WTO adopts cotton ruling, Brazil ponders sanctions (on U.S. imports)

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

WTO adopts cotton ruling, Brazil ponders sanctions
Fri 20 Jun 2008, 14:32 GMT
By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA, June 20 (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) adopted a final ruling in a dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies on Friday, clearing the way for Brazil to seek up to $4 billion in sanctions on U.S. imports.

In a statement, Brazil said it hoped the decision in the case dating to 2002 "provides sufficient incentive for the United States to amend its legislation and ensure compliance with the rulings of the (WTO's Dispute Settlement Body)".

Without full compliance, "Brazil will pursue the established procedures in order to obtain from the (Dispute Settlement Body) authorisation to take counter-measures vis-a-vis the United States", it added.

Brazil argues that U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers unfairly boost American production and depress world prices, squeezing developing-country farmers out of the market. The issue has also pitted Washington against African cotton producers in talks over the WTO's Doha round aimed at cutting worldwide farm subsidies.


Read more: http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL20198223.html?rpc=401&

[dipsydoodle]

1. Sure - that's what its all about

subsidies to cotton farmers unfairly boost American production and depress world prices.

[Peace Patriot]

2. What do you think it's about? Not sure what you mean.

I'm of two minds about farm subsidies. On the one hand, we see the positive impact in France, where people routinely eat fresh, organic produce, because the farmers are protected against the horrifying power of corporate GMO's and pesticides, and other health-destroying, earth-destroying of big corporate ag. On the other hand, there is nothing worse than the impact of SUBSIDIZED U.S. corporate ag on the third world. It is just plain evil.

If farm subsidies support local, organically grown and environmentally-friendly farming, small farmers--like the millions of campesinos in Latin America and around the world, who are the best food producers, but are being driven from the land by corporate/fascist land-grabbing and other activities (f.i., U.S. "war on drugs" pesticide spraying in South America)--and help poor countries remain, or become, food self-sufficient (a vital sovereignty issue), I would say that society has an obligation to subsidize farming, and that it is not only desirable; it is essential to the health, well-being and independence of a country and its people.

But if farm subsidies are just one more way for our tax money to be stolen by giant, multinational corporations, who then turn around and use it against us--to monopolize markets, to write our laws, to take over our government, to poison us with their products, and to destroy the earth--I, of course, oppose such subsidies.

The Brazilian situation (also African) is slightly more complex, but basically a result of the ABUSE of farm subsidies here, by big corporate ag. Brazil has shown wonderful solidarity with third world African nations on this issue, as well as great leadership. Brazil was the country that organized the 20-country walkout at the WTO in Cancun, Mexico (in 2002, if I remember correctly--it was one of the first signals that I picked up, that the South American political landscape was vastly changing, and that democracy, social justice and leftist leaders were in ascendancy). African textiles was one of the main issues at that meeting.

Giant U.S. corporate ag interests--using the U.S. government as their bully--force third world countries to lower their guard, through entities like the WTO; World Bank/IMF loan sharks furthermore bleed them dry with corrupt loans (also U.S.-run) that require the destruction of social programs--such as farm loans/subsidies, and ag education--and then Big U.S. corporate Ag DUMPS U.S. produce on their markets, to complete the murder of local agriculture and self-sufficiency. Then MacDonald's can move in and addict the poor to IMPORTED fast goods.

The Jamaican dairy, potato and banana farmers were destroyed in this way. In the case of dairy, U.S. ag dumped POWDERED milk at cheap prices and drove every dairy farmer--who was providing FRESH milk, locally--out of business. They lost their dairy farms. They lost their KNOWLEDGE--were unable to pass their farming expertise to their children and others. And the country lost fresh food. The rightwing government that had permitted this to happen created a "free trade" zone on the docks, OUTSIDE OF Jamaican law, where products for other countries are manufactured by exploited labor--labor with no recourse to government--and loaded into big tankers right off the docks and sent abroad (--tankers that contribute to global warming and ocean pollution). So this is what the broken-hearted, displaced farmers of Jamaica and their children could do--go work for shit wages with no labor rights or protection, for multinational manufacturers who don't give a shit about Jamaica or its people.

Tragic is hardly a big enough word to describe what U.S. corporate ag, the WTO, the World Bank/IMF and "free trade" have done. Thousands of small farmers in South Korea, India and other places have COMMITTED SUICIDE because of these horrendous policies. But also, millions of campesinos have gotten organized and are fighting back, and the election of leftist governments has become a vital front in their struggle. The campesino and social justice movements--often led by the indigenous--have won elections all over South America. This is how Brazil--the biggest economy in South America--came to be a leader of this movement in the global arena--by the election of former steelworker, Lula da Silva, as president of Brazil.

It is the pressure of this movement, led by Brazil, that has brought about some change within the WTO. You can be sure, thought, that if the WTO becomes democratic, open and fair, the global corporate predators who rule over us, and dictate what WE eat, and who WE are PERMITTED to elect as president, will abandon the WTO--as they have done the UN--and proceed along an ever more lawless and planet-killing, and people-killing, path.

[izquierdista]

3. Only one country is safe

There is one country that will not be hammered into submission by the World Bank, the WTO, and the IMF. One country where the U.S. will not be dumping its subsidized excess to kill the local market so they can raise prices later -- North Korea.

