G8
news
The rich countries won’t give up subsidies
The aim of the WTO is to
liberalise world trade in order to boost the growth rate of
the world economy. They argue that the ex-colonial countries
will then benefit as they will be able to develop their own
economies, boost exports and thus reduce poverty.
However, according to Oxfam the
rich countries will not have to reduce their subsidies until
2016 at the earliest and that they will still make hidden
subsidies. The US pays the equivalent of $6.6 billion of
hidden export subsidies (200 times the amount it declares to
WTO) to its farmers every year and the EU $5.2 billion (four
times the amount it reports).
A reduction in subsidies and
tariffs will only come at the price of these countries opening
up their domestic markets and services – in other words
privatisation and sale to western companies.
In reality, there is no such
thing as free trade. A few financially powerful countries or
blocs have a stranglehold on the world market. The dominant
economies will still try to protect their own producers. The
top five exporting countries (pop. 646 million) have 100 times
more trade than the 49 least developed countries (pop. 648
million). The US particularly will use its dominant economic
and military position in the world to resist any attempt at
regulation.
Take the example of shrimp
farming. The leading producers of farmed shrimps are all in
south east Asia and Latin America. Shrimp farming was promoted
by aid agencies, banks and governments as a way for poor
countries to develop and alleviate poverty. The US has now
placed duties of 112% on shrimps from China and Vietnam, 67%
on Brazilian exports and various amounts on other countries,
claiming that the products were being sold at “less than fair
value”.
Following the scrapping of the Multi Fibre Agreement in 2004,
exports of textiles from China exploded, both to the EU and
the US. For example, exports of pullovers increased by over
400%. Agreement has now been reached to limit Chinese textile
exports after the US imposed tariffs on them, a move
incidentally opposed by US retailers but clearly supported by
manufacturers!
|