World Trade Organization (WTO) summit in Cancun of September2003 has succeeded in creating more polarizations and deeper divisions amongits member nations.


There was an irreconcilable contradiction among the nationsin the summit. On the one side, the developing countries demanded that theindustrialized countries cut their farming subsidies on the other; thedeveloped countries (USA, Japan and EU in particular) responded that they wouldonly do this if the developing countries eliminated all barriers toagricultural trade.

So such type of contradiction gave rise to creation of theso-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 100countries from Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific, was able to wield morepower than in previous meetings. All these countries together stood as a unitedblock against the positions of the imperialist countries.

However, there were even more developments. The extremepolarization produced another new group of 16 different countries, amongstwhich Venezuela, Cuba, Malaysia and other African ones, who stated theirrefusal to sign any type of agreement until the benefits that they would obtainfrom 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 WTOnegotiations in Cancun. However, despite the fact that certain WTO members wereusing this issue as an indirect way of obtaining other concessions in differentdomains (i.e. Mexico would like to obtain a favourable immigration agreementwith the US), there is no doubt in our minds that the reasons behind thisconfrontation between the two blocks are by no means of secondary importance.

The current world market in agricultural produce is monopolized by only fourgigantic 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 capitalistcountries in the domain of world agriculture during the decades following theSecond World War, which consisted in keeping a tight control over internationalraw 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 inJuly 1954 which deposed Jacobo Arbenz, following his land reform act, inGuatemala is the most striking example) and in subsidising their ownagricultural sectors with massive injections of funding. In 2002 alone, therich 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 forexport.

Maintaining tight control over agriculture, its products and markets has fordecades provided massive profits for the imperialist countries, who realizedthat the only way for continuing was to change none of the methods used up tonow. However, another factor has appeared in the recent period making itimpossible for the imperialist block to change its agricultural policy, namelythe massive leap forward in the development of the productive forces during the1990's, on the basis of new scientific and technological developments, whichmeans that each hectare of cultivated land in the industrialized world is nowfar more productive than in the past. Countries such as the USA could alonemeet world demand for agricultural produce fairly comfortably.

However, other developed countries, apart from the US, have this sameproductive potential. This, however, comes up against an objective obstacle,which goes well beyond the good or bad will of the WTO member countries toreach a deal or not. It comes up against the natural limits of the world marketand of the tight limits of the nation state.

The imperialist countries are now facing problems caused by a far morecompetitive agricultural sector. These problems, which were already presentduring the economic boom of the 1990's (e.g. the so-called Banana wars betweenthe USA and the EU and the latter's veto in 1997 on GMO's and hormone-treatedbeef from America), have now become far more of a worry now that the worldeconomy has entered a period of stagnation and recession.

In addition to issues relating to the world market, one of the other majorreasons why the imperialist countries cannot change track now is related towhat they have come to define as their "national security policy".This policy covers a number of different subjects, from the strengthening oftheir 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 powercould afford to allow its food reserves to be threatened. Any imperialistnation that would allow them to do so would run a very great risk of seeingmajor and very negative social and political consequences within its ownnational boundaries. At the same time, its dependency on others for its foodwould put it at the mercy of other imperialist countries. One of the main aimsof farming subsidies is to prevent this from happening. Anyone who doubts thisonly has to look at what happened to the Soviet Union whose seriousagricultural crisis was a major factor behind the Stalinist bureaucracy'scapitulation to the demands of the imperialist countries, resulting in therestoration of capitalism and the loss of super-power status.

This is one of the major reasons preventing the industrialized countriesfrom changing their agricultural policies. For these very important reasons, itis hard to imagine that there will be profound change in this domain, apartfrom perhaps minor reforms that will not significantly modify the subsidiespolicy.

Although the problem of farming subsidies appeared as a dispute between richand poor countries at Cancun, the real issue at the centre of this is theenormous agricultural potential of the imperialist powers. The latter do notprotect the agriculture of the underdeveloped countries whose agriculturalstructures are in ruins. A good example of this is Mexico, where the situationhas deteriorated so much that Mexican maize producers obtain a yield of 2tonnes per hectare at a higher production cost than their US counterparts whoobtain a yield of eight tonnes per hectare.
Liberalization means that Mexiconow imports 11 billion dollars worth of agricultural produce from the UnitedStates whereas before the NAFTA, in 1993, it only imported 804 million dollarsworth.

