When I was a child, my father, who had witnessed the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, told me how common ground was sought around shared principles in a world fractured by the Cold War. The declaration, adopted in 1948, upheld a series of basic rights, including to adequate food. States have the duty to protect, respect and fulfill such rights and can be called to account if they fail to do so.
UN membership grew rapidly in the 1960s, when many former colonies gained independence and subsequently pushed for greater equity in global governance. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, called on signatories to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
The oil-supply shocks and stagflation of the mid-1970s shifted the momentum away from state-led, rights-based governance to neoliberalism as the dominant policymaking paradigm. This approach was based on the misguided beliefs that unfettered markets allocate resources most efficiently, economic globalization benefits all countries, and the private sector provides goods and services more effectively than the public sector.
From the 1980s, the neoliberal structural-adjustment programs imposed by the World Bank and the IMF on cash-strapped countries, coupled with the advent of the WTO, restricted the policy space of governments in the Global South. The adjustment programs called for governments to roll back regulations — including labor and environmental protections — that were deemed a hindrance to free trade and to open their markets to imports of subsidized food products.
The resulting globalized, corporate-led industrial food system, which promised to improve food security worldwide, has been a dismal failure. Citizens have been left to pay the price for neoliberal policies: fragile supply chains, workers without rights, a worsening climate crisis, severely diminished biodiversity, reduced access to healthy food, unsustainable diets and extreme economic inequality. With hunger and malnutrition on the rise, it is time for a radical course correction.
Reforming the global industrial food system would be difficult, in part because it is characterized by an extremely high concentration of power in the hands of a few multinational agribusiness companies. Only a handful of firms dominate the global grain and fertilizer markets, a position that has enabled profiteering when supply chains break down, as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Backed by powerful commodity-exporting countries, neoliberal policies have promoted industrial production of export crops at the expense of domestic food production by smallholders, transforming Global South countries into food importers vulnerable to price spikes. Financial power also buys narrative power, which can be used to praise the latest food tech. No one should care that pesticides are devastating bee populations if corporations can turn tiny drones into artificial pollinators (all for a price, of course).
The latest manifestation of this concentrated corporate power is multinationals’ attempts to gain control of global food governance from the rights-based intergovernmental system. In 2010, the World Economic Forum launched what has come to be called a multi-stakeholder approach to governance in which everyone has a seat at the table. This framework is far less inclusive than it sounds. When the roles, responsibilities and interests of different actors are ignored, and power imbalances are disregarded, corporations inevitably prevail over the less powerful, and government accountability and human rights are set aside.
Inviting corporations to join the decisionmaking process tips the scales in favor of industrial, chemical-heavy monoculture — a move justified by the neoliberal narrative that we desperately need to harness corporate investment and innovation to increase food production. In reality, the world produces more than enough to feed everyone. The problem is unequal access, which requires political, not technical, solutions.
Supporting small family farmers, who produce a significant proportion of the world’s food and reach consumers through local markets rather than global supply chains, requires an entirely different policy framework.
However, why would multinational corporations advocate an approach that goes against their interests?
The UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021 was the apotheosis of “multi-stakeholderism.” Organized without a mandate from governments, and with strong participation by agrifood corporations and the Gates Foundation, the summit did not address the right to food and — in the words of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Michael Fakhri — was disconnected from “people’s real needs.” The summit’s “Stocktaking Moment,” which started yesterday, is the first global follow-up to this nonevent.
Many civil-society organizations that fight for people’s right to choose the structure of their food systems have contested the events. These groups prefer platforms such as the UN Committee on World Food Security, which includes constituencies most affected by food insecurity, focuses on the structural causes of hunger and inequality, and promotes accountability by reserving voting for governments. The People’s Autonomous Response to the UN Food Systems Summit — a coalition of such groups — held public events earlier this month to highlight power imbalances that challenge democratic food governance and to consider the future of multilateralism.
Determining how to achieve adequate food for all is the right of citizens and the duty of governments. Those concerned with making profits should have no place at the table.
Nora McKeon, a former chief of civil society relations at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, teaches at Roma Tre University and the International University College of Turin. She is the author, most recently, of Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS