"I'll drop farming subsidies if EU does the same" - Bush

Cojofl

President issues challenge to leaders with claim that opening markets to Africa would reduce the need for aid http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1679916,00.html

As much i disagree with Bush on pretty much everything, he has really made a positive move towards trying to alleviate poverty in Africa with this.

With is ****ing awful about this is that Europe won't play ball. Blair might agree to it but the French won't as they see the EU as a project designed to fund French farming.

Also why wasn't this leading the news? Why the focus on anarchists and nothing happening with regard to climate change? Was Live 8 not 2 days ago? Are our attention spans that short? Or are we just a spineless society with no will for change who just enjoy a nice free concert?

This whole situation ****ing depresses me.

Einstein

The only reason he said that was because he knows the EU leaders won't do it. But he can still turn around and say "Hey I tried!"

Sand

The only reason he said that was because he knows the EU leaders won't do it. But he can still turn around and say "Hey I tried!"

You beat me to it.

Also why wasn't this leading the news? Why the focus on anarchists and nothing happening with regard to climate change? Was Live 8 not 2 days ago? Are our attention spans that short? Or are we just a spineless society with no will for change who just enjoy a nice free concert?

Bush might get some positive press out of it. Look at the other thread where Bush simply repeats his position on Kyoto - why is *that* news? And lets face it, any message that threatens CAP isnt all that popular.

Cojofl

If world leaders really want to help the 3rd world, the CAP and similar policies in America cannot continue as they now do. If there is no will to change these, why were people getting so worked up at the weekend.

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by Cojofl
"I'll drop farming subsidies if EU does the same" - Bush

Yeah and i'll eat my hat if bush does anything good, that dosen't directly benefit a multi-national corporation.

Regards netwhizkid

gurramok

There lies the problem if African farmers are to be helped. G8 won't change CAP as a significant voice in political circles have it enshrined in stone to protect their farmers.
Its a pity the media did not highlight this and inform the protestors. It took Bush above all people to do it.

I congratulate Bush(for once) for highlighting the hypocrisy of the Euro leaders.

claidheamh

Bush will not drop subsidies to farmers in the US, nor does he have the dictatorial power to do such. (I'm sure he salivates at the idea of being proclaimed supreme poobah of the known universe, but it hasn't happened yet.)

Why does King George not have the power?

He's tried doing just that, to aid the funding of his conquests:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7480723/

But even better, is the fact he has spewed this lie before:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=22&art_id=vn20030711113803930C146211&set_id=1

IMO, Bush would never, ever do something solely humanitarian without an alterior motive.

Cutting farm subsidies would help him gain some much needed scratch for new military toys. Also, did you notice the push for GM crops in Africa? I don't eat the GM crap being grown here, and I hope that you would do the same.

It's not just a, "If you stop your subsidies, I'll stop ours." It's more like, "If you stop your subsidies, and agree to X, Y, and Z we'll drop our subsidies."

We need to ask ourselves:
"How will dropping subsidies in Europe help US business?"
"How will dropping subsidies impact trade in Europe?"

Pinochet

africa is a european prolbem. y'all messed it us, so y'all fix it!

Sand

We need to ask ourselves:
"How will dropping subsidies in Europe help US business?"
"How will dropping subsidies impact trade in Europe?"

From a purely selfish interest as a European politician dropping CAP makes no sense whatsoever. But only from that interested perspective.

From *my* point of view, Ill get food for cheaper. But Im just an ordinary European without a well funded, vocal lobby group. I guess Im not all that important compared to the Euro agricultural lobby, let alone the interests of African farmers.

Why does King George not have the power?

I dunno, I was previously told the US was a police state with El Presidente Bush as dictator for life. You'll have to sort out the inconsistencies in your position for yourself without my assistance. Call me.

[Edit]Oh yeah - Pinochet, its leitrim, not leitrum. I know only about 30,000 people give a feck but Itd annoy me to see you get something so easily verifiable so obviously wrong[/Edit]

rsynnott

claidheamh wrote:

IMO, Bush would never, ever do something solely humanitarian without an alterior motive.

In fairness, neither would just about any other politician. You don't become president by being nice, or fair, or wanting to help people.

claidheamh

rsynnott wrote:

In fairness, neither would just about any other politician. You don't become president by being nice, or fair, or wanting to help people.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

Sand wrote:

From *my* point of view, Ill get food for cheaper. But Im just an ordinary European without a well funded, vocal lobby group. I guess Im not all that important compared to the Euro agricultural lobby, let alone the interests of African farmers.

Would you want to eat the (cheaper) genetically modified foods that would be produced as a result?

Bacillus thuringiensis toxins reportedly toxic to mammals: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is used both as an insecticidal spray and as a source of toxin genes for incorporation into GM crops. The spray is used extensively in organic agriculture and in that capacity it is safe so long as the food products are washed to remove the bacterium and its spores. The GM crops have toxin in each and every cell and cannot be cleaned to remove the toxin.

Source


Also, these GM crops have started reproducing with other types of GM crops and produced F1,F2 generation plants which have all kinds of unwanted resistances. The solution, per Monsanto-Spray these plants with another pesticide. Cool huh? So now, not only are folks eating GM crops, they're eating crops that STILL have pesticides sprayed unto them...The SAME pesticides that were going to become "history" with GM crops.

Source 2

PHB

africa is a european prolbem. y'all messed it us, so y'all fix it!