And this is the case of Mexico, which is considered one of the 10 mostrobust economies in the world. Most other underdeveloped countries have anagricultural infrastructure either equal to or worse than Mexico's, andtherefore represent no threat to the imperialist nations. The InternationalFood Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimates that if these subsidies werewithdrawn, poor countries would gain approximately 40 billion dollars. This isnot even half the annual profits earned by the world's four biggestmultinational food groups.

Although this is certainly no small amount, either for the multinationals orthe poor countries, it is still merely a hypothetical calculation. In reality,the poor countries are in fact completely incapable of competing on a levelplaying field with the imperialist nations in agriculture or in any domain forthat matter. To think otherwise is fantasy, and the industrialized countriesare fully aware of this. Mexican farmers were promised that NAFTA would bringenormous progress for them, however the actual results have been very muchdifferent.

The reason behind the underdeveloped countries' demand for a reduction oreven total elimination of subsidies is their need for foreign currency.However, the rich countries' main motivation for refusing this is not becausethey want to prevent the latter from obtaining a bigger share of the world foodmarket. The main reason is the imperialist countries' fear of the damage thatthey could do each another if one of them implements a different farmingsubsidies policy to the current one, particularly in the current context ofeconomic 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 inthe chain of world capitalisms: i.e. the underdeveloped countries. Imperialismhas very powerful means with which to pressurize the government of anyunderdeveloped country that opposes or even tries to oppose its interests. Debtis 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 againtrying to impose its own conditions e.g. the so-called Salmon War inwhich the United States wants to impose customs duties of 40% on Chilean salmonexports, which up to now were completely exempt from such duties. Also Mexicohas been completely prevented from exporting tuna to the US and Brazil, likeall countries outside of NAFTA except Turkey, Argentina and Thailand, is facinga hike in the duties on its steel exports. And there are many more examples ofthis kind elsewhere around the world.

Another measure that exemplifies the way imperialism, particularly theUnited States, intends to act in the future is the recent veto by the USTreasury Department on the "Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism"(SDRM), proposed by the IMF, which is designed to allow a minimum margin for manoeuvreto the poor countries by providing a number of protective measures forcreditors. The Americans rejected this mechanism as they are unwilling to budgeeven an inch on a system, which has brought huge benefits, in economic andpolitical terms, for many decades.

In any case, the prospect of even more ferocious attacks by the imperialistson the agriculture of the poorest countries of the world is starting to appearon the horizon. Only once they have exhausted this avenue, will they goelsewhere in search of a solution to their problems of agriculturaloverproduction.

Finally Conditions at the moment didnot favour progress in the current trade negotiations at the WTO. On thecontrary, they favour an intensification of protectionist tendencies and thejettisoning of previous agreements. Deflation and the erosion of profits areleaving the imperialist powers no other choice. All this suggests that sooneror later the economy of the whole planet will experience a 1930's stylecollapse, although of course there will never be a 'final crisis ofcapitalism', given that, unless the working class takes power, the capitalistswill always find partial and temporary solutions to the economic crisesaffecting 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 amilitary conflict as a means of sharing out the world market between eachother, the recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq show that the variousimperialist powers, especially the USA, are increasingly choosing this optionas a way of imposing their own conditions and defending their profit marginsand the interests of their multinationals.

Another certainty is that it is clear that a new economic collapse will haveeven more devastating effects than past crises on workers and their livingstandards and, for the capitalist system to recover, the capitalists willdemand unparalleled sacrifices from workers all over the planet.

It is hard to believe that given the massive level of economic integrationbetween countries on a global scale and the colossal development of theproductive forces in our modern world, that hunger, poverty and unemploymentare once again on the increase. These two factors have created the material basisfor eliminating once and for all one of the biggest scourges affectinghumanity. However, under capitalism, these two factors have created theopposite; the cause being the private ownership of the commanding heights ofthe economy and the existence of nation states. For this simple reason, theidea - however well intentioned it may be - that it is possible to fight forfair 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 andtechnological step forward is by expropriating the bourgeoisie in each countryand by placing the means of production under the democratic control of theworkers, and then integrating each country into a World Socialist Federation.The most recent episodes of class struggle bear the clear stamp of the workingclass, particularly the events in all of the underdeveloped countries andespecially in Latin America as well as in the impressive general strikes inEurope - not to mention the huge demonstrations against the militaryintervention in Iraq that took place all over the world