Commentary

The U.S. and the European Union Reach a Compromise to Save the WTO

The U.S. and the European Union (EU) have cobbled together a framework agreement on agriculture, the text of which was accepted unanimously July 31 in an effort to save the current round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on trade liberalization.  Without an agriculture agreement, many had predicted not only the collapse of the current Doha round of negotiations but of the WTO itself.

The way in which the agreement was struck leaves no doubt as to the motivations behind it: it is a blueprint for how the European and American imperialists intend to ensure continued domination of the economies of Latin America, Asia and Africa while keeping at bay the emerging powers of Brazil, India and China. 

The biggest stumbling block in the agricultural negotiations all along had been the refusal of the EU and Americans to eliminate their export subsidies on agricultural products.  These subsidies have nurtured the corporate farm monopolies, such as Cargill, ADM and ConAgra (based in the U.S.), and Bunge and Louis Dreyfus (based in Europe), and have also allowed both the Americans and the Europeans to dump food into the world market at drastically reduced prices.  The U.S. in particular is famous for disposing of production surpluses under the guise of food aid, a policy that has destroyed attempts, especially in Africa, to nurture local agriculture.  African farmers have simply not been able to compete with food and livestock sold into their own markets at prices far below the cost of production. 

Before the agriculture agreement was signed, both the U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick and his EU counterpart Franz Fischler stressed the importance of getting a deal through.  They began to plant leaks in the media about the major concessions they were making in order to get developing countries on side. In addition, they engaged in a campaign of intimidation and arm twisting of smaller nations that were protesting different aspects of the text.  According to media reports, at one point representatives from a number of African nations simply walked out of the talks, appalled that the U.S. was refusing to reduce its cotton subsidies despite over a decade of promising to do so.  One by one, though, they returned to the table after intense negotiations with U.S. government officials.

The “historic compromise”, as Zoellick described it, calls for immediate reductions in export subsidy programs in both Europe and the U.S.  This language is reported to be what won over India and Brazil.  However, the language on reductions to domestic support payments is quite vague.  Using an army of trade lawyers and negotiators, the Americans and EU simply had the majority of their export subsidy programs reclassified as domestic support programs and signed on the dotted line. 

Within a week of the agreement being signed, Zoellick was openly bragging to U.S. politicians there would be virtually no impact on American farm subsidy programs.  His comments were echoed by the French agriculture minister.  At the same time, both the U.S. and EU won major concessions from smaller countries for the removal of some of the existing tariffs on food products, which means that any remaining programs designed to encourage the growth of local agriculture will be discontinued.

Canada’s role at this round of negotiations was quite shameless; it acted in cooperation with the U.S. to pressure smaller countries to accept an agreement that will further devastate their economies.  Canada also signed the agreement despite the fact that it opens up for future debate the right of farmers to market collectively, essentially opening up the grain industry for complete takeover by American agriculture monopolies in the years to come.

The talks also revealed the weakness of the anti-imperialist forces; when the previous WTO negotiations broke down in Cancun, many tried to claim this was because of the positive role played by countries like Brazil and Venezuela.  However, as these latest negotiations show, the real contradiction in Cancun was between the American and European imperialists, who have, for the time being, managed to reach a compromise.  


Back to Modern Communism