Governance and Development
Matters of public debate that affect our lives as global citizens
Trade Talks
Christian:
The media have almost completely ignored the fact that we are on the cusp of a new deal to regulate global trade. Only a few weeks ago the so-called "Doha Round" seemed stalled and dommed to fail. But now a deal appears to be emerging in Geneva that, if it were reached, would revolutionize global trade in a number of ways. For no continent is this deal more important than for Africa -- and for no continent is it more important to get this "right", not just for the sake of development but also to make sure that the people of the world who are most exposed to the effects of climate change and ensuing food shortages will actually have enough to eat.
Arguably, nothing is as harmful to stunted growth in Africa than the West's agricultural regime. The United States and the European Union are offering to reduce their agricultural subsidies by billions of dollars (which may be driven as much by altruism as it may be by mushrooming national debts in many of the largest Western countries). On the table are some of the most sacred cows, including beef, dairy, poultry, and rice subsidies while developing countries would still retain some measure of shielding their agricultural sectors from associated tariff cuts. In return, however, the West wants greater access to developing markets, especially for mass items such as automobiles. They also want developing countries to open their markets to Western services such as banking and insurance, telecommunications, and information technology.
The trouble is that some African countries already fare much better here than others. Many of the poorest countries are exempt from tariffs to begin with. Moreover, former European colonies enjoy preferential treatment on items such as bananas which, effectively, favour African countries. Yet, West African cotton producers are asking the US to cut its subsidy to American producers.
So, there's a lot on the table. The trouble is that what is good for Africa is not necessarily in the best interest of emerging powers such as India, China, and Brazil. Moreover, it is an election year in the United States, Britain is likely to have to go to the polls in the not-too-distant future, Germany is voting in just over a year's time, and Canada is probably also not too far from issuing a writ. So, the paradox here is that the undemocratic nature of this deal and these negotiations is likely key to their success: For once affected stakeholder groups end up mobilizing in the West, they stand a real chance of derailing the results of this round of trade talks. Ironically, for the well-being of our collective future, there appear to be certain decisions that are better not left to the masses.
Meghan:
Once again, the world trade organization has revealed its Western protectionist agenda. "Emerging nations", with the most at stake, are being wooed with the carrot of widened economic markets. But what of the longterm implications for African nations? More specifically, the masses being kept out of these trade negotiations? As seen in other agricultural industries, such as bananas and coffee, western demand for specific agricultural produce results in a narrowing of the crops produced in a given region. The result? cheaper food for western nations, while the populations of producing nations are subject to inflated food prices and the inability to be agriculturally self sufficient.
Even the west has experienced the negaitive impact of concentrating too heavily on one form of economic production. One has only to pass through the economic wastelands of Detroit or Windsor to see the devastation a lack of economic diversity can have on a population group. Encouraging nations, desperate for immediate economic relief, to narrow their economic focus is tantamount to forcing them to sign their own death sentance. Many nations in Africa are already one natural disaster away from complete economic collapse.
The open market has no moral compass, as evidenced by the widening gap between rich and poor countries world wide and the environmental devastation caused by capitalist endeavors. Thus, relying on trade deals to "fix" economic disparity is yet another attempt by the West to take advantage of Africa's economically disadvantaged position, strengthening their reliance on the West, ensuring cheap food for western markets and broadened markets for Western goods. And so, colonialism is rearing its ugly head, yet again...
The media have almost completely ignored the fact that we are on the cusp of a new deal to regulate global trade. Only a few weeks ago the so-called "Doha Round" seemed stalled and dommed to fail. But now a deal appears to be emerging in Geneva that, if it were reached, would revolutionize global trade in a number of ways. For no continent is this deal more important than for Africa -- and for no continent is it more important to get this "right", not just for the sake of development but also to make sure that the people of the world who are most exposed to the effects of climate change and ensuing food shortages will actually have enough to eat.
Arguably, nothing is as harmful to stunted growth in Africa than the West's agricultural regime. The United States and the European Union are offering to reduce their agricultural subsidies by billions of dollars (which may be driven as much by altruism as it may be by mushrooming national debts in many of the largest Western countries). On the table are some of the most sacred cows, including beef, dairy, poultry, and rice subsidies while developing countries would still retain some measure of shielding their agricultural sectors from associated tariff cuts. In return, however, the West wants greater access to developing markets, especially for mass items such as automobiles. They also want developing countries to open their markets to Western services such as banking and insurance, telecommunications, and information technology.
The trouble is that some African countries already fare much better here than others. Many of the poorest countries are exempt from tariffs to begin with. Moreover, former European colonies enjoy preferential treatment on items such as bananas which, effectively, favour African countries. Yet, West African cotton producers are asking the US to cut its subsidy to American producers.
So, there's a lot on the table. The trouble is that what is good for Africa is not necessarily in the best interest of emerging powers such as India, China, and Brazil. Moreover, it is an election year in the United States, Britain is likely to have to go to the polls in the not-too-distant future, Germany is voting in just over a year's time, and Canada is probably also not too far from issuing a writ. So, the paradox here is that the undemocratic nature of this deal and these negotiations is likely key to their success: For once affected stakeholder groups end up mobilizing in the West, they stand a real chance of derailing the results of this round of trade talks. Ironically, for the well-being of our collective future, there appear to be certain decisions that are better not left to the masses.
Meghan:
Once again, the world trade organization has revealed its Western protectionist agenda. "Emerging nations", with the most at stake, are being wooed with the carrot of widened economic markets. But what of the longterm implications for African nations? More specifically, the masses being kept out of these trade negotiations? As seen in other agricultural industries, such as bananas and coffee, western demand for specific agricultural produce results in a narrowing of the crops produced in a given region. The result? cheaper food for western nations, while the populations of producing nations are subject to inflated food prices and the inability to be agriculturally self sufficient.
Even the west has experienced the negaitive impact of concentrating too heavily on one form of economic production. One has only to pass through the economic wastelands of Detroit or Windsor to see the devastation a lack of economic diversity can have on a population group. Encouraging nations, desperate for immediate economic relief, to narrow their economic focus is tantamount to forcing them to sign their own death sentance. Many nations in Africa are already one natural disaster away from complete economic collapse.
The open market has no moral compass, as evidenced by the widening gap between rich and poor countries world wide and the environmental devastation caused by capitalist endeavors. Thus, relying on trade deals to "fix" economic disparity is yet another attempt by the West to take advantage of Africa's economically disadvantaged position, strengthening their reliance on the West, ensuring cheap food for western markets and broadened markets for Western goods. And so, colonialism is rearing its ugly head, yet again...
About
Meghan is a social worker, Christian a political scientist. This combination gives us different and often conflicting insights into many of the most pressing policy issues which confront us all. With your participation in our exchange, we look forward to a stimulating and informed discussion. Comment on what we write or start a new thread.
RSSAtom
1 Comment
Florence Kwasa
I think this is a good discussion, especially as the Doha Round appears to have failed us again. There is an interesting dynamic going on whereby the US and Europe seem willing to cut farm subsidies for greater access to markets in India and China, while those emerging economies now have enough clout to demand protection for their newfound manufacturing sectors (to be fair, the West had protection during industrialization too!)
Then there's Africa, who, as Christian pointed out, has nothing to lose in these talks. We need the West's (and China and India's) manufactured goods for the cheapest possible price as well as fair access for our agricultural products. If we continue to be ignored as a potential cheap breadbasket for the world, the food crisis will only deepen to the detriment of all.