What is rare is our agreement on anything. Free Trade is an easy one for us.
I see free trade as something close to a no-brainer, and it baffles me to see it so widely opposed.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on US Agricultural subsidies (that means, of course, that you can expect to be harangued). I think there is a lot of room here for some aggressive moves from the US, particularly after the election. I’m assuming, of course, that Bush wins, which really doesn’t bother me that much: I’m not a big GB2 fan, but the Democrats don’t excite me much either.
With the election over, there would be political room for a near-complete elimination of US agricultural subsidy. This is politically feasible. 60% of US ag production receives 3% of the total subsidies. That means the other 40% of production gets 97%. Within that 40%, a large majority of the subsidies go to a small number of producers, and they aren’t small mom-and-pop farms.
So we go out and chop subsidies to near zero, retaining only a package for small owner operated farms. Might as well toss in a little aid package to Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Benin, the cotton-dependent economies that have suffered most from our policies; small peanuts for us and good PR. Then we go out and pitch America as the champion of the less developed world. We pitch the idea that poor countries don’t need doleouts, they need fair access to world markets for their products and protection from products dumped at below production cost (we do this all the time: we send corn to Mexico at 20% below production cost, and that isn’t good for the Mexican farmer). They need free trade; real free trade, not free-for-us-and-not-for-them trade. Then we point the finger straight at Europe, and challenge them to do the same. Most of all, we point the finger at Europe’s #1 champion of agricultural protection, which happens to be France.
If we really want to up the ante, we declare that since those poor folks in the developed world don’t have the leverage to pry open European agricultural markets, we will use our leverage to do it for them. Open up to produce from those poor little people, or face sanctions from their big brother.
You want to get back at the Frogs, forget the wine and cheese boycotts. This is the way to do it.
The difference is that while most American agriculture is quite capable of competing without subsidy, European agriculture really is inefficient. They can’t lift their subsidies without really driving their farmers out of business, not to mention having truckloads of dung dumped all up and down the Champs Elysee.
The result is a most excellent piece of public diplomacy, and a real move on Europe’s inappropriate self-image as the Western power that is sensitive to the needs of the poor. The US could use an image fluff in that part of the world. Cost is minimal. American taxpayers and consumers actually benefit. The percentage of US agricultural producers that will actually be affected is too small to be politically or economically significant, as long as we don’t let it turn into an emotional issue.
Next we could un-protect our ridiculous textile industry, or am I just living in a libertarian fantasyland again?
Then of course we take people in key places aside, and mention that since we stuck up for them when it counted, maybe they can help us out on some of our IPR and finance industry liberalization concerns…
sr@whydotheycallmealiberal.com |
