|
Get out of the WTO to make headway towards food sovereignty ! After nine days of discussion the negotiations on liberalising world trade finally came to an end on Tuesday the 29th of July without any agreement having been reached. The breakdown of the talks should pave the way for some further thinking on the specificity of agricultural policy. So that people will have enough to eat and the health of the planet may be improved.
Some trade negotiators were surprised, when DirectorGeneral Pascal Lamy announced the end of the talks. They thought they were about to conclude an agreement! “Never ever have we been so close, only to then see the pieces fall apart” the European Trade Commissioner Marian Fischer Boel declared at a press conference. No external observer “could have imagined that we were unable to come to an agreement, after the progress that had been made” said Mr Celso Amorim, Foreign Affairs Minister of Brazil. Some members believed that they were so near a conclusion, that their delegations declared themselves willing to pursue consultations into the night of Tuesday, said Mr Lamy. But that would have been misjudging the issues at stake. That would have meant forgetting the current food crisis. Forgetting that the present liberalisation of trade in farm and food products has already caused vast damage among the 600 million peasants, who can no longer make a livelihood from selling their products, and among the many hundreds of millions of poor city dwellers, who can no longer afford to buy enough food, because prices have gone up too far! By insisting on the application of a Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for simple, quick and efficient taxation, when necessary, of cheap farm imports that could ruin its farmers, India used the Food Sovereignty card to send out a strong political signal. Thus, contrary to suggestions by some commentators, the talks did not break down on the issue of the special safeguard mechanism, but instead on one of the major demands of some states and a number of farmers’ organisations: “any agreement on trade in farm products must include the recognition of the rights of people to determine their own national policy in food and agriculture.” We must recall that although farm products represent only 8% of world trade, agriculture is still the main source of income for some 2.5 billion people, who mainly live in the developing countries. Nevertheless, farmers in poor countries are unable to compete with the subsidised exports from the E.U., the U.S. and Japan, and even exports from emerging economies! In view of this state of play, the right to introduce a Special Safeguard Mechanism appears to be the priority of priorities. India has been the strongest voice in favour of such a mechanism. And the United States have been its most violent opponent. The United States have the habit of such behaviour. They do not sign international agreements unless they find an advantage for themselves, without bothering too much about the rest of the planet. Suffice it to mention the Kyoto protocol, which was up for ratification as of Marcdh 16th 1998 and which entered into force in February 2005. So far it has been ratified by 172 countries, with the notable exception of the U.S. Nevertheless, in March 2002 the same U.S. had no hesitation in applying – contrary to WTO rules – a special safeguard mechanism to protect its steel industry. They do not need the one just negotiated by India at the WTO, they rule by “the survival of the fittest/strongest” axiom. In the light of the deadlock in the negotiations, why not decide to remove food and agriculture from the province of the WTO? It must be said again and again: food and farm products cannot be seen as negotiable merchandise. They require local policies, solidarity and supply management. Why not negotiate a Food and Farm Protocol within the framework of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations)? Within a renewed FAO where farmers would be represented in their own right through their large organisations. Food is not just a mere negotiable item, it belongs to the realm of fundamental rights. The breakdown of the Geneva negotiations ought to lead to a recognition of this fact and the appropriate conclusions should be drawn. Koudougou, August 2nd, 2008 Maurice Oudet Director, SEDELAN |
