Skip to main content

The anti-subsidy line

My fourth case may seem almost arcane, but it is actually at the heart of the problem: left misconceptions which are useful to corporate imperialism.


It is in the form of extracts from a post-Cancun commentary in 2003 by a Canadian activist, Yves Engler. It was headlined: How the Left swallows the anti-subsidy line.

He wrote: "commentators, from the left and right, on the WTO ministerial meetings in Cancun seemed fixated on the harm wealthy nations' farm subsidies are doing to the world's poor. From the tone of these pundits one could be convinced that European, Japanese, Canadian or US farm subsidies were at the root of all the poor world's problems."

The Guardian, for instance, bellowed, “there is only one way to address the growing gulf between rich and poor countries: abolish agricultural subsidies.

We should ask what country has ever escaped poverty by depending on agricultural exports? Dependence on commodity production has, in fact, always been a recipe for underdevelopment.

Egyptian author, Samir Amin, has a much better explanation of how agricultural subsidies should be understood. “Let us be perfectly clear: the Americans and the Europeans, like every other country or group of countries, have the right to formulate national or collective policies. They have the right to protect their industries and their agriculture, and they have the right to institute income-redistribution measures to meet the demands of social justice.

To argue for the dismantling of the edifice supporting such rights in the name of some hypotheses of abstract liberal economic theory is another matter entirely.

“Should we, for example, demand that the industrialized nations reduce their levels of education and training, or their capacities for research and development, so as to bring them into harmony with less-developed countries on the grounds that their advantages in those domains have given them a competitive edge in world trade?

“Regretfully, the strategy for which the nations of the South have opted, which is to let the North set the rules of the liberal game, to achieve “free market” principles, makes no sense.”

While some good came of Oxam and others “on the left” railing against farm subsidies, in showing up the hypocrisy of rich countries on economic liberalism, it is disconcerting that segments of the left seem to believe that agricultural subsidies are a significant cause of world poverty. More disturbing is that some of these groups' policy prescriptions consist of reinforcing economic liberalism.

It tells us how effective neo-liberal propaganda has been. Even many progressive people can only see the world through its lens. Perhaps it's time for a new lens.

So wrote Montreal-based activist Yves Engler. But there is a broader, and in some ways more sinister geopolitical motive in making rich country farm subsidies a main issue in the global anti-poverty campaign. It is to use this as a stick to beat the EU which, with France in the lead, strongly supports farm subsidies, exercising their right, and for the reasons, which Samir Amin outlines, as a tool to protect their economies and societies.
So subsidies are the ultimate sin, against which the anti-poverty left is united. How the EU, particularly France, are dragged through the mud all the time in the British and American liberal media on this. And the liberals fall for it every time. Crusaders like George Monbiot, and many others, use this stick constantly, perhaps ingenuously – let us hope not disingenuously – because it is an easy issue to unite third world nations against all developed nations. In all EU, G8 and other forums, Blair pumps the issue, to round on the French.
On this, as on several other issues and events I have outlined here, it is indeed time for a new lens. A lens which can be used with more caution, but giving more clarity and a sharper focus, for firmer coordinated action.

Tony Hall

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-...

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su...

I pushed the red button

 Be against forced marriage not immigrants.   Human sacrifice, forced marriage and clitorectomy; unacceptable in Surbiton. If an Aztec, an Ancient Roman or a member of the Golden Horde was transported in time to Britain circa 2011-2, he might want to continue practicing his beliefs, however, and rightly so, there would be limits.  It might be a little difficult for him at first, but it would be easier for his children. Fights to the death, human sacrifice, pillage, murder, clitorectomies, forced marriages and explosive martyrdom are definitely 'no nos' in the UK. Early this year I had an 17 year old student who confided in me that her mother and father wanted her to marry her cousin, her mother's brother. The girl didn't want to, whereupon the mother took away her phone and computer. She told me that she was afraid she might get up one day and be told she would be on a flight out to Sri Lanka - suffering extraordinary rendition. On the walls of the college...