World Trade Organization (WTO) summit in Cancun of September
2003 has succeeded in creating more polarizations and deeper divisions among
its member nations.
There was an irreconcilable contradiction among the nations
in the summit. On the one side, the developing countries demanded that the
industrialized countries cut their farming subsidies on the other; the
developed countries (USA, Japan and EU in particular) responded that they would
only do this if the developing countries eliminated all barriers to
agricultural trade.
So such type of contradiction gave rise to creation of the
so-called Group of 21 (formed by the most important developing countries),
which lastly became 23. Allied to the group of 21, the ACP, formed by 100
countries from Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific, was able to wield more
power than in previous meetings. All these countries together stood as a united
block against the positions of the imperialist countries.
However, there were even more developments. The extreme
polarization produced another new group of 16 different countries, amongst
which Venezuela, Cuba, Malaysia and other African ones, who stated their
refusal to sign any type of agreement until the benefits that they would obtain
from economic liberalization, were clearly explained to them.
CONTRADICTION ON FARMING SUBSIDIES
The conflicting positions over farming subsidies were the main
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>subjects of the WTO
negotiations in Cancun. However, despite the fact that certain WTO members were
using this issue as an indirect way of obtaining other concessions in different
domains (i.e. Mexico would like to obtain a favourable immigration agreement
with the US), there is no doubt in our minds that the reasons behind this
confrontation between the two blocks are by no means of secondary importance.
The current world market in agricultural produce is monopolized by only four
gigantic multinationals: Nestl鬠Kraft, Sara Lee and Procter & Gamble.
The latter generate more than 100 billion dollars together. At the same time,
74% of agricultural exports originate from the 14 most developed countries.
This is mainly thanks to the active policies pursued by the main capitalist
countries in the domain of world agriculture during the decades following the
Second World War, which consisted in keeping a tight control over international
raw materials prices (which are in fact at their lowest in the last 100 years),
transforming, for better or for worse, entire countries into huge plantations
(the coup d'鴡t sponsored by the US group United Fruit Company in
July 1954 which deposed Jacobo Arbenz, following his land reform act, in
Guatemala is the most striking example) and in subsidising their own
agricultural sectors with massive injections of funding. In 2002 alone, the
rich nations paid a total of 318 billion USD in subsidies to their farmers,
three quarters of which were used to keep prices low and generate surpluses for
export.
Maintaining tight control over agriculture, its products and markets has for
decades provided massive profits for the imperialist countries, who realized
that the only way for continuing was to change none of the methods used up to
now. However, another factor has appeared in the recent period making it
impossible for the imperialist block to change its agricultural policy, namely
the massive leap forward in the development of the productive forces during the
1990's, on the basis of new scientific and technological developments, which
means that each hectare of cultivated land in the industrialized world is now
far more productive than in the past. Countries such as the USA could alone
meet world demand for agricultural produce fairly comfortably.
However, other developed countries, apart from the US, have this same
productive potential. This, however, comes up against an objective obstacle,
which goes well beyond the good or bad will of the WTO member countries to
reach a deal or not. It comes up against the natural limits of the world market
and of the tight limits of the nation state.
The imperialist countries are now facing problems caused by a far more
competitive agricultural sector. These problems, which were already present
during the economic boom of the 1990's (e.g. the so-called Banana wars between
the USA and the EU and the latter's veto in 1997 on GMO's and hormone-treated
beef from America), have now become far more of a worry now that the world
economy has entered a period of stagnation and recession.
In addition to issues relating to the world market, one of the other major
reasons why the imperialist countries cannot change track now is related to
what they have come to define as their "national security policy".
This policy covers a number of different subjects, from the strengthening of
their military power to the control of key raw materials such as oil. However,
food also plays a very important role in this policy as no imperialist power
could afford to allow its food reserves to be threatened. Any imperialist
nation that would allow them to do so would run a very great risk of seeing
major and very negative social and political consequences within its own
national boundaries. At the same time, its dependency on others for its food
would put it at the mercy of other imperialist countries. One of the main aims
of farming subsidies is to prevent this from happening. Anyone who doubts this
only has to look at what happened to the Soviet Union whose serious
agricultural crisis was a major factor behind the Stalinist bureaucracy's
capitulation to the demands of the imperialist countries, resulting in the
restoration of capitalism and the loss of super-power status.
This is one of the major reasons preventing the industrialized countries
from changing their agricultural policies. For these very important reasons, it
is hard to imagine that there will be profound change in this domain, apart
from perhaps minor reforms that will not significantly modify the subsidies
policy.
Although the problem of farming subsidies appeared as a dispute between rich
and poor countries at Cancun, the real issue at the centre of this is the
enormous agricultural potential of the imperialist powers. The latter do not
protect the agriculture of the underdeveloped countries whose agricultural
structures are in ruins. A good example of this is Mexico, where the situation
has deteriorated so much that Mexican maize producers obtain a yield of 2
tonnes per hectare at a higher production cost than their US counterparts who
obtain a yield of eight tonnes per hectare.
|
Liberalization means that Mexico
now imports 11 billion dollars worth of agricultural produce from the United
States whereas before the NAFTA, in 1993, it only imported 804 million dollars
worth.
