In a dramatic departure from ingrained political tradition, US farmers are willing to give up billions of dollars in government agriculture subsidies if new markets for their goods open up abroad -- a measure they hope US negotiators can put through in Hong Kong at WTO discussions.
The concession is linked to a number of conditions -- including the EU's following suit in cutting farm subsidies, and developing countries' willingness to cut down their import tariffs.
But if the rhetoric in the past months is any indication, neither condition is likely to be met, especially with France and Spain dragging their feet on the issue.
A US coalition of dozens of trade groups and large companies has voiced support for the US government plan to sharply reduce an estimated US$20 billion paid annually to the agriculture industry.
The coalition includes industry giants such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grain and Feed Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
In a statement on the Hong Kong discussions, known as the Doha Development Round, the group said it supports "reductions in total trade-distorting domestic support and other US concessions" so long as they support US objectives of "market access and export competition."
Countries subsidize domestic agriculture to make it turn a profit and maintain a steady and secure food supply.
Developing countries, where labor is cheap, complain that their farm exports can't compete with the prices in richer countries, thus closing down a major avenue for economic development.
Though the industrialized world has long moved away from agriculture-based economies, developed countries still maintain farm trade barriers to protect their farmers from less expensive foreign products.
In an unusual departure from this policy, the US has offered to reduce some domestic farm subsidies by 60 percent over the next five years and to eliminate export subsidies by 2010. In return, it expects developed countries in Europe to cut subsidies, and developing countries to open their markets to US goods.
This would dramatically change the way US agriculture industry is doing business, said one expert, who indicated that farmers could well expect some sort of other federal assistance, for example rewards for using conservation techniques, to compensate for the subsidy losses.
High level trade talks in Cancun, Mexico, collapsed two years ago after rich and poor countries failed to agree on the issues.
Just last month, Pacific rim countries pushed for the EU to make the necessary concessions, and Mexican President Vicente Fox singled out Spain and France for dragging their feet.
US Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns is convinced that expansion of US exports is vital for the industry's future.
"To grow and prosper, America's farmers and ranchers must look elsewhere, to the foreign markets where over 95 percent of the world's potential consumers reside," he told a congressional hearing recently.
The US currently exports US$64.5 billion in agricultural products, an increase of US$10 billion in the past five years.
Canada, Mexico and Japan are the largest importers of US farm products.
While there is strong backing for the US plan, Christopher Shaffer with the National Association of Wheat Growers reflected some of the unease, saying the offer came "at a universally difficult time for US farmers and ranchers."
"It is difficult to envision giving up any programs when faced with yet unknown highs in fuel and other input costs and low market prices coupled with continued trade challenges from our competitors," Shaffer said.
But he said it was also hard to see how "growers can prosper unless we open markets and expand our customer base with those beyond our borders."
Shaffer emphasized to Congress that the US should make no unilateral concessions.
"If the US wheat industry is going to accept painful changes in the US domestic support system, it must see major results in other areas of the negotiation that are important to us," he said.
Johanns has sought to assure farmers that their concerns are being represented, and pledged that "we will not unilaterally disarm with regard to substantial cuts in domestic support."
In the minds of some observers, US farmers are willing to accept reduced subsidies in a tit-for-tat because Europe and Japan have much higher levels of subsidies and tariffs. Across the board reductions would benefit US exporters to those rich markets.
The US government is unhappy with the EU response to its proposal, and US farmers also say that the burden is now on Europe if the goals of the Doha Round are to be achieved.
Gerald Tumbleson, president of the National Corn Growers Association, charged that Europe is "aiming to avoid any significant liberalization."
"The EU's proposal has been criticized by all participants in the negotiations, and will not encourage other developed as well as developing countries to make significant offers on market access," said Bob Metz, president of the American Soybean Association.
US negotiators, especially Johanns and Trade Representative Robert Portman, have been preparing the public for lowered expectations from next week's WTO ministerial meetings in Hong Kong.
But Portman has not given up on the negotiations.
"Should the EU engage positively on knocking down these relatively high barriers to trade in agriculture, the other elements of the Doha Round could come together pretty quickly," he said.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS