And if the US wasn't completely wrong… I'm going to begin an exploit that might not be to everybody's liking because the idea that I'm going to introduce may appear at first glance a form of European heresy. What if the Americans weren't completely wrong on the agricultural issue? I would like to know if the US policy of subsidising agriculture - a policy that is severely condemned, with almost a touching unanimity, by the European Union, the Cairns group of exporting countries, the OECD and developing countries - will not be considered in the future, in its general sense, as the ideal model.
Critics of the US authorities' behaviour are fully justified in pointing out that the behaviour is incompatible with their international commitments and the attitude they display towards European agricultural policy. Whilst arrogantly clamouring for the opening up of the European market, the USA is launching a colossal programme of subsidies for their agricultural sector to the tune of several billion dollars. Too bad for fair trade and WTO obligations, too bad if a few large US companies line their pockets…It isn't surprising that Franz Fischler gave an extremely vigorous response and lively demonstrations occurred in Australia and elsewhere. But there you go! US aid can be located in a global context that includes billions of dollars that protects the quality of its soil, waterand its marshes, that provides food for needy families and immigrants with their papers, as well as a number of other measures. We are therefore asking whether the US programme cannot be scrutinised using a far broader criteria than that of trade and consider its other objectives.
Environmental protection in the USA. Keeping up a high level of agricultural production, which the world absolutely needs. Contributing to satisfying the nutritional needs of the US poor. Ensuring US farmers enjoy an income that is comparable to other workers. This is in fact a programme that is not that different from the European doctrine on the multi-functional nature of agriculture. What is unacceptable about the programme? It's patently obvious - at a world level, the USA is doing its best to prevent others, for trade reasons, from following part of the objectives that the USA itself supports.
150 million children. My conclusion is the same as I obstinately repeat all the time. In agriculture, free trade based on the principle of competition does not meet the needs of humanity and is disastrous to the environment. It benefits the hypermarkets, the multinationals; producers who don't give a jot for sustainable production and governments which are too concerned with immediate sectional interests rather than the future. Developing countries should direct their agriculture to satisfying the food needs of their people and avoid the temptation of monoculture for exports, like the plague. Rich countries must have the right to maintain their agricultural production and protect it, on the condition that they don't use their financial muscle to invade other markets. This indeed means that world agricultural and food policy should be reconsidered and today's priority given to free trade should be well and truly thrown out. The WTO is doing its job but the expansion of agricultural trade in itself is almost a secondary goal that needs to be subordinated to the essential needs of humanity and for the planet on which this humanity has to live. We need to look further on than a few years and the current generation.
150 million children will die of hunger in the next few years. The UN SecretaryGeneral has just announced it. Faced with this forecast, what are the arguments over breadbasket A or breadbasket B or such and such a paragraph of an agreement or the interests of a multinational or the conquest of a market? There are but two absolute priorities: fighting against hunger in the world and thinking of the children and people who have nothing to eat; protecting the environment against desertification and pollution. For our "old" Europe, we could add the demand to respect its countryside, traditions, the balance between its territory and bio-diversity. It is in this spirit that the EU must tackle the revision of the CAP and negotiate within the WTO, as well as providing the political courage to tell the truth to third countries to which Europe has made a number of hastily-considered promises.
Such a direction is even perceptible within the Community institutions. I will be weighing them up in this section tomorrow.
(F.R.)