Hi Chris, Let me extract for tidiness:
At 01:46 01/12/01 +0100, you wrote: (KH) >> The US, EC and Japan have enormous tariffs against food >> imports from developing countries when these are about the only goods they >> can offer at the present time. (CR) >Isn't it perverse that the developing countries --where hunger is common-- >should export *food* to the overfed developed countries ? Btw, this insanity >is already going on -- e.g. the EU is importing annually about 30 million >tons (66,000,000,000 pounds) of animal feed from developing countries ! >According to a German nutrition professor, this amount could nourish >360 million people in the developing countries where this food is actually >grown, and where millions are starving. Instead, it feeds EU cattle >(which then gets burned for BSE or FMD, or has to be dumped as surplus, >or ends up increasing cardiovascular diseases in overfed Europeans). >This is yet another example of the perverse insanity of "Free" Trade, >which will only get worse with WTO's "progress". EU's tariffs (30% vis-a-vis the third world cf 7% vis-a-vis the developed world) are not free trade! This, plus US and Japan's tariffs, is the biggest problem that WTO have been trying to solve. Animal feedstuffs are largely exempted from tariffs I believe and a great deal of it is "factory-farmed" fish (anchovy) which would never get to the ordinary third-worlder for price reasons. If the third world could export food ready for the table at prices that European consumers normally pay then developing countries would benefit enormously and would be well on their way to economic development. (KH) >> The WTO is a good example of the checks and balances I mentioned in my last >> message. Although it is a "democratic" organisation in that its rules have >> to be established by all its member governments (every government however >> small has a veto) (CR) >It's good that Keith puts "democratic" between ""s, but I'm afraid the WTO >doesn't deserve this label even if put between ""s. After all, "one country >one vote" (as opposed to "one person one vote") isn't democratic, especially >when the single vote for a country doesn't even represent public majority >in that country -- neither for the decisions in WTO, nor even for the >country's joining of the WTO in the first place. The WTO now has over 140 member governments with, necessarily, a relatively small number of negotiators from each (some third world countries can hardly afford to send them to meetings). Of course these teams can't faithfully reflect the needs of all their constituents and many of these negotiators will have secret agendas on behalf of corporations. But, by and large, the WTO *has* been reducing tariffs, world trade *has* been expanding and even third world countries' populations *have* been benefiting. Not by much, it's true -- but they'd be in much worse state left to themselves without tariff relaxations. (KH) >> The WTO is a highly imperfect organisation but its aims are worthy ones. If >> critics (such as Prof John McMurtry) can think of a better method of >> increasing prosperity all round, particularly for the poorer countries, >> then they ought to put forward constructive and detailed proposals instead >> of writing diatribes. (CR) >How about this better method: Create more equality *within* the countries. >And yes, this applies particularly to the poorer countries, where inequality >is even bigger than in most developed countries ! Their wealthy elites >of course agree to the WTO because they know that they themselves will >benefit -- at the cost of the poor/starving majority of their countries. But of course!!! I totally agree with your first two sentences. But how do you go about it other than extend free trade to them -- by no means a perfect method but the best that's available? Come on -- let's have some proposals. . . . snip> (KH) >> In his article, Prof John McMurtry, all too easily uses terms like >> "hierarchy" in the context of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. But there are >> far nastier forms of hierarchy in the world, such as those we have been >> recently glimpsing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. (CR) >But the latter have been installed by the corporate forces ! >As the UK's newspaper The Guardian put it so well: (on 13-Sep-2001) > "It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the > 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time > when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his > mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan > was turned into a wasteland". > >So much for the rhetoric about the "civilized West"... Yes, I agree. Afghanistan was not a good example for me to quote (though it shows just how readily the old-fashioned agricultural-based heirachies re-established themselves once the Russians departed). Mostly, though, the third world countries have their own home-grown hierarchies and, somehow, these have to be overthrown -- or, rather, grown through, just as western Europe did over a period of about 500 years from, say, 1400 to 1900. The question I posed to you above remains. How do you go about it bringing the third world into a fairer society? The Russians failed in Afghanistan even though they instituted many progressive reforms in education and health. Keith ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