They will never be dictated to by the corporate predators that rule the rest of countries, for their Juche philosophy is meant to guard against just that thing. What painful irony it is that to escape the reach of the global corporation, the only place left to go is to the country of Kim JongIl worship. :silly:

[Peace Patriot]

5. Nope, in South America they're doing it DEMOCRATICALLY.

And corporate ag is one of the big, but hidden, issues between the fascist/corporate powers here and the leftist revolution that has swept the continent. Oil is the other big issue, but it is not hidden. The Bushites lust after the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and have been doing everything they can to topple those democratic, leftist governments, to regain corporate predator control of the oil. Corporate ag, and related issues--such as World Bank/IMF loans, the murderous, corrupt, failed U.S. "war on drugs" (pesticide spraying of peasant food farms)--is the backside of the oil issue, and it is possibly even more important to our global corporate predators than the oil, for it involves corporate biofuel production (destruction of farm lands and small farmers, destruction of forests, pesticide use and other horrible environmental and food supply impacts) AND the independence and sovereignty of Latin America countries, on all issues.

The campesino (small peasant farmers) movement--often led by the indigenous--has been a vital component in the election of leftist governments in so many counties (virtually all of South America). Land ownership, land reform and uses of the land--and also sovereignty over the land and its resources--have been key driving issues behind these leftist (and democratic with a small d) election victories. And one of things these new leftist leaders are doing is forming a South American COMMON MARKET--with the foundation if it, UNASUR, laid down just a few weeks ago, by twelve countries--and other initiatives, such as the Chavez-inspired Bank of the South, all aimed at local control of the land and its resources, and local control of markets and financing of development (rejection of U.S.-dominated "free trade," rejection of U.S. corporate dictation of terms, rejection of World Bank/IMF loan sharsk, rejection of the militarization and other heinous policy of the U.S. "war on drugs").

The ONLY country that is still in the Bushite sphere of influence (not by force, as in Colombia--but possibly by a stolen election)--Peru--is having nothing but trouble from the campesinos and allied labor unions, agitating against Peru's corrupt "free trade" government. That government will more than likely lose the next election; a leftist will win, and Peru will join the community of South American countries that are banding together to create a prosperous, locally controlled future, with social justice as the goal.

Paraguay just did so. Paraguay! So I think Peru will follow suit. And it's interesting that one of the main issues in Paraguay is pesticide pollution from big soy biofuel production, and its impacts on workers and on the land. The Bolivarian countries--the leaders of this continent-wide revolution (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua)--have outright rejected this kind of agriculture--corporate agriculture--and to the extent that Lula da Silva, the leftist president of Brazil has political problems (he's quite popular) the problem is CORPORATE AG. (He's made some not-good compromises about it, thinking short-term, of cash flows and jobs.)

God knows what will happen in the Bush Cartel client state, Colombia. But one thing is certain: Colombia will become yet more isolated. It is already surrounded by leftist governments (Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and way outnumbered in regional meetings. The driver of a U.S. "free trade" deal with Colombia (so far blockaded by labor Democrats in the U.S. Congress, cuz they chainsaw union leaders in Colombia and throw their body part into mass graves) is CORPORATE BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. That's why they are pushing peasant farmers off the land (with torture, death squads, and pesticide spraying). (One of the drivers for the Bushites might also be the lucrative cocaine trade.) The purpose of "free trade" with Colombia would be to crush the economies of neighboring leftist countries with ag practices that are controversial in those countries, or outright rejected--in the way that corporate ag tries to drive organic farmers out of business here. They can supply MacDonald's with long straight potatoes for long straight French fries, right out of their DNA-splicing labs. Short-term greed triumphs over the common good.

The corporate rulers have other uses for Colombia and its fascist government, but this is one of the biggies--corn and soy biofuel production.

The issues of oil and corporate ag are related. In Venezuela, for instance, prior (rightwing) governments were not only giving away 90% of Venezuela's oil profits to multinationals, they created an oil profiteer society, in which a few got rich, and became dependent on IMPORTED products, and in which many people were drawn into the urban areas to try to benefit from this artificial economy, and they utterly neglected vital issues of land reform and Venezuelan food self-sufficiency--to the point where Venezuela (with millions of hectares of unused, fallow land) imported nearly all of its food. They also utterly neglected local manufacturing (and IMPORTED machine parts needed for the oil industry!). The Chavez government is the first Venezuelan government ever to seriously address the land reform issue--with intelligent, forward-looking policies. And they are able to do this--have the resources to do this--because they renegotiated the oil contracts to give the Venezuelan people a 60/40 cut of the oil profits. Now they have the money to organize land reform effectively--to buy up unused lands, to convert government lands to farming, to research questionable land titles (and confiscate lands without proper title), to educate and support farmers and draw people back to the land, and to monitor their progress and require performance.

Oil profits, if properly used, can serve the common good--something that the Bushites, collusive Democrats, and their global corporate puppetmasters, and their lapdog press, DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.

Perhaps that is why you think that North Korea's crazy dictatorship is the only way to resist global corporate predator rule. That is simply not true. They are resisting it--and creating something new and progressive--throughout South America, by peaceful, open, democratic means. It CAN be done--with transparent vote counting and other strong democratic institutions. And it should noted that they, too, have a vicious, lying, corporate lapdog press--even worse than ours. How did they overcome such obstacles to good government? We should study them to find out.

[dipsydoodle]

4. I've used this as a marker

as I'm away for day or so. I'll come back to you with an answer.


Richard

[dipsydoodle]

7. I needed the time to read what you written more carefully.

The statement I'd made was not sarcastic - just a simple statement of fact with respect to which we obviously have complete agreement.

EU subsidies have in the past caused some extreme oddities. There was a time........when it possible to buy agricultural land in the UK, plant it with crops to be ploughed back in and receive subsidies for doing so disproportionate to the cost of the land - go figure.

There is also the notoriety of the "butter mountain". Good article on the subject here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/may/21/europeanunion.food

But the times they are a changing........EU shake-up on farming subsidies http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7409739.stm

Looks to be that the EU is finally getting a social conscience ?

[dysfunctional press]

6. we should ditch cotton in favour of hemp.

cotton is one of the most (petro)chemical-intensive crops there is.