Fine by us, but you get the middle east

claidheamh

PHB wrote:

Fine by us, but you get the middle east

Iraq is about saving face, and to ultimately show the world the US was, "right and just." If the US would/could backout and pay due recompense, I'm sure the Iraqi people could rebuild without the "help."

But this is niether here nor there, with regard to the topic at hand; Furthermore, this tragedy is dwarfed by Africa's plight.

It is sickening to think of the good which might have occured if we(US), could have sent to Afrika, the manpower/money used in Iraq. I wonder how many M-16's it takes to make one plow?

Fish farming in the desert

IDRC

Aidan1

I wonder how many M-16's it takes to make one plow?

Well, given that an M-16 costs approximately 500 euros to a governmental customer (and many states get arms for 'free' from the US under FMP programmes), and a standard 4 board reversible plough costs in the region of 17-23,000 euros, not many.

The CAP has been substantially changed in recent years, and will be again. Figure 2013 as its eventual demise as a serious player on the world markets.

Much more interesting is the proposition that simply ending CAP and opening up free trade will be of almost universal benefit to African countries. More than anything, it shows how short a memory people have. I agree that it should be done, but it should be done slowly. The consequences of a sudden transition to a free market in agricultural commodities would be very damaging; pretty soon you'd have all of these NGOs wailing about how Western Govts should be protecting poor African farmers from the ingress of Eviiiil western capital and multi nationals.

DadaKopf

pretty soon you'd have all of these NGOs wailing about how Western Govts should be protecting poor African farmers from the ingress of Eviiiil western capital and multi nationals

The development lobby is aware of this and that's why they're saying the EU needs to provide both full market access and assistance to African countries' capacity to boost produce and trade while at the same time allowing them to protect their economies until they're strong enough to compete in the world market.

I agree that it should be done, but it should be done slowly.

It should be done carefully. It's also fair to expect European farmers to be treated with as much care as African farmers. A social disaster is a social disaster. We all should understand, though, that Europe can easily absorb any comprehensive concessions made to the LDCs so as to be nearly negligable. There's no domestic reason to continue treating the LDCs like crap.

Aidan1

while at the same time allowing them to protect their economies until they're strong enough to compete in the world market

This raises a whole host of questions and problems. There are a number of models of agrarian change, none of which lend themselves to an African comparison without serious issues surrounding social reform, political control, environmental damage and the operation of multinationals.

The first of these is whether or not it is possible to become competitive without massive social and economic reform of rural societies. This means a transition to a commercial agriculture, complete with its technological treadmill and ingress of international capital, involving greater use of externally produced inputs and all of this in countries subject to environmental extremes. The cessation of some (or all) local food production for the sake of 'cash crops' is not something to be universally welcomed. Particularly when environmental damage can destroy arable land in a year ot two in some areas. The big farmers can move on, those who previously depended on that land for food to live on, can't.

Similarly, a programme (or process) of reform of this type would result in large scale structural changes in agriculture, involving, by default a reduction in the numbers of people on the land. This was all very well and good in an 18th, 19th and 20th Century Europe, where most people had the option of migrating to cities (or other countries), but most African countries don't have that opportunity, at least not without massive social cost.

The trend in Zimbabwe is the opposite for example, with disenfranschisement of (white) farmers an ongoing problem, with support from the Zanu-PF.

Governments in Africa would have very serious problems in containing and dealing with the social problems resulting from a commercial agriculture. Particularly when international markets are subject to fluctuations and the economic value of a countries output varies widely. Similarly, the 'democratic deficit' in many countries would also mean that it would be easier for companies to 'sway' countries leaderships towards large scale commercial operations. There are plenty of examples from other sectors. Look at Heinz's tuna operations in Ghana, for example. What is the value added for Ghana from that?

Basically, if this is going to be done (and it should, despite all the potential problems), it needs very careful consideration from bodies like the WTO and GATT, and probably the FAO, despite their many problems.

DadaKopf

I agree - there's no silver bullet. But don't you think it should be up to the developing countries to make their own decisions about these trade-offs instead of continuing to let a few rich countries decide that for them?

But you seem to assume that Africa shouldn't change because development will bring with it new problems. Of course it will. But Africa must find ways to sustainably reduce poverty. And I don't quite understand your point that Europe had "the option" to move to cities to work while Africans somehoe don't, or shouldn't?

Basically, if this is going to be done (and it should, despite all the potential problems), it needs very careful consideration from bodies like the WTO and GATT, and probably the FAO, despite their many problems.

For the WTO to be able to consider anything carefully, it'll have to be democratised first.

Aidan1

But don't you think it should be up to the developing countries to make their own decisions about these trade-offs instead of continuing to let a few rich countries decide that for them?

Absolutely. Its just that if we're supposed to change our agricultural policies to benefit someone else, then surely it makes sense to modulate that change to maximise the benefit. Or reduce the negative effect.

Also, if it all goes wrong, then the 'west' will be expected to help. Both of those reasons means that 'rich' countries have an obligation to be involved in the decision making process.

And I don't quite understand your point that Europe had "the option" to move to cities to work while Africans somehoe don't, or shouldn't?

Euopeans had the 'option' to move because of growing urban areas on the back of industrialisation, itself consequent on demand. There is no such industrialisation, or demand for it in Africa. The result would be an expansion of shanty towns and shifting that poverty to urban areas, and worsening it in the process. The South American experience alone backs that up. There are some parallels with the Irish situation also.

For the WTO to be able to consider anything carefully, it'll have to be democratised first.

You mean democratised like the UN? Somethings are better left as they are, international democracy is a paradox.