This speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair is the most cogent and concise appraisal of current foreign policy strategies I have read. He illuminates the links beween issues most farmers think of as unconnected to the "war on terror": global warming, trade, poverty and growing inequality of life. Money quote:
How we get a sensible, balanced but effective framework to tackle climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 should be an American priority. America wants a low-carbon economy; it is investing heavily in clean technology; it needs China and India to grow substantially. The world is ready for a new start here. Lead it. The same is true for the WTO talks, now precariously in the balance; or for Africa, whose poverty is shameful. If we are championing the cause of development in Africa, it is right in itself but it is also sending the message of moral purpose, that reinforces our value system as credible in all other aspects of policy.The failure of the Doha Round - and yes, I assert action in some unspecified future is the same as failure - is far more than a win for current subsidy recipients. It is a continuing impediment to the very mechanism that could help the wretched poor and the bloated rich find a common path: freer markets. And unless we find some way to decrease the growing imbalance between haves and have-nots, suicide bombers will never be in short supply.
Especially now, America's farmers should not be cowering behind their legislators whimpering about "unilateral disarmament". Are we not the self-proclaimed BACKBONE OF AMERICA?
"Unilateral disarmament" is a repugnant metaphor of war. Don't current events suggest the impropriety of using war language for PR purposes when people are dying? For example, Congressman Bob Etheridge has found the phrase resonates with far-behind-the-line patriots in North Carolina:
At a time when our competitors, particularly the Europeans, are spending billions of dollars in subsidies and market promotion for their agricultural products, it would be unilateral disarmament to cut our funding for similar programs.There is no conflict so terrible it seems that is cannot be used to persuade voters.
Our sons and daughters are coping with the reality of war.
At the very least we should have the respect for their sacrifice not to equate an LDP to artillery round.
3 comments:
Geez John, are you saying that as farmers taking gov't subsidies we are in fact responsible for the suicide bombers and terror that goes on in the world? That's a stretch if you ask me. Most of the culture in the middle east is one of war and hate, and has been for 2000 years or more. I don't think an agreement at the Doha round is going to change that.
There are several causes, but I do believe that economic inequality - especially now that the differences are broadcast 24/7 certainly reinforces any inclination to hate the West.
If you read Blair's remarks, he agues for doing what we can to ensure moderate Muslims (of which there are many) succeed in creating goverments that help Mideastern countries move forward.
In addition he identifies freer trade as a very important key to providing a ladder for the poor to climb up. I think it is undeniable that the farm lobby (US & EU) was the big reason preventing a Doha round success with their hardline stand and influence in the Senate.
Further, I don't think many farmers choose to see farther down the chain of consequences of highly subsidized agriculture. None of us like to think we contribute to the mess over there, so we try to forget that other people may mix economics and politics just like we do.
Do LDP's cause suicide bombers? Indirectly but inevitably, I believe they are a contributing factor. The link about why suicide bombers exist point out what people with no expectations are capable of.
If, as you suggest, Muslims hate us and always will, welcome to the future. You may be right in your deterministic view. I would suggest however, if that is the case, we've only begun to understand how long and costly this conflict will be.
At some point we - perhaps when the casualty list has touched more of us - we may choose to address root causes, and I think one of the first will fairer trade with poor countries.
Here is where I get pretty darn optimistic. I think the results of ending subsidies are vastly overblown and believe I can show (1) the world would not end (2) farmers would have their best chance to be truly fulfilled and happy in decades.
Just think about it. If I don't get a goverment check and you don't get a goverment check, what happens? Many say they couldn't afford to farm. If most of us cannot get an operating loan because we can't show positive cash flow, what would happen to cash rents, seed prices, corn futures.
In short the market would adjust, just like it does for hundreds of other crops. The loser would be the current winners: non-operating landowners, grain buyers, and those who make a living managing farm subsidy problems.
We've been listeing to the Gospel of Hopelessness for so long we now accept it as fact.
Please keep reading Top Producer - Marci would kill me if I started making my case here on the blog first.
Post a Comment