Liberalising food trade to death

Shawn Hattingh

Billions of people are struggling to afford food because of the huge disparities and inequalities that have been exacerbated by the current economic system-neo-liberal globalization. Over the last 30 years, almost all states across the world have adopted neo-liberal economic policies.
   These policies have favoured giant corporations' interests over those of people and have enabled a handful of companies to gain a virtual monopoly over the human food chain. The poor, however, have suffered the consequences of neo-liberal policies: if people can't afford the prices these monopolistic companies charge, they don't get food.
   Prior to the advent of neo-liberalism in the late 1970s, most governments assisted small-scale farmers within their borders, providing them with various forms of subsidies. For example, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, various state-run entities were created to offer small-scale farmers assistance in the forms of research, cheap credit, marketing services, transport, and processing services. Many states even subsidized the seeds, compost and equipment that small-scale farmers needed. Third World states also applied high import tariffs on staple foods such as maize, potatoes, rice, beans, grain, and poultry, to protect small-and medium-sized farmers from dumping and cheap imports. A number of states also played an active role during this period in helping small-scale farmers establish cooperatives. The result was that between 1950 and 1980, small and medium-sized farmers met most of the food needs of their own countries. With the advent of neo-liberal capitalism and free trade, however, this situation was turned on its head.
   
   Neo-liberalism
   In the early 1980s, the US, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB) used the debt stranglehold that they had over many Third World countries to force them to adopt neo-liberal economic policies through Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP). This period saw most Third World governments being forced to sell off their public assets to multinational companies; allow foreign companies to move money in and out of their borders; end food subsidies; create export-processing zones; smash workers' rights; dismantle environmental laws; and implement wage freezes. Under SAP, almost all governments in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were also forced to reduce their import tariffs on agricultural goods, thereby creating new export markets for multinational companies. Linked to this, Third World states were required to dramatically reduce the subsidies that they offered to small-scale farmers, who were producing for domestic needs. Of course, the US and European countries continued to subsidize their own farmers, mostly agribusiness corporations, and also maintained high tariffs on selected agricultural products-those that their farmers were producing. The result was that by the mid-1980s small-scale farmers in the South were being forced to compete with subsidized agricultural products flooding into their countries from the US and Europe.
   Although the IMF, the US, and the WB demanded that the Third World states end any form of assistance to small-scale farmers, they encouraged the same states to continue assisting agricultural corporations and large-scale farmers that were exporters. Third World states were pushed to grow export crops that were needed or desired in Europe and the US. For instance, Kenya was instructed to focus on growing flowers for export to Europe while Brazil was told to focus on soy beans for export to the US. Thus these states-along with the IMF, the WB, and agricultural multinationals-prioritized such export crops over food for domestic consumption.
   As if the SAPs were not bad enough, almost all the states in the South became members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) when it was formed in 1995. In order to become members of the WTO, countries were required to become full signatories to the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The AoA was written by an ex-employee of one of the largest agricultural multinationals in the world, Cargill, and is highly beneficial to the US and the EU and their corporations. Specifically, the AoA stipulates that WTO members cannot impose quotas on agricultural imports, states that agricultural imports can be only controlled by tariffs,7 and requires all member states to reduce their import tariffs on agricultural goods. The idea behind this was to create more export opportunities for multinational companies, such as Cargill.
   
