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
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
Post a Comment