To Julio, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think your point about also putting at the center the needs of landless peasants and farmworkers is really important and much appreciated, Peter
Julio Huato wrote:
[Part II]
Peter Bohmer continues:
To this end, I support protectionism and subsidies, particularly in the global south to support this type of rural production. I think similarly protecting small farmers and particularly those producing for the local and the national market should be supported in France, U.S., South Korea as well as of course in Mexico. I believe the global justice movement should favor policies, including subsidies, protectionism, etc. that advance these values and goals.
The impact of protectionism on the "global south" is not clear cut. A human being is a human being. A landless rural worker is just as worthy as a landholder. The landless worker will directly benefit from lower farm prices and be directly hurt by the protection of local farmers. (He may benefit indirectly to the extent the farmer may be able to hire her if the alternative is to be landless and unemployed.)
There are countries where the number of landless workers (or semi-landless workers whose main sources of income are not farm revenues but wages, etc.) outnumber the landowners. It is clear to me that Mexico is one of these cases. Protection of agriculture under such conditions amounts to favoring the landowners by taking away resources from other uses that could be more effective in helping the rural working poor: health services, basic education, public infrastructure, utilities, environmental preservation, etc. Frankly, I'm against this kind of protectionism in the "global south."
In the U.S., we, the global justice movement, should totally oppose subsidies to agriculture that benefit agribusiness as well as those that make it possible to dump U.S. agricultural production in other countries, particularly in the south.
I totally agree.
With regards to food and agricultural exports by third world countries, I believe the global justice movement should ally, primarily, with movements who instead favor production for local markets and also movements of small farmers, cooperatives and policies that favor them.
For the reasons above, I don't agree on this in general. I'd look at each case separately and avoid a general rule like Peter's.
With regards to the G-22 proposals and actions in Cancun, their challenging the G-7 is exciting, especially in terms of their opposing the attempt by the G7 to get the MAI in the back door. On the other hand and as implied by the previous paragraph, we should strongly oppose subsidies for agribusiness but not necessarily ones in the North tailored to help the family farm and the small farmer. I realize care will have to be given in tailoring the policies. to further these objectives.
I don't really object to this, except -- as I said -- when "helping the family farm and the small farmer" goes against the interest of the landless rural- and urban working poor. In such case, I take view that one human being is as worthy as any other human being.
Julio Huato
_________________________________________________________________ Charla con tus amigos en l�nea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.yupimsn.com/