   Consequences of Neo-liberalism
   Up until a few years ago, free trade had led to low food prices internationally. More recently, subsidized agricultural products from the US and EU have flooded into the countries of the South. Farmers involved in producing staple foods in the South, such as maize, beans, and grains, were especially hard hit. For example, maize farmers in the US have traditionally received massive subsidies, often to the tune of US$10 billion a year, which allowed them to export their produce to countries in the South at exceptionally low prices. The outcome was that millions of small-scale maize farmers around the world have gone bankrupt. In Mexico alone, it has been estimated that as many as 5 million small-scale farmers and farm workers have been forced to leave their farms and move to the urban areas due to cheap imports flooding in from the US. As a result, millions of hectares of farm land have been abandoned in the South. Most countries in the South are no longer able to produce their own food and they have to import food from the US and the EU-which of course benefits multinational companies.
   The advent of neo-liberalism and free trade has helped a small number of multinational companies gain a virtual monopoly over global food production, distribution, and sales. Six corporations control 85 percent of the world trade in grain; three companies account for 83 percent of the trade in cocoa, and three corporations control 80 percent of the global trade in bananas. Through this monopolization, multinationals are now able to control the prices of food products.
   The performance of a number of corporations in 2007 highlights this point: last year Nestle posted a profit of $9.7 billion 12; Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recorded a profit of $3.1 billion; while Cargill raked in $2.3 billion in profits. This all took place in a world where 850 million people are suffering from chronic malnutrition because they can't afford food.
   These two companies also used Uruguay and South Africa as bases to export regionally into Mercosur and SADC (Southern African Development Community). In doing so, they gained complete dominance over these markets.
   The biggest multinational companies have also been buying massive tracts of land in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia as small-scale farmers leave their land due to neo-liberalism. These countries have been at the heart of the massive, and ever expanding, soy industry. In Brazil alone, soy plantations-mostly owned by multinationals-expanded from only 705 hectares in 1940 to 18 million hectares in 2003. Most of the soy from these plantations does not go towards meeting the food needs of the people in these countries; it is rather exported to the US and the EU as animal feed for cattle. Indeed, the reality is that there is no shortage of food. Rather, food is literally being taken away from the poor to feed cattle and wealthier consumers.
   Another factor that has been driving up food prices has been the emergence of the biofuel industry, which neo-liberal policies and policy-makers have promoted. Recently, huge maize, soy, and palm oil plantations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have shifted away from producing these products for animal feed to producing them for biofuel for the US and the EU. Even in the US it has been estimated that as much as 25 percent of maize produced in 2007 was being used to produce biofuels. Many of the maize, palm oil, and soy biofuel plantations in the South are on land that used to be owned by small-scale farmers who were producing food for local needs. Added to this, vast forest areas have been cleared in countries such as Brazil and Paraguay to raise new plantations. Essentially, the environment in the South is being destroyed and millions of people are going hungry because of the demand for biofuels in the US and the EU.
   
   Food market deregulated
   With the advent of neo-liberalism, the global food market has been completely deregulated. Before the 1980s, countries around the world controlled the price of food to ensure that it was more or less stable. To do so, countries built up massive food reserves. When prices were high, countries sold off some of their food reserves to bring prices down. When prices were low, countries bought food for their reserves in order to stabilize prices. Since the 1980s, this system has been gradually dismantled. Countries have run down their reserves and have let the price of food products float according to supply and demand in the global market.
   Internationally, the food commodity prices are determined by companies and speculators through trade. Recently, due to the sub-prime crisis, speculators and investors have shifted their money into these commodity exchange markets, seeing a chance to make massive profits out of speculating on food commodities. Sensing this, and knowing that countries' food reserves were depleted, large corporate traders started withholding supply over the last few months in the hopes of higher prices in the future, whilst playing off currency differentials. In response, investors started buying grain futures in the hope of making profits, which drove prices even higher. The consequence has been that the price of maize tripled in the last two years. Of course, corporations and speculators are profiteering from the higher prices; while people around the world stare starvation in the face.
   
   The elite's solution
   The WTO, the IMF, the WB, the US, and the EU have proposed several solutions to the current food crisis. The main solution that they have offered is further trade liberalization. Thus, they have proposed that the remaining protective barriers that countries have, in the form of tariffs, be completely dismantled. This, we are told, will drive down food prices. Such a drive for further liberalization reveals the callousness of the neo-liberal ideologues in charge of the US, the EU, and the international institutions they control. Seeking to tout further trade liberalization as a cure to the current crisis is simply malicious considering that free trade is actually the cause of the problem.
   The growth of the genetically modified (GM) sector will simply increase the already substantial power of multinational corporations at the expense of the peoples of the world.
   
