Some of the proof. As expected, the polemic regarding the Cancun meeting and the reasons for the failure are far from being determined. I was invited to justify, by way of concrete examples, five "observations" listed yesterday in this section concerning the repercussions on European agriculture and in the poor countries (especially Africa) that agreement to the demands of the Cairns Groups of 21 in the domain of agriculture would have. This is a legitimate demand. A significant part of the "media", several non governmental organisation (NGO) and some MEPs invented the existence at Cancun as a homogenous position of the "group of 21", the poor countries and the movements representing small farmers such as "Via Campesina". This position clashed with the opposition of the USA and the European Union, which was subsequently opposed by the demands of the developing countries and farmers' representatives. I consider that this presentation is totally false. Here are some elements to support my position.
1. The hara-kiri of a Korean peasant logically affected all those at Cancun as well as international public opinion. But this tragic gesture was carried out against the opening of the agricultural markets, therefore in opposition to the demands of the "group of 21" (which is demanding a total freeing up of the trade in agricultural products). Here is the explanation of the small farmers' organisation: "Korean farmers were quite impressive. It's necessary to understand them. Before, they were part of the middle class. Today they are really poor. The government has opened up the borders, they've been flooded with foreign rice. They're here to say that it is no longer possible to work like that" (testimony from "Le Soir" Brussels). This is exactly the destiny for European rice farmers if imports are totally liberalised: this production will end completely and so will the "humid zones" which are ecologically indispensable. Given that hara-kiri is not a part of our culture, European farmers would increase the number of inhabitants in the large cities, without any perspectives or hope in the future. We'll be asking the demagogues to go and explain this situation to the regions affected.
2. The Mexican peasants demonstrated at Cancun with the same desperate vigorousness against the opening up of the borders to agricultural products from the USA. This is what José Bové declared in an interview, "the free trade zone between the USA, Canada and Mexico is having disastrous consequences. Since 1 January 2003, with the total opening up of agricultural trade, 800,00 Mexican peasants have been driven off their land, because the price of corn has completely collapsed" (due to the subsidised and genetically modified subsidies from the USA).
3. The European Farmers Federation (EFF), a member of the international association "Via Campesina" already mentioned, has taken a strong position supporting the right of all different people's to its "food sovereignty", therefore against the total freeing up of agricultural trade and against the integral suppression of subsidies to agriculture. On these two aspects,; the EFF asserted in the last position that it took: a) "Brazil, India and China (note: the leaders in the "group of 21" calling for the total opening up of the markets and the suppression of all agricultural subsidies, not simply export subsidies) defend the interests of their export companies and not those of their populations at large"; b) "agricultural support can be legitimate on the condition that they do not engender low price exports".
4. "Via campesina" included as part of its demands, ""an increase in subsidies for defending small producers". There has been a certain economising with the truth as far as the objective of presenting the position of the small farmers' organisations as aligned with that of the "group of 21".
5. Calculations and forecasts from the World Bank on the positive effects of a total liberalisation of agricultural trade are in my opinion one of the most bureaucratic and theoretical exercises ever conceived. The self-anointed experts of this organisation, struck by an acute crisis of demagogy, asserted in their last report that the getting rid of obstacles to trade would have an explosive result on agricultural exports from poor countries, which would be so good that in ten years' time 140 million people would be able to escape from poverty. Moreover, serious assessments indicate that the main cause of poverty in Africa are the conflicts, which have provoked 80% of the famine and food shortages. Today, famine is the scourge of certain areas in Africa which were previously never affected and therefore whose natural conditions can easily guarantee food self-sufficiency. Not a word on this aspect in the World Bank's document. Free up agricultural trade and it's instantly beneficial.
6. For the real poor countries (of which neither the Cairns group nor the Group of 21 is representative), the priority is not y exports, which lead to single crop production to the benefit of multinationals and large traders and which harm local farming, but by going back to subsistence farming. In the words of the founder of the association "Terre Solidaire": "The decision-makers are removed from reality. They do not listen to the grass roots. We need to re-educate farmers about the notion of subsistence farming. It is not trade but climate and soil which govern agriculture; not a handful of countries, not finance. We must mobilise the citizens. The WTO is deregulating agriculture. This will make the big producers rich, to the detriment of small farmers".
Contradictory criticism. From this modest anthology of facts and stances, it is possible to draw a certain doctrine of global politics to follow in order both to combat famine and food shortage, and to do as much as possible to preserve the natural environment. I have no hesitation in stating that in my opinion, the closest positions to this most desirable international policy are those of Europe, so misunderstood, misrepresented, sometimes wrong-footed in their meaning and intention. On the one hand, Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler (and those Ministers who approved the European negotiating position) are accused of giving in to the sirens of free trade and abandoning the all-important protection of European agriculture. On the other, the same people are being criticised for their supposedly protectionist position which is not open enough to the needs and demands of the poor countries. These two grievances are perfectly contradictory. And it is not a simple question of ignorance and misunderstanding! Bad faith is at times in evidence, and political prejudice plain for all to see.
Who is rejecting the rules on environment and social rights? It is well known that international employee organisations are calling for a "social clause" in world trade rules, and that several countries (the EU in particular) are calling for an environmental clause essentially guaranteeing the sustainable nature of agricultural production. However, as the newspaper "Les Echos" and others have stated, these requests "come up against the reservations of the developing countries, who suspect protectionist intentions by stealth". This did not stop Mr Francis Wurtz, chairman of parliamentary group "European United Left - Nordic Green Left" from lambasting in a statement "the historical failing of the EU in having gone along with the arrogance of the United States, instead of forging a strategic alliance with the myriad countries calling for a new order in world trade, which puts the development of human capacity and the protection of the environment before the unyielding laws of free trade". Where did Mr Wurtz find "myriad countries" in favour of introducing environmental protection into trade negotiations, given that the EU is virtually isolated in this position?
More bad faith. Another example: Cancun's failure scuppered the few positive results achieved (or nearly), such as the birth of a fair solution to the drama of the African cotton-producing countries, destitute largely due to the United States' enormous subsidised production, and in part because of Europe's small production, which is also subsidised. Those who gloried in the result of Cancun paid absolutely no heed to the effect on the four or five African countries in question. Correction: Caroline Lucas MEP did (drowning her regret in purported solidarity with developing countries, the ecologist movement and civil society). In statements made by others, political satisfaction at the WTO's failure took priority over the drama to be lived out by these countries.
Quite as false, and with as much bad faith behind them, were the opposite accusations made by Philippe de Villiers and Dominique Souchet that the European Commission "wants to impose a model of planetary agricultural free trade". The bad faith, I feel, is evinced by the gentlemen's reference to an article in which Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler wrote: "with the poorer countries, we share the concern of not wanting to open up agriculture to the slings and arrows of liberalisation. This would be to the detriment of the poorest populations. Maintaining border controls, for those who want them, is not only legitimate but necessary". They also called upon those taking part in Cancun to "abandon the illusion that we are sacrificing European agriculture to the success of the rest of the Doha programme". A few days later, Pascal Lamy added: "If the developing countries think that all agricultural subsidy will disappear, we do not agree with that. We run the risk of no longer being able to farm in Europe. It is an issue of European sovereignty".
French Agriculture Minister Hervé Gaymard defended the preferences granted by the EU to ACP countries, stressed the need to do something about raw material prices (which have fallen massively for coffee and cocoa, by no fault of Community policies) and wondered whether "development issues are only brought up at all out of hypocrisy, to mask the commercial interest of the great exporting superpowers". And that, at times, seems increasingly to be the case.