The conclusions of the FAO Summit once again placed emphasis (alongside some predictable affirmations of principle), on two traditional mistaken remedies to combat hunger in the world, remedies that have more to do with demagogy than reasoning, which are: a) increase the financial resources placed at the disposal of the FAO itself (a body in which half the budget goes to administrative expenditure); b) push the agricultural exports of poor countries towards rich and overfed countries. Political and especially economic forces which support these guidelines almost always defend interests that have nothing to do with famine; but they are powerful, and it's a large share of the media and the political classes that fall into the trap. The idea that poor peasants should draw any advantages from commercial speculation is ridiculous.
Waiting for the next crisis. A minister from an EU country dared go against the current and declare: "to have a few southern countries enter the international trading circle, we imposed on them intensive single-crop farming that had devastating effects on their development". But he was alone. In that context, the conduct of "anti-globalisation" movements is particularly inept; as soon as it is a question of agricultural trade, they forget all their slogans and diatribe against the WTO and align themselves on the stances of big business, multinationals and certain corrupt politicians from developing countries. They would do better to seek out why Zimbabwe, traditional granary of Southern Africa (for corn), and Zambia risk disastrous famines, which we will not be able to tackle either by dismantling the protection of European agriculture, nor by giving an additional few billions to the FAO, nor by the violence of anti-globalisation movements, but by emergency food aid that the EU will finance and distribute, with a few other donors.
This while waiting for the next crisis, and waiting with great scepticism for the world to move towards the only valid solution: concentrating efforts (by rich and poor countries alike) on the reestablishment in developing countries of "subsistence farming" intended to tackle the food requirements of the local populations, instead of ruinous intensive single-crop farming for exports. At the same time, vigorous action is needed, without complacency, against conflicts that drag on between the same countries. But there are too many obstacles to re-directing agriculture, too much trafficking, too much corruption. And too much racial hate, power-struggles and ignorance play against the end to conflicts. And then, at the next FAO Assembly, we'll see that nothing has changed.
A reluctant parliament. The effectiveness and utility of the Energy Charter continues to be jeopardised by the persistent reluctance of the Russian Parliament to ratify it. Certain political forces consider that this charter means giving up too much of Russia's sovereignty over its natural resources. Yet, it's obvious that the guarantees offered by the Charter are essential to trigger the inflow of private investments (European and others) in the Russian energy sector, which has vital need. But the years are flowing by and no ratification. This small note is devoted to those who consider that the prospects of Russia's joining the EU is reasonable (see this section of 4 June).
Swedish fiction. The relevant Community institutions continue to note that … Sweden is not ready to join the euro. This is legal fiction: were Sweden to be deemed ready, it would be obliged to adopt the European single currency as it did not request the opt-out available to the United Kingdom and Denmark. There was a political error on this point in the very provisions of the EMU, as one cannot oblige a democratic country to enter the euro zone as long as its people and parliament do not agree. And here we have the Swedish Government at pains not to meet two of the necessary conditions: its currency does not yet take part in the European exchange rate mechanism and its central bank is not, for one aspect, totally independent. Thus, each year, the European Commission and the European Central Bank may observe that Sweden does not meet all the conditions necessary to join the final phase of Economic and Monetary Union. In fact, Sweden satisfies all the essential economic conditions perfectly: the inflation rate and the interest rate are in order, and especially it has a large budget surplus (corresponding to 4% of GDP in 2001). The Swedish situation represents a model to which several countries of the euro zone aspire, but they are far off. But the official judgement is that Sweden is not ready. If developments among public opinion follow those we note in the United Kingdom and Denmark, its accession will soon be a reality, for the good of Sweden itself and Europe as a whole. (F.R.)