The Death of Doha

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (4)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  I found this article a refreshing change from the usual WTO rhetoric. As a part time grain farmer in Canada I often get frustrated with the protectionism and subsidies used in other countries in grains and oilseeds, particularly the USA(I know we have some subsidy issues in Canada as well). I often blame these for my struggles to become a full time farmer, unable to support my family from the farm. But in comparison to the poor nations’ farmers in the world I have nothing to complain about. Unlike many of them I have 3 meals a day and a warm roof over my head and money left over for leisure and recreation for my family. Through my wife’s work we have a connection to several underdevloped countries, in particular Ethiopia. We have a personal interest in seeing more parity in the nations of the world in terms of food, health care and education. I’m not a bleeding heart, profit is not a dirty word, but I sure agree with the author that the multinational companies and governments that support them need to take a hard look at becoming more socially conscious in these developing markets. In my opinion they should become less dominant in our developed nations as well but as long as the consumer wants to comsume more and is willing to pay for it, the corporations are quite willing to supply it. Its not really their fault that we keep wanting more. Lastly, I appreciated the comment that the USA grain subsidies are not really meant for the farmers but to keep prices low for the corporations. I found that very enlightening and almost soothing. The article actually made me feel pretty good about my lot in life. Thank you

  Posted by ngalbraith on Aug 24, 2006 at 1:57 PM

  I’m not sure what Moberg’s point is, except he has none to make.

  First he laments the failure of free trade to protect farmers from developing nations; then he criticizes developed countries who “were supposed to reduce tariffs and subsidies to permit developing nations to sell their agricultural products without unfair competition or obstacles”; then he argues for tariffs and subsidies that are supposed to encourage ““food sovereignty,” or the right of each nation to fashion its own food strategy to strike a balance between urban and rural incomes.”

  I guess the only point I agree with Moberg is with his final statement, “The WTO model has failed. But its replacement as a framework for the global economy is not yet in sight.”

  Moberg certainly makes no effort to enlighten.

  Posted by Jay Cline on Aug 25, 2006 at 2:55 PM

  The deal at the heart of the Doha Agenda was increased IP protection fro reduced agriculture protection.  Industry in rich nations gets greater protection for their products and industry in developing nations supposedly gets more markets for its goods.  (Even with increased IP protection TRIPS allows for derogations, e.g. if a country produces generic drugs solely for domestic consumption).

  One of the main reasons it failed was France’s objection to reducing subsidies for its small farmers.  The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has to change in order for any renegotiation of worldwide ag policy, and France stalemated those talks.

  While gaining access to developed economies is important for the Global South two other issues are also involved.  (1) The need to export value-added products, e.g. manufactured goods or services; (2) the need to lower tariffs and increase trade across the Global South independent of the G10.

  People like to say that Globalization and the WTO has failed, but was Smoot-Hawley any better?  Furthermore, the WTO Dispute Settlement Process can work for small countries, with the current complaint against the US for refusing to open its gambling markets a case in point.

  Posted by oliver cromwell on Aug 26, 2006 at 8:26 PM

  The issues with inequitable WTO trade policies with 3rd world nations does not supercede the issues with 1st world nations such as our own.  Economic justice must prevail in all cases without profiteering exploitation using approiate tarriffs.

  Posted by RichardT on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:02 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by David Moberg

• Our Imperfect Unions
  
• Dismantling the Myth of McCain
  How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham
• Main Street Squeeze
  
• Winning the White Working Class
  
• The Healthcare Union War
  Tensions between the California Nurses Association and SEIU escalate at the Labor Notes conference
• Dissent in the Ranks
  SEIU Is the Nation's Fastest Growing Union -- But at What Cost?