   The people's solution
   In Latin America, a number of states with progressive governments, such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have tried to address the food crisis by breaking with the dictates of neo-liberalism. These countries, along with Cuba, have attempted to establish a viable regional alternative to free trade in the form of the Bolivarian Alternatives for the America's (ALBA). Through ALBA, these states have created five major agricultural projects that are producing soy beans, rice, poultry, and dairy products.
   The goal of these projects is to guarantee food security in the ALBA member states. In fact, Venezuela has used these projects to provide free or subsidized food to millions of people. It has also redistributed two million hectares of land to small-scale farmers. Linked to this, the Venezuelan state has increased its spending on agricultural production by 728 percent over the last three years. More recently, the ALBA states launched a $100-million fund for staple foods such as maize and rice to ease the impact of the recent food price hikes on the poor in these countries. To avoid private speculators, these states agreed to establish a public food distribution network and to regulate the price of food. Unfortunately, the vast majority of other states in the South, which do not have progressive governments, have largely failed to take similar steps for the benefit of their populations. In these countries, it seems that people themselves are going to have to take action on a massive scale if they are going to avoid chronic food shortages and malnutrition.
   The power of corporations to control the food chain needs to be broken, and only the people can do that. Indeed, only the people through their own actions can create a world of freedom, democracy, dignity, and equality - a world where people don't starve if they don't have money.
   - Third World Network Features

