Why is it that USA does not believe in capitalism and the free market economy when it comes to its farmers?
Farming subsidies help American farmers dump agricultural products on the world market.
The US should be pressured to eliminate ALL subsidies to farmers. That $19Billion currently doled out to farmers could be spent on providing health care to the poor, it could be spent on higher education, etc.
A 20% cut in the subsidy -- corporate welfare really -- is just too little a cut!
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--- Begin Message ---The article below from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\ GARDEN STATE: NOW PLAYING IN NY & LA - SELECT CITIES AUG 6 GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard and Ian Holm. NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says "Writer-Director Zach Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent." Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html \----------------------------------------------------------/ U.S. Will Cut Farm Subsidies in Trade Deal July 31, 2004 By ELIZABETH BECKER GENEVA, July 30 - The United States yielded to pressure from developing countries on Friday and agreed to make a 20 percent cut in some of the $19 billion in subsidies it pays to American farmers each year, as members of the World Trade Organization met round the clock here to win approval for a new deal governing world trade. Working until 4:00 a.m. on Friday, Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, reached an agreement to cut subsidies for such crops as corn, rice, wheat and soybeans. He also reached an accord with four cotton-producing countries in West Africa for eventual cutbacks in subsidies paid to American cotton growers. These countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali - have waged an emotional campaign against American cotton subsidies that they say have left tens of thousands of their farmers destitute. The American concessions appeared to brighten the prospects that negotiators would complete a framework for further talks on revamping rules for global trade over the weekend. The latest round of trade talks began in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, but foundered last year in Canc�n, Mexico, primarily over the American farm subsidies and the European Union's $3 billion in annual export subsidies. If the agreements are approved, the subsidy cuts would go into effect at a successful conclusion of this round of talks, probably sometime in 2006. Helping the developing world by reducing or eliminating the $300 billion in agriculture subsidies and supports given to farmers in the world's wealthiest nations was the top goal of the latest round of talks at the 147-member trade organization. The World Bank, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and private charities like Oxfam International have all argued against the subsidies. They say they are one of the worst injustices in the global economic system, allowing rich countries to flood the global market with inexpensive food and commodities that make it impossible for largely rural, poor countries to trade their way out of poverty, much less improve their own farmers' livelihoods. Pressure on the United States has increased since the European Union announced that it was eliminating its export subsidies. The concessions made by the Bush Administration on Friday on agricultural subsidies were seen as an important response to the European action. In exchange for reducing agricultural supports, the wealthy nations are asking the developing nations to reduce their tariffs on manufactured goods. That issue was left in general terms for more precise negotiations in later talks. Mr. Zoellick so far has failed to get significant concessions to open up new markets for American agricultural and industrial goods. Still, as delegates racked up successive compromises here, the prospect for an agreement was improving, and delegates said uniformly that they were committed to making the negotiations succeed. But talks could run aground on such issues as how much Japan can protect its rice or Norway its dairy products. Celso Amorim, the top trade negotiator for Brazil and an important negotiator here, said there were still several disputes to be resolved. If the talks succeed, they are expected to lead to as much as a $3 trillion gain in the world economy. "What I'm hearing is not at all like Canc�n - none of the extravagant rhetoric of what is unacceptable,'' said Jim Sutton, a delegate from New Zealand. This time the United States and other nations agreed that cotton subsidies and other supports and tariffs covering cotton should be treated on a separate fast track. Matthew Nwagwu, chief delegate from Nigeria, said, "So far, the cotton language is good, it's looking very good." He added, "I think we are going to finalize the agreement.'' The American delegation was just as positive. "We think this cotton agreement provides a shot in the arm to these talks," said an American trade official who asked not to be identified as the discussions continued. "We were very pleased to work with the Africans." The four African nations that brought the original cotton complaint also won an agreement that the global trade body would work with the World Bank and the I.M.F. to get them more money for development assistance. Since the failure of the talks in Canc�n, the United States lost a case brought by Brazil that challenged its cotton subsidies as illegal. That case, before the World Trade Organization's dispute body, could force the United States to lower its cotton subsidies even without these negotiations. Poorer nations have also complained that the United States often used food aid as a way to dump surplus food grown by American farmers. In response, the United States largely agreed to follow international rules that encourage giving money and credit to buy food in the region where aid is needed. The United States also agreed to limit the use of its export credits, which have amounted to an export subsidy. Not everyone was satisfied with the concessions. A delegate from the Dominican Republic said the proposed framework agreement was still a betrayal of developing countries. And Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam International in Geneva, said that the rich countries could create new subsidies by using loopholes in the agreement. Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, the Dutch economy minister and chairman of a delegation of ministers from the European Union, disagreed. He argued that the proposed agreement reflected the growing muscle of the developing world, especially of countries like Brazil, China and India. "The world has changed; we now live in a truly global world,'' he said, adding that these developing nations had changed the geopolitical boundaries of the talks and forced the new agreement. Pascal Lamy, the European Union's top trade official, agreed that talks were going well. "I'm not sure if I'm happy, but we are working very well,'' he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/business/worldbusiness/31geneva.html?ex=1092480283&ei=1&en=58a2a2887ff0be0f --------------------------------- Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
--- End Message ---