And this is the case of Mexico, which is considered one of the 10 most
robust economies in the world. Most other underdeveloped countries have an
agricultural infrastructure either equal to or worse than Mexico's, and
therefore represent no threat to the imperialist nations. The International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimates that if these subsidies were
withdrawn, poor countries would gain approximately 40 billion dollars. This is
not even half the annual profits earned by the world's four biggest
multinational food groups.
Although this is certainly no small amount, either for the multinationals or
the poor countries, it is still merely a hypothetical calculation. In reality,
the poor countries are in fact completely incapable of competing on a level
playing field with the imperialist nations in agriculture or in any domain for
that matter. To think otherwise is fantasy, and the industrialized countries
are fully aware of this. Mexican farmers were promised that NAFTA would bring
enormous progress for them, however the actual results have been very much
different.
The reason behind the underdeveloped countries' demand for a reduction or
even total elimination of subsidies is their need for foreign currency.
However, the rich countries' main motivation for refusing this is not because
they want to prevent the latter from obtaining a bigger share of the world food
market. The main reason is the imperialist countries' fear of the damage that
they could do each another if one of them implements a different farming
subsidies policy to the current one, particularly in the current context of
economic crisis which is shrinking the world market a little more each day.
However, this contradiction cannot continue in the same impasse indefinitely
- it has to find an outlet. And the only outlet is through the weakest links in
the chain of world capitalisms: i.e. the underdeveloped countries. Imperialism
has very powerful means with which to pressurize the government of any
underdeveloped country that opposes or even tries to oppose its interests. Debt
is one of such tool used by imperialism, coupled with technological dependence,
investment, duties, authorizations for exports from poor countries etc.
Regarding this last issue, there is evidence that imperialism is once again
trying to impose its own conditions e.g. the so-called Salmon War in
which the United States wants to impose customs duties of 40% on Chilean salmon
exports, which up to now were completely exempt from such duties. Also Mexico
has been completely prevented from exporting tuna to the US and Brazil, like
all countries outside of NAFTA except Turkey, Argentina and Thailand, is facing
a hike in the duties on its steel exports. And there are many more examples of
this kind elsewhere around the world.
Another measure that exemplifies the way imperialism, particularly the
United States, intends to act in the future is the recent veto by the US
Treasury Department on the "Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism"
(SDRM), proposed by the IMF, which is designed to allow a minimum margin for manoeuvre
to the poor countries by providing a number of protective measures for
creditors. The Americans rejected this mechanism as they are unwilling to budge
even an inch on a system, which has brought huge benefits, in economic and
political terms, for many decades.
In any case, the prospect of even more ferocious attacks by the imperialists
on the agriculture of the poorest countries of the world is starting to appear
on the horizon. Only once they have exhausted this avenue, will they go
elsewhere in search of a solution to their problems of agricultural
overproduction.
Finally Conditions at the moment did
not favour progress in the current trade negotiations at the WTO. On the
contrary, they favour an intensification of protectionist tendencies and the
jettisoning of previous agreements. Deflation and the erosion of profits are
leaving the imperialist powers no other choice. All this suggests that sooner
or later the economy of the whole planet will experience a 1930's style
collapse, although of course there will never be a 'final crisis of
capitalism', given that, unless the working class takes power, the capitalists
will always find partial and temporary solutions to the economic crises
affecting their system by placing the burden on to the shoulders of the workers.
Although for the moment the imperialist nations have ruled out the option of a
military conflict as a means of sharing out the world market between each
other, the recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq show that the various
imperialist powers, especially the USA, are increasingly choosing this option
as a way of imposing their own conditions and defending their profit margins
and the interests of their multinationals.
Another certainty is that it is clear that a new economic collapse will have
even more devastating effects than past crises on workers and their living
standards and, for the capitalist system to recover, the capitalists will
demand unparalleled sacrifices from workers all over the planet.
It is hard to believe that given the massive level of economic integration
between countries on a global scale and the colossal development of the
productive forces in our modern world, that hunger, poverty and unemployment
are once again on the increase. These two factors have created the material basis
for eliminating once and for all one of the biggest scourges affecting
humanity. However, under capitalism, these two factors have created the
opposite; the cause being the private ownership of the commanding heights of
the economy and the existence of nation states. For this simple reason, the
idea - however well intentioned it may be - that it is possible to fight for
fair trade or capitalism with a human face, is pure pie in the sky.
The only way that the whole of humanity can benefit from each economic and
technological step forward is by expropriating the bourgeoisie in each country
and by placing the means of production under the democratic control of the
workers, and then integrating each country into a World Socialist Federation.
The most recent episodes of class struggle bear the clear stamp of the working
class, particularly the events in all of the underdeveloped countries and
especially in Latin America as well as in the impressive general strikes in
Europe - not to mention the huge demonstrations against the military
intervention in Iraq that took place all over the world
|