and other multilateral development
banks to terminate development assistance to bad governments. The
principles of U.S. foreign policy should extend into international development-meaning
that international financial institutions should stop financing grossly corrupt
(regimes). The United States must work closer with other bilateral
donors to coordinate pressure on bad, recalcitrant governments (USAID, 2003,
pp. 10-11).
USAID is yet another vehicle for US and corporate interests to further tighten
the noose on Southern nations who would think of straying away from colonial
relations with the North, hesitate to privatize, or embrace land reform or
strong labor and environmental laws. "With private assistance predominating,
U.S. official assistance will have to develop stronger partner-ships with
the full array of private sources" (USAID, 2003, p.2).
The Healthy Forests Initiative
As debt and hunger continue in the South, structural adjustment and roll
backs at home are accelerating under the Bush Administration, the future
for our nation's remaining national forests is under siege. Agriculture Secretary
Veneman recently hosted a press conference with Gale Norton and President
Bush on the so-called "healthy forests initiative," a policy that
environmentalists warn is similar to the 1995 logging-without-laws Salvage
Rider, which suspended environmental laws and banned pubic participation
to allow commercial logging for 'forest health' reasons. However, what we
witnessed under the Salvage Rider was ancient old-growth forests and roadless
areas falling to the chainsaw...In fact, enough trees were cut from our national
forests during the Salvage Rider to fill 800,000 log trucks lined up for
over 6,800 miles. Unfortunately, if the Bush Administration gets their way,
our public forests will suffer the same consequences, only this time under
the guise of 'fuel-reduction' (Koehler, 2002).
The Threat of New GMOs: BioPharms, Wheat, Fish, Trees
Secretary Veneman is a former lawyer for Monsanto, and a key player in the
battles over introduction of new GMOs--like GMO wheat, fish, and trees. GMO
canola has destroyed the organic and non-GM canola farmers of the Canadian
Prairie. Canola, like wheat, has many close wild cousins, and now wild plants
have become Round-up resistant "super weeds." Wheat farmers in
the Midwest of north America are fighting tooth and nail to stop the commercialization
of GMO wheat--as it will cross pollinate with thousands of native grasses,
as well as other food grains like barely and oats.
And then there is the push for a boom in so-called BioPharming--the insertion
of genetic drug genes into farm crops like corn. The biotech industry says
it will save the family farm, but this very technology poses massive risks
to the human food supply (the ProdiGene scandal of late 2002 where pharmacrops
were harvested from the field along with human food, is a case in point.)
The stakes for farmers, and for our ecosystems, have never been higher. Field
trials of Genetically Engineered Trees are in hundreds of locations in the
United States, and the industry is developing trees that are "Round-up
Ready" or have reduced lignin content (the trait that makes trees strong
and stiff). While GMO corn pollen can travel by winds or direct seed movement
for a few miles, the pollen of trees travels hundreds of miles. And as if
that weren't enough, the Bush Administration is seeking approval for the
commercialization of GE fish--salmon with super growth hormones. Commercialization
of GE insects and mammals isn't far behind.
The State Department, USAID, USDA
The trio sponsoring this biotech bash in California is also actors in the
so-called War on Terror. As Colin Powell brandishes teaspoons of make-believe
anthrax at the United Nations, USAID's new policy proclaims that the axis-of-good
will be rewarded with bilateral trade agreements, and those governments that
stray from free market reforms will have US aid cut off. The USDA integrated
into the Department of Homeland Security, and Veneman proclaimed her support
for the DHS by calling it "bold and visionary∑.the new Department
of Homeland Security will enhance the already strong protections we have
in place throughout the federal government. It will also ensure a stronger
line of defense against potential threats to agriculture and our homeland" (USDA,
2002). The food safety budget of the USDA has increased $42 million dollars,
although this is not an appropriation to adequately test GMO foods! USDA
has initiated 47 criminal investigations related to counter terrorism and
homeland security activities (USDA, 2002).
WTO: The Road to Cancun
Who, then, are the beneficiaries of the new trade regime? Those who
hold large resources of land and capital, (including water for agriculture),
control supplies of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides,
and manipulate food supplies and prices in the international market. These
are mainly Transnational Corporations (PANAP, 2002, p. 12). The WTO meeting
in Cancun is a very important target for movements who are fighting for a
democratic future. Cancun will see the negotiation of agreements on services
(water, health care, and education); agriculture, intellectual property,
and the gamut of liberalization that puts corporate profit before all else.
While the discord over the war in Iraq steals the headlines, the trade war
over GM, agriculture, and market access between the EU and the US is brewing
and will unfold in Sacramento and Cancun.
And then there's the looming FTAA, and the fast track to CAFTA, where the
Bush Administration will press for broad liberalization in market access
for goods and services, including e-commerce; the elimination of non-tariff
barriers; science-based food inspection systems; strong protections for intellectual
property and for investors; increased transparency in government regulation
and procurement; strengthened capacity to protect workers and the environment;
and meaningful dispute settlement mechanisms (USTR, 2003).
Sacramento gives us an opportunity that we can't afford not to embrace. It
is a moment to claim political space and to tell the world that the hungry
must have food, that we will build democracy and economic justice, and we
will reclaim an ecological future. It is a moment to indict neo-liberalism
and to struggle for humanity. It is a moment we cannot ignore.
No GMOs! No more hunger! Real Security is Food Security! No WTO!
Sources:
Official Site: http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/stconf/conf_main.htm
Corporate
Exhibitor Site: http://www.exhibitpro.com/ministerial/
USDA press release
on Sacramento: http://www.biodev.org/archives/000027.php
Works Cited:
AgAnswers (March 4, 2003)"HORSEWEED HIGHTAILING IT FROM HERBICIDE CONTROL" http:www.aganswers.net
Becker, E. (Feb 5, 2003) "U.S. Delays Suing Europe Over Ban on Modified
Food" The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/international/europe/05TRAD.html
Koehler, M (2002) Native Forest Network Statements Regarding President Bush's "Healthy
Forest Initiative" http://www.nativeforest.org/press_room/release_8_22_02.htm
Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (2002) Empty Promises: Empty Stomachs:
Impact of the Agreement on Agriculture and Trade Liberalization on Food Security.
PANAP: Penang, Malaysia.
US Embassy India (20 December 2002) Senators Urge WTO Dispute Case Against
EU Biotech Policy, http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_12/alia/a2122004.htm
USDA (2002) Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman Regarding the Creation of
a Department of Homeland Security www.usda.gov/biosecurity. Release No. 0006.02
USDA press release on Sacramento: http://www.biodev.org/archives/000027.php
USTR (January 8, 2003) United States and Central American Nations Launch
Free Trade Negotiations" http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2003/01/03-01.htm
|
