Agricultural trade and food security

AGRICULTURE AND THE WORLD TRADE ORGANSATION

Small farmers rally for the removal of agriculture
There is a strong move within global civil society to remove agriculture from the WTO negotiations. This is a position being adopted by mass-based peasant and small farmer movements around the globe, spearheaded by Via Campesina.

No new round of talks means the present imbalance remains
Those in favour of continuing with the multilateral agreements, including the South African government, make the case for opening a new round of WTO negotiations to reach agreements on agriculture. The logic of the argument is as follows:
Multilateral agreements establish a set of rules that all countries must follow. The WTO allows developing countries an opportunity to contribute to forming the rules. To steer clear of a new round of negotiations on agriculture will mean that the current unacceptable system will remain in place.
Without such a set of agreed upon rules, the stronger countries will be able to do as they wish without being held to account – that might is right. Trade Minister Alec Erwin was recently quoted as saying that if a new round was not launched,

“the world’s trading nations, it is feared, will walk away and start doing their own deals. The probability is that we would move back to what we had in GATT with a complex fabric of overlaying agreements. You would get a lot of complexity – the world would be chaos after that”⁸³. The logic continues that even if there is an imbalance of power inside the WTO, more space exists inside it than would exist outside to shape the rules of international trade.

The image presented by the global hegemonic powers is indeed a mesmerising one: an image of a possible world where all of humanity is inter-connected, with the free choice to select their method of interaction. It is an image of the “lions lying with the lambs”, where all negotiated agreements are mutually beneficial. It is an image of a world where gradually, in an orderly and rational way, all global problems are overcome through the wise stewardship of those with the knowledge and experience in these matters.
However, failing to win support through a positive approach, veiled threats and arguments that play on the insecurity of economically and politically weaker nations begin to appear. Those in favour of trade negotiations in the WTO work on the fear that failure to accept the necessity of new negotiations will result in isolation or outsider status.
Otherwise, the law of the jungle applies, with the powerful doing as they wish with no protection for the weaker. Interestingly enough, it is always the powerful themselves that have stoked this fear⁸⁴. Industrialised countries have moved onto the offensive since September 11. They are using the instability generated by those events to push for a new round and attempt to draw a line between those who are for a new round and against ”terrorist” instability, and those who are against a new round and, by implication, in favour of “terrorism”⁸⁵.
The four points of Singapore
The industrialised countries assert that any further subsidy and domestic support reductions to agriculture must be premised on a new round of negotiations on other issues in the WTO. These issues have been referred to as the “four points of Singapore” (the venue of the last Ministerial meeting where agreement was reached) and aim to negotiate on:

• 
  financial investment
  
• 
  competition among businesses
  
• 
  trade liberalization and
  
• 
  public enterprises.
  

The draft ministerial declaration for the Doha meeting in November 2001 includes these issues despite opposition from African and other developing countries, and also downplays developing country proposals for correcting the imbalances of the Uruguay Round⁸⁶. It indicates little change from the controlling nature of previous negotiations.

It is likely that certain agricultural reforms will be made the US and EU, since high levels of state support to the agricultural sectors in their economies are creating growing political and financial problems internally. But as far as possible, they will push for these to be carried out at the necessary pace for them to restructure their agricultural industries without causing a fundamental crisis.
This means retaining as much support as possible, and phasing it out when this suits them. The neo-liberal ideology underpinning industrialised country positions on a new round of trade negotiations has come under threat from a number of quarters in recent years, and there is a perceived attempt to bulldoze an agreement while it’s still possible.
The drive for alternative globalisation: Challenging the existing paradigm
Amongst progressive organisations in civil society, there is a strong disagreement with the aims of a new round of trade negotiations. Given the history and outcomes of previous rounds, where inequality and marginalisation for the majority have increased, there is a strong drive for an alternative form of globalisation where democratic, bottom-up and participatory agreements are reached between people around the world.
As it stands, the “consensus’ system of decision-making in the WTO operates to prevent democratic decisions based on ‘one country-one vote” or population size criteria. It was deliberately constructed to ensure that the Quad – the US, Canada, the EU and Japan — must agree before major decisions can be taken⁸⁷. This calls into question the argument in favour of a fair rules-based approach, which also fails to acknowledge that unilateralism by the powerful continues despite the rules, with the strongest countries ignoring the rules when these do not favour them⁸⁸.

The fundamental imbalance of power, and the shaping of the rules by the most powerful countries cannot be changed within the existing framework.

Far from the return of the law of the jungle if a new round is not forthcoming, a number of democratically developed alternatives exist. Regarding trade, and without underplaying the problems of GATT itself, one of the basic proposals is to revert to the GATT approach of facilitating rather than forcing international trade⁸⁹.
Another proposal is to use other international agreements, that have been arrived at more inclusively, to deal with specific areas (such as environment, women’s rights or food security) on their own terms. Trade, as it relates to each of these areas, would then be discussed as a subordinate component of these areas rather than as the overarching imperative⁹⁰. Since trade under capitalism is fundamentally based on competition between nations and peoples, it should not serve as the overarching basis for international agreements. Rather, agreements that stress co-operation and mutual interest should take precedence⁹¹.
More broadly, alternatives are perceived to be separate from the corporate-driven agenda and processes of the WTO and other existing multilateral agreements. The alternative is necessarily based on a decentralisation of decision-making, and the recognition of the need to maintain and enrich diversity. It also recognises the multiplicity of knowledges that cannot simply be reduced to one knowledge system perceived to be the most economically efficient.
It is important to note from these demands that the opposition is not so much against international negotiations and agreements in principle. Rather, they are against the inclusion of some key aspects in trade negotiations, and in favour of an overarching framework for any international conventions or agreements based on democracy and justice⁹². It is a misrepresentation to consider the current global civil society movement as “anti-globalisation”. Rather it is opposed to the particular form of corporate-led globalisation based on neo-liberal hegemony.
The aim of a significant section of civil society is to radically limit the power of the WTO, reducing it “to simply another institution in a pluralistic world trading system with multiple systems of governance”⁹³. This aligns with the approaches of diversity, decentralisation and democratisation. Others see the “chaos” of the previous system apparently so feared by Minister Erwin as an indicator of diversity and necessary flexibility in global governance.
This opens up a whole arena of discussion and practice on alternative political forms. Consequently, one of the five pillars of the “Right to Food” campaign, led by the Food International Agrarian Network (FIAN), is “a broader debate on the need to develop an understanding of democracy which includes economic and social rights”⁹⁴. This indicates that the issue of food security cannot be separated from the broader issues of democracy and political power.