Keith Hudson wrote:
> [CR]
> > the EU is importing annually about 30 million
> > tons (66,000,000,000 pounds) of animal feed from developing countries !
...
> >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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they're largely exempted, then it's pretty close to "Free" Trade, isn't
it? Anyway, as I said, this will only get worse with WTO's "progress" --
the lower the tariffs will get, the more food will be exported from the
starving countries to the overfed countries. That would be a shame, and
BTW it would also be the *contrary* of your usual stone-age cavemen tale
that trade works like osmosis... Rather, "Free" Trade is *reverse* osmosis
-- the pressure being money...
> and a great deal of it is
> "factory-farmed" fish (anchovy) which would never get to the ordinary
> third-worlder for price reasons.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's my point exactly! The countries that would need the food get
plundered by the overfed countries, 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.
How can they "benefit enormously" when there's even more starvation ?
Those who profit are their rich who are sitting at the WTO table...
> (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
^^^
A majority would be all that's required, but they're far from that.
> 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
No doubt about that -- but that's the problem...
> 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.
That's the big question. Where's your evidence (or logic explanation) ?
> (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.
In that case you must assume that global "Free" Trade *increases* equality
within a country. Wrong assumption. Guess who reaps the import profits --
the shareholders of corporations or the poor slum dweller ??
> 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.
The problem of increasing equality within a country is mainly a problem of
domestic policy -- trade liberalization is rather counter-productive to
reach this goal.
> (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
If you consider the meddling of colonial powers in the affairs of 3rd world
countries, then it must be said that Afghanistan is not much of an exception.
The CIA has a long history of preventing or removing democratic movements
and leaders whenever they sought land reforms, which are a main precondition
for a more equal society (Allende, Lumumba, Vietnam etc.), and installing
corporate anti-democratic regimes. Lately, even in Amerikanistan...
Chris