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Nasrine R. Karim

The question is being intelligent or an Intelligence Agent?
   Israel's normally secretive Mossad "spy" agency came in from the cold by launching a website aimed at recruiting staff ranging from computer security specialists to English-speaking waiters and agents for "special tasks."
   The site, which is available in both Hebrew and English, has a main page featuring a shadowy figure standing next to an Israeli flag and a link to a letter from Mossad Director Meir Dagan inviting "the best and most suitable to join us."
   The new website, which replaces a rudimentary single-page site, includes a short history of the agency, a mission statement and an online employment application form. The Hebrew side of the site has a long list of jobs available with Israel's external intelligence agency, including psychologists, teachers, translators, typists, construction engineers and security guards.
   According to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, more than 1,500 people applied for jobs on the site's first day in operation.
   One feature of the site proves Mossad is still as interested in gathering intelligence as it is in hiring new people: the "Contact Us" page invites users to submit "information that could be useful" to the agency and promises to protect the tipsters' anonymity.
   In 2000, Mossad launched a recruitment drive in the Israeli press under the slogan, "Mossad is opening up."
   Israeli security officials said that the Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency is launching a similar site.
   Mossad, whose name means "Institute" in Hebrew, built its reputation on operations such as the 1960 kidnapping of Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who was snatched in Argentina and spirited to Israel to stand trial for the murder of millions of Jews. He was convicted and hanged.
   Between October 1972 and August 1973, Mossad agents assassinated 12 Palestinians connected with the group Black September, which had killed 11 athletes at the Munich Olympics.
   Since then they have seen a string of embarrassing and well-publicized failures. In 1997, Mossad agents injected Khaled Mashaal, a leader of the militant Islamic group Hamas, with poison in Jordan. But they were caught and Israel was apparently forced to save Mashaal with an antidote and to free Hamas' founder and 20 other Arab prisoners to bring the agents back home!
   In 1998, a retired agent was indicted on charges of fabricating reports that Syria was preparing for war.
   There are rumours that Mossad trained the US Army personnel in specialized interrogation tactics in Iraq.
   Diplomatic sources in Washington tell News Max's U.N. correspondent Stew Stogel that Israeli nationals are believed to be involved in the Iraq prison controversy.
   "Israelis have been to Abu Ghraib and other prisons [in Iraq]," says one source familiar with the U.S. operations. It was explained that the Israelis involved have been assigned as "civilian contractors" to work with Coalition forces in interrogating Iraqi POWs.
   The "contractors" are said to be veterans of Israel's domestic intelligence unit, Shin Bet, as well as the more famous international intelligence agency, the Mossad.
   "Who has better experience in dealing with the Arabs than Israel?" one source asked. It was explained that several of the "interrogation" techniques used by U.S. forces in Iraq have in fact been used by Israel "for years."
   The technique of stripping Arab prisoners naked, to embarrass and humiliate them, has been used by Israelis, according to Arab diplomats at the U.N.
   Israeli operatives apparently taught these interrogation techniques to the CIA and Military Police at the Abu Ghraib prison and in fact these operatives participated directly in the torture at Abu Ghraib under cover of "private consultants". It is believed that at least three known Israeli MOSSAD agents where at Abu Ghraib directing the torture as "interrogators" in the service of Pentagon "contractors".
   The charges come after an incident in April in which an Israeli Arab working in Iraq was kidnapped and charged with spying.
   Nabil George Yaakob Razouk, an Israeli Arab employed by Research Triangle International, a North Carolina-based firm under contract to the State Department, was abducted by Iraqi insurgents and said to be a spy. Razouk, was working as a "local governance" advisor when he was seized in Najaf and held for more than two weeks.
   Only the personal intervention of late Yassir Arafat, who intervened after pleas from the Razouk family and saved him from execution, but that was long ago and Arafat is dead.
   "The re-writing of Iraqi history is now going on at supersonic speed. Weapons of mass destruction? Forget it. Links between Saddam and al-Qa'ida? Forget it. Liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's Abu Ghraib life of torture? Forget it. Wedding party slaughtered? Forget it. Clear the decks for both "full sovereignty" and "chaotic events"! This is, at any rate, according to Mr Bush. When I heard his hesitant pronunciation of Abu Ghraib as "Abu Grub", I could only profoundly agree.".... -Robert Fisk for the Independent (UK)
   Now Iran! Nobody else in the Middle East will be allowed to have any form of nuclear power except for Israel?
   A recent issue of German weekly Der spiegel carries a four-page article entitled "Plan to Attack" devoted to preparations currently underway in Israel for air strikes against Iran.
   The article begins by noting that the Israeli government has rejected economic sanctions as a means of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It states that "a broad consensus (in Israel) in favour of a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities - without the Americans, if necessary - is beginning to take shape."
   The main propagandist for a military strike against Iran is the current Israeli Transport Minister and former defence minister Shaul Mofaz, whose repeated his comments in an interview with the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. Mohfaz has been widely quoted as saying that military action against Iran is "unavoidable." He first made this remark following recent talks with senior US officials in Washington. Referring to threats made by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel, Mofaz declared menacingly that Iran "would disappear before Israel does."
   Mofaz is regarded as a "hardliner" on the issue of Iran. Illustrating the "broad consensus" that exists in Israel for a military strike against Iran, the German weekly Der Spiegel also cites the opinion of Dani Yatom, a retired major general and member of the Israeli parliament for the Labour Party. Yatom declares: "We no longer believe in the effectiveness of sanctions...A military operation is needed if the world wants to stop Iran."
   Israeli historian Benny Morris, who also favours a military solution was quoted as saying: "If the issue is whether Israel or Iran should perish, then Iran should perish."
   Der Spiegel concludes: "In truth...there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable."
   "Crime Against Peace: A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so is a crime:"
   Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
   Who is listening?

