This may be of interest to pen-lers. Anthony P. D'Costa Chair and Professor in Contemporary Indian Studies Australia India Institute and School of Social & Political Sciences University of Melbourne 147-149 Barry Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Ph: +61 3 9035 6161 Visit the Australia India Institute Website http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/
Forthcoming conference http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/events/return-land-question-dispossession-livelihoods-and-contestation-india’s-capitalist-transition Recent books: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198082286.do#.UI5Wzmc2dI0 http://www.oup.com/localecatalogue/cls_academic/?i=9780199646210 http://www.anthempress.com/pdf/9780857285041.pdf Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: GDAE: Global Development And Environment Institute <[email protected]> > Date: December 4, 2013 at 6:38:17 GMT+9 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: New GDAE Op-Ed: Wise on the US 'attack on the right to food' > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > > Wise writes on India's Right to Food > View this email in your browser > Global Development And Environment Institute > at Tufts University > Timothy A. Wise authored the following op-ed, published by the Global Post, > arguing that the Obama administration's objection to India's newly approved > Food Security Act is an act of hypocrisy. With developing countries' right to > maintain food reserves under negotiation at the WTO's 9th Ministerial, Wise > will present on a panel organized by the UN FAO, “Trade and Market Policy for > Food Security: A Challenge for Trade Negotiations,” on Dec. 4 in Bali. > US opposition to ambitious Indian program > a 'direct attack on the right to food' > Timothy A. Wise > Global Post > December 3, 2013 > Read the Op-Ed from Global Post > > BALI, Indonesia — In the lead-up to this week’s World Trade Organization > negotiations, the Obama administration has tried to block the implementation > of a new program approved by the Indian government that could help feed its > 830 million hungry people in a cost-effective way. > > The Obama administration’s objection to the program is a direct attack on the > right to food, and it threatens to kill the chances for any agreement at the > WTO. > > The Indian government’s newly approved Food Security Act is one of the > world’s most ambitious efforts to reduce chronic hunger. Under the new > program, the Indian government will buy staple foods from small farmers at > administered prices, generally above market levels, thereby supporting the > incomes of some of the country’s most impoverished people. From those stocks, > the government will provide food to the poor, generally at below-market > prices, and to public initiatives such as school-based lunch programs. > > This is a cost-effective way to address chronic hunger, particularly in rural > areas. It does not come cheap; the annual cost is estimated at $20 billion. > But neither does the United States’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program > (SNAP), costing about $78 billion last year to assist a much smaller number > of people. And in its budget negotiations and farm-bill proposals, the Obama > Administration has made a point of defending funding for SNAP. > > So what’s the problem with India’s plan? > > The Obama administration’s objection is that such a program violates the > trade rules agreed to when the WTO was set up in 1994. And it does, because > those arcane and biased rules treat government-supported prices to farmers as > a form of “trade-distorting support,” even if that support is for food > security and supports only domestic production for the domestic market. > > That is why India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other countries that make > up the G-33 group have been proposing since 2006 that the rules be updated to > allow developing country governments to buy farmers’ crops at supported > prices if the programs address food security. Such programs, these countries > argue, should not be treated as “trade distorting.” > > That proposal had largely been accepted when these WTO negotiations — called > the Doha Development Round — stalled in 2008, also over US objections to food > security proposals. > > In preparation for the Bali ministerial, which runs Dec. 3-6, President > Obama’s trade negotiators have taken a hard line on the G-33 proposal. The > US, Mexico and Pakistan have withdrawn support for the food security > proposal, instead offering a four-year “peace clause,” which states that no > WTO member can sue any other member for such violations. After four years, > all bets are off, unless there is an agreement to extend it or members reach > a more comprehensive resolution of Doha issues. > > India and the G-33 have rejected the proposal. In a letter to the Indian > prime minister, Indian farmers argued that their country should not be > expected “to mortgage its right to food and the right to livelihoods of the > poor and the needy enshrined in the Constitution.” > > As UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter has pointed > out, the WTO largely marginalizes the issue, treating “food security as a > deviation from the primary objective of agricultural trade liberalization.” > And in a statement released Monday, De Schutter said that developing > countries must be allowed to use their reserves to improve food security > without facing sanctions. “Trade rules must be shaped around the food > security policies that developing countries need, rather than policies having > to tiptoe around WTO rules,” he said. > > The WTO’s new director general, Roberto Azevedo of Brazil, has tried to > breathe new life into the comatose Doha Round by urging an “early harvest” of > a limited set of measures, largely agreed upon previously, that make good on > the development promise of the round. Disagreements forced Azevedo to suspend > negotiations last week, saying that he did not see the political will to > conclude an agreement. > > Bali will be the battleground where the US government seems determined to > display its cynical use of trade policies to undermine the ideals it claims > to support at home, like food security. > > What is really on display, though, is US hypocrisy. India’s Food Security Act > uses the same measures that were part of US agricultural policy for years > coming out of the Great Depression. > > They worked for us, but India is not allowed to use them. > > More galling, US domestic agricultural support was estimated to be $130 > billion in 2010. Much of that support goes to crops like corn and soybeans > that we not only export directly, we feed to livestock, making our meat > exports cheaper. Talk about trade distortions. > > Worse still, a longstanding US and EU commitment of the Doha Round to quickly > reduce or eliminate export subsidies and credits — the most directly > trade-distorting government support of all — remains vague, with no firm > timetables. > > Meanwhile, the US and EU had their own peace clause, written into the 1994 > Agreement on Agriculture to protect them from suits over excessive subsidies. > No four-year limit there, while a raft of trade-distorting support resulted > in the widespread dumping of surplus goods by the US and EU on developing > countries, undermining their producers. > > We don’t need a peace clause, we need a hypocrisy clause. We need a > commitment to reduce trade-distorting hypocrisy, with the deepest cuts coming > from the most developed hypocrites. > > © Copyright 2013 GlobalPost – International News > > Timothy A. Wise is the policy research director at Tufts University’s Global > Development and Environment Institute (GDAE). He is currently on an Open > Society Institute Fellowship on agriculture, climate change, and the right to > food. > For additional reading on the WTO negotiations, see Kevin P. Gallagher's Al > Jazeera piece explaining why a just global trade regime should be a priority > on WTO agenda: “WTO on the brink, needs a rethink” > Read more on Wise’s work on the Global Food Crisis > Read more from GDAE’s Globalization and Sustainable Development Program > > > > > Global Development And Environment Institute > Tufts University > 44 Teele Ave. Somerville, MA 02144 > GDAE Website | [email protected] > > > You can manage your subscription preferences or unsubscribe from all GDAE > emails
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
