U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab made headlines this week by offering to reduce U.S. farm subsidies. The context was the so-called Doha Round of trade talks -- the WTO's latest, oft-stalled effort to grease the wheels of global trade.
Among sustainable-food advocates, there's a reflexive tendency to cheer whenever farm subsidies go on the chopping block. But as is often the case in the farm-policy debate, this progressive-looking offer is anything but.
First of all, let's look at the conditions of Schwab's offer. According to the Financial Times (via the indispensable blog Farm Policy):
[U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab] said the offer was conditional on other countries opening their markets to US farm exports and agreeing not to launch litigation against US farm payments at the WTO, as has happened repeatedly.
In other words, we'll reduce our subsidies as long as you completely open your markets to our (still-subsidized) goods. What she seems to be demanding is a license to dump industrially produced U.S. farm goods onto foreign markets.
And that's not all. According to The Wall Street Journal:
In exchange for the concessions on farm aid, the U.S. and the EU [which is also offering to trim farm support] want emerging economies to agree to steep tariff cuts on chemicals, cars and other industrial goods. The U.S. and European business communities consider access to these markets essential in a slowing global economy.
Surprise, surprise. The Bush administration is using farm-subsidy cuts as a lever to pry open markets, mainly in the global south, to U.S. goods -- including ecologically devastating products like industrially produced pork. This is precisely the situation I was describing -- so controversially -- in the farm-bill debate last fall.
Speaking of the farm bill, that tortured piece of legislation brings to mind another reason to look askance upon Schwab's offer: making it happen would require rewriting the farm bill. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
Finally, with prices for subsidized crops like corn, soy, and wheat at all-time highs -- propped up by another massive set of government subsidies and supports for biofuel -- current farm payments are coming in lower than the level being offered by Schwab.
All told, her offer is a fraud. The U.S. should slash subsidies, and use the proceeds to rebuild local and regional food systems here. And countries in the global south should exit the Doha talks, and instead focus on rebuilding regional and national agricultural and manufacturing economies.
New book looks at economic devastation in an Iowa meat-packing town
Farm lobby: Shoot the climate bill, but keep the Peterson goodies
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 7:18 am
26 Jul 2008
Proper Subsidies
I see nothing wrong with farm subsidies for small organic farms that sell raw produce locally. (I don't think these subsidies actually exist currently, but I don't know.) There would be two purposes served by those subsidies. First, it would keep the price of produce down to a reasonable level. Second, it would ensure that these farmers, who are the only ones we should be supporting, make a reasonable profit.
The problem is not subsidies per se, it's that farm subsides have been hijacked by agribusiness, which neither needs nor deserves them.
Permalink
Gritsforbreakfast Posted 12:54 am
29 Jul 2008
Don't walk away
IMO it'd be a mistake for southern nations to walk away from the table as you suggest. With the dollar sinking steadily, the US need for increased exports may well be the best leverage available to force reducing or eliminating US farm subsidies from a pure real politik perspective. It's a weird international moment when the US looks to South American exports for its salvation like some banana republic seeking cash from an economic power. It'd be a wasted opportunity if they can't use that leverage for their own benefit.
Hope you're doing well, Tom. It was great to get to see you when you were in Austin. I had dinner with Tom King recently, who sends his regards. best,
Permalink
meander Posted 4:17 am
02 Aug 2008
Forget amending the farm bill, we have a C-in-C
"Speaking of the farm bill, that tortured piece of legislation brings to mind another reason to look askance upon Schwab's offer: making it happen would require rewriting the farm bill. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?"
<snark>
Some apparatchiks in the Bush administration probably think that the president can unilaterally change farm subsidy policy. Here's how they would see it: 1) under the unitary executive theory, the commander in chief can not be limited by Congress or the judiciary on matters of national security. 2) United States soldiers, torturers and spies eat food, therefore food policy is part of the commander in chief's official duties. 3) Thus, Congress cannot interfere with the president's work on food policy.
</snark>
Permalink