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Rich nations' poor decisions

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

G-8 first met in 1975 in France in an informal gathering of six heads of state and handful journalists. Canada joined in 1976 and Russia became a full member in 1988. Leaders have traditionally discussed a wide range of international economic, political, and security issues.
   Later the agenda has broadened considerably to include microeconomic issues such as employment and the information highway, trans-national issues such as the environment, crime and drugs, and a host of political-security issues ranging from human rights through regional security to arms control. After 9/11, security and anti-terrorism mechanism got priority.
   G-8 countries consist of US, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Germany and Russia. It was the first G-8 summit for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda. It was also the last for US President George W. Bush.
   Leaders of 14 non-G8 countries, such as, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea and seven African countries including South Africa, were also invited to the summit. It was a mega summit that was most important in recent years.
   United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also came along with the chiefs of the World Bank, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Energy Agency (IEA), African Union and European Commission.
   This year, the most pressing issues for G-8 nations are (a) the soaring price of oil, (b) the global food crisis and (c) global climate change. Furthermore, the triple threat of inflation, slowing global economy and financial sector woes continue to dampen the mood of investors worldwide.
   Against this background, when the 34th G-8 summit was convened in Toyako, in Hokkaido, Japan on 7-9th of July 2008, the developing countries watched with keen interest and raised expectations.
   
   Meeting's agenda
   It is reported that the main issues before the summit were:
   a) World economy
   b) Climate change
   c) Sustainable energy
   d) Nuclear Non-Proliferation
   
   It was the climate change that drew the most attention. Japan's Prime Minister Fakuda has made global warming a high priority for the meeting. It was pledged by G-8 that they would cut emissions of heat-trapping gases in half by 2050.
   But China, India and South Africa were not satisfied. They wanted G-8 to cut the emissions in half by 2020. And if the G-8 did that, they would cooperate. South African Minister of environmental affairs Marthinius van Schalkwyk issued a blistering statement criticising G-8's climate change declaration, calling it a concession to "the lowest common denominator".
   Although President Bush claimed success for the decision to cut in half the emission by 2050, environmentalists believed that it was too little and too late. "Never was more urgent action needed by the G-8 than this week," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of the advocacy group Oxfam. "The G-8 failed to rise to the challenge of a world in crisis."
   Environmentalists have argued for more drastic cut of emissions by G-8 which are responsible for 80 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it is reported that carbon emission per person in the US is 20.4, while in China 3.84, India 1.20 and Bangladesh 0.25.
   Statistics have showed in Africa, the portion of development assistance dedicated to agriculture has declined from 15 per cent in 1980s to 4 per cent in 2006. G-8 nations agreed to monitor their own progress to live up to a 2005 promise to double development assistance by 2010.
   Japan announced that it would release a portion of its imported rice stockpile and the FAO secured financial commitments for short term food aid and increased research and development into new seeds and the distribution of fertilizers to small farmers.
   
   Strict security
   Security started to get tight after 2001 following demonstrations at a G-8 meeting in Italy that left one protester dead and September 11, attacks in the US.
   Japan has deployed one of the heaviest security operations in the history of G-8 summit to ward off about 200 anti-globalisation protesters. The host country has mobilized about 21,000 police officers, who have locked down an entire corner of Hokkaido, an island about the size of Ireland.
   The presence of police was heavy around 20 kilometres south of Lake Toya. The protesters got as far as the edge of Lake Toya. In the distance on the lake's other side, they could see only the large white hotel where the leaders were meeting. They could yell their slogans across the wide blue waters.
   The largest demonstrations took place in Sapporo on 5th July when about 3,000 Japanese protesters marched in the centre of Sapporo, the main city of Hokkaido.
   Many observers say that G-8 rich nations took poor decisions on the issues they confronted. What ever issues they may have discussed, they believe that the core question before the G-8 summit was: How can the 1.3 billion people in the world living less than $1.85 a day be helped to become richer, healthier and better fed and educated, without simultaneously degrading the environment?
   The leaders of G-8 must realise that in a sea of poverty, there cannot be an island of affluence. G-8 nations must forget their self-interest and act together to reduce global inequality for peace and stability across the world. People around the world no longer seem ready to tolerate inequality, poverty and the destruction of the environment.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE