Copyright 2002 The Washington Post
The
Washington Post
May 05, 2002, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A24
LENGTH: 1081 words
HEADLINE:
U.S.
Farm Bill Finds Few Fans Abroad; Increased Subsidies Flout
Consensus on Helping Third World Agriculture
BYLINE:
Paul Blustein, Washington Post Staff Writer
BODY:
Of all the problems that plague the world's poor in the age of
globalization, few are so widely condemned as the subsidies that rich countries
provide their farmers. Poor nations suffer because their crop prices are pushed
down on global markets when relatively prosperous farmers receive government
incentives to increase production.
The European Union's farm subsidies
have drawn the harshest attacks from critics, who include left-wing activists,
academic economists, World Bank officials and right-wing free-marketers. But
thanks to the
farm bill that President Bush has promised to
sign once it passes the Senate this week, U.S. agriculture policy may rival
Europe's as the most reviled among experts on Third World economies, especially
since it runs counter to the Bush administration's free-trade rhetoric. The
farm bill, which substantially increases price guarantees for
crops such as corn and wheat and creates new subsidies for others such as
soybeans, "is very discouraging for developing countries," said Nancy Birdsall,
director of the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank. "It's a
very strong signal that our politics dominates our policies and when there are
unintended consequences for countries that don't have much power in the world,
that's too bad."
The bill's cost, officially estimated at $ 180 billion
over 10 years, though many budget experts believe it will be much higher, would
add to the $ 350 billion in farm subsidies that the world's richest countries
provide each year. World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn has been
particularly outspoken in castigating wealthy nations for lavishing so much on
their agricultural sectors, noting that the sum is about equal to the entire
gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa and seven times the rich countries'
total foreign-aid budgets.
A forthcoming study by the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund illustrates some of the distorting effects of
subsidies on markets such as cotton. If world cotton prices were not depressed
by subsidies, the number of people living in poverty in the African nation of
Burkina Faso could be cut in half within six years, according to the study,
which notes that subsidies account for about one-third of the $ 35,000 average
annual income of U.S. cotton farmers. The per capita income in Burkina Faso is
less than $ 1 a day.
Accordingly, World Bank staffers were scathing in
their assessments of the
farm bill, though they refused to be
quoted by name given the political clout that Washington exercises as the
institution's dominant shareholder.
"This is pretty galling," a senior
World Bank official said. "A few American farmers will benefit, but at the
expense of a very large number of poor people in developing countries."
The bill's writers, of course, were concerned primarily with protecting
America's politically powerful farmers against the fluctuations in commodity
prices that can make farming such a risky undertaking.
"This is for
rural America," Rep. Larry Combest (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, said in dismissing criticism from Europe, Australia, Canada, Brazil
and elsewhere around the world. "This is not for rural Mexico. This is not for
rural Canada, and this is not for rural Europe."
But the bill dismays
many free-trade advocates who fear that by affronting the developing world, the
United States has significantly reduced its chances of negotiating major deals
to lower trade barriers.
At a World Trade Organization meeting in
November in Doha, Qatar, where member nations began a three-year round of global
trade talks, poor countries agreed to negotiate in part because of promises by
the Bush administration that a top priority for the talks would be phasing out
subsidies and other moves to increase access for poor-country agricultural
products in rich-country markets. Similar pledges have helped secure agreement
by Latin American countries to negotiate an accord by 2005 that would extend the
North American Free Trade Agreement to Central and South America.
"In
terms of trade policy, they just stepped on a big land mine," said Jeffrey
Schott, a trade specialist at the Institute for International Economics. "We
have spent all this time and effort to pursue trade promotion authority
[legislation to enable the White House to negotiate broad trade deals], only to
let a
farm bill pass that will greatly complicate the ability
of our trade negotiators to conclude a trade agreement, whether it be in Geneva
[WTO headquarters] or in the Western Hemisphere."
European trade
officials echoed that view, asserting that the U.S.
farm bill
will make it tougher to overcome the resistance of farmers in countries such as
France to giving up their subsidies.
U.S. policymakers maintained,
however, that the bill would not hamper their efforts to strike a deal with
Europe or other trading partners because Washington will be able to offer a
cutback in its farm spending in exchange for similar concessions, and American
farmers will presumably go along to obtain benefits from market-opening measures
by other countries.
"We won't be asking them to do anything we're not
doing," a senior U.S. trade official said of other countries. "When we come back
with an agreement at the end of the [WTO] round, we'll all be coming back to our
ag communities and saying, 'Here's the agreement; these are the disciplines
we're taking on, and these are the opportunities we're creating.' And obviously
we think that at the end of the day we'll have an agreement that will be a net
positive for the ag community."
Some trade experts saw some merit to
that strategy. Ed Gresser, director of trade policy at the Progressive Policy
Institute, said that by the time the WTO negotiations are supposed to end in
2004, "the end of the [six-year]
farm bill may be in sight, and
we'll be in a good position to say,'We'll phase all this out.' "
The
initial signs suggest that the bill will first prompt rich countries to follow
the U.S. lead, to the detriment of the poor.
Canada's agriculture
minister, Lyle Vanclief, said on Friday that Ottawa is considering increasing
aid to Canadian farmers to counter new U.S. subsidies. "We're looking at ways in
which we can mitigate the disastrous effects of the U.S.
farm
bill -- ridiculous policy that they have extended and even increased,"
Vanclief said, according to Reuters News Service.
LOAD-DATE: May 05, 2002