Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - [Market-farming] NY Times Opinion Today

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Matt Cheselka <cheselka AT freestateproject.org>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Market-farming] NY Times Opinion Today
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:36:52 -0500 (CDT)


April 28, 2004
Those Illegal Farm Subsidies

America's lavish handouts to its farmers harvest poverty throughout the
developing world. And they are illegal as well. That's the conclusion of a
World Trade Organization panel that heard Brazil's challenge to the cotton
subsidies that belie this nation's commitment to free and fair trade.

Cotton is far from the only crop that American farmers are able to dump on
the international market at low prices thanks to federal subsidies. But it
is one of the most outrageous cases. Brazil was wise in choosing it as the
first target in the developing world's challenge of the roughly $1 billion
a day in subsidies that rich nations dole out to their farmers. If the
preliminary ruling stands, as expected, it may mean the beginning of the
end for European and American practices that provide their farmers an
unfair advantage.

In addition to Brazil, an agricultural superpower, some of the world's
poorest nations, including the West African republics of Mali, Benin and
Burkina Faso, are vindicated by the W.T.O.'s decision. Cotton is West
Africa's cash crop, the one economic activity in which the region has a
competitive advantage. By underwriting much of the costs of America's
25,000 cotton farmers with checks that can total $3 billion a year,
Washington erases that advantage. Aided by American experts who are
critics of this warped system, Brazil convincingly argued that in the
absence of subsidies, the United States would have produced and exported
substantially less cotton than it did in recent years. Consequently,
growers elsewhere would have enjoyed greater market share and higher
prices.

The glaring contradiction between American farm subsidies and the
principles underlying the global trade system has long posed a moral and
political problem for Washington. Now it is also a legal problem. Instead
of digging in its heels and spending years appealing the panel's ruling,
the Bush administration needs to seize upon it as a reason to negotiate
the surrender of rich nations' trade-distorting farm subsidies.

The administration has a mixed record on this issue. It offered proposals
to start weaning corporate farmers off their subsidies two years ago --
admittedly after approving a farm bill that exacerbated the problem. Then
it backed away in the face of strong opposition from Congress and the
European Union. That retreat not only hurt the poor nations' farmers, but
also American taxpayers, consumers and most business interests, including
more competitive farmers.

The W.T.O.'s talks on the further liberalization of trade faltered over
the subsidy issue at CancĂșn last year, but this week's ruling will vastly
strengthen the position of Brazil and others advocating the dismantling of
agricultural subsidies that distort trade. The sooner they prevail, the
better.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page