So here you have Obama trying to rally them..strength in numbers and you question his so called foreign policy? So you have this Bric countries, not 1 country ..but a combination ..and we still want to give Mugabe props for his shenanigans in 20th century?? Lets deal with reality here ..I do not think we will see that nation rise back up anytime soon, not when we are talking about "Post American and Bric nations" ..unless the old guard like Mugabe just step down, the days for chest thumpin are over. He has taken that nation decades back just to proove his point, so dont chastise Obama, he is just trying to shed some light. The alternative is to stay getting pimped by the Bric nations! Let me pose this question, what answers do you have? And if we are going to recognize this Bric nations, which were colonized by the same folk, including the US of A..what is Mugabe trying to pull? In his defence they are a young nation, but what direction are the headed?
Your logic is all over the place........
I'll try.
Rallying is not foreign policy.
e.g. Obama talking about black fathers on father's day is rallying, does it solve anything? Does it solve the high black unemployment numbers? does it solve discriminatory lending practices?
Africa doesn't need rallying?
It is condescending actually.
Africa needs fair trade.
America cannot tell another soveriegn country how to run its affairs.
Do you think Obama has the balls to tell China about their governance?
Do you think Obama has the balls to tell China about oppression of their women?
So why Africa?
Because as most Americans are taught from very young, black/african/non-white countries can't govern or help themselves and they need white/european/civilized countries to show them how to do it.
That is the root of this "take back our country" movement that is attacking the very Obama.
The same thought permeates throughout this society including this gov't.
You mentioned alternatives?
You make it seem like America/Europe is divorced from Africa and Arica exists in a vacuum.
We live how we live because of Africa.
If this empire really cared then Fair Trade would have become a priority instead of all the grandstanding.
Here is a link for you to catch up:
http://www.cafod.org.uk/media-centre/wto/trade
Trade: Facts and Figures
A tea-plucker for Fairtrade [Fairtrade Foundation]
The global costs of unfair trade.
The real cost to real people.
The myth of ‘free’ trade.
Rich farmer vs Poor farmer
The Cost of Unfair Trade
World trade rules stifle the development of poor countries. A lack of income from global trade means that poor country governments can’t afford education facilities, health care and other infrastructure, such as roads and electricity, which would help to bring about the end of poverty.
- $1.3bn – the amount developing countries lose every day due to unfair trade rules
- £14 – The amount lost by developing countries due to unfair trade rules for every £1 they’re given in aid
- 50% – The drop in poor countries’ share of world trade since 1981. It is now just 0.4 per cent [3]
The myth of ‘Free Trade’
Many people believe that ‘free trade’ is the answer to ending hunger, disease and poverty. But can trade ever really be totally ‘free’? And would this be fair to small, undeveloped countries anyway?
- 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have lower trade barriers than the EU. Yet these countries are still struggling to improve living conditions for their people [4]
- $2.6 billion – The amount rich countries admit Africa will lose every year if their tariffs are reduced by 30%, as rich countries are forcing them to do [5]
- 80% - the proportion of the production cost of rice which is subsidised in rich countries
The real cost of current trade policies
World trade rules have a massive financial impact on individual people in the world’s poorest countries, most of whom make their living from agriculture. Global poverty can only be ended if trade rules let the poor earn an honest wage, for an honest day’s work. Subsidies, tariffs and dumping currently prevent this from happening.
- 63.5% of people in sub-Saharan Africa make their living from agriculture. In the EU just over 4 per cent of people work in agriculture [6]
- $3.9bn – the amount spent by the US on cotton subsidies in 2001/2002, 60% more than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso where two million people depend on cotton production to make their living [7]
- 689 million - the number of people living in sub -Saharan Africa, whose combined income is equal to the amount paid by the EU in agricultural subsidies [8]
- £16 – the amount paid every week in taxes and higher food prices by a typical European family of four, which goes to prop up the Common Agricultural Policy, which has a disastrous track record of overproduction, environmental degradation, and food safety scares [9]
The real costs to real people
Many small scale farmers in developing countries rely on one crop for their entire income. If trade rules regarding this crop mean that they can’t get a reasonable price for it, they will struggle to make any living at all, their children won’t be able to go to school, they will go hungry and they may not be able to afford to grow their crop next season.
- 35 % - drop in the value of maize to Mexican farmers since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 [10]
- 1.8m – the number of Sri Lankan families whose livelihood will be threatened by increases in cheap rice imports, resulting from rich country proposals. [11]
- $16,028 – the average equivalent received by each EU farmer per year in agricultural support. [12] This is 100 times more than the average annual earnings of the rural poor in sub-Saharan Africa. [13]
Rich farmer vs Poor Farmer
- 1.5 hectares – average landholding in Ethiopia [14] vs 69.3 hectares the average agricultural holding in the UK. [15]
- 962 kg – average cereal yield per hectare in sub-Saharan Africa vs 7,122 kg in the UK. [16]
- 769 hectares - for every one tractor in sub-Saharan Africa vs 12 hectares for every tractor in the UK. [17]
Millennium Development Goals
Rich countries are failing to give sufficient aid and debt relief to allow poor countries to reach the millennium development goals.
Trade could help counter-balance this short-fall, but rich countries are preventing trade from fully benefiting the poor.
- 184 million – the number of people who will still be going hungry in 2015 if current policies remain unchanged, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation. [18]
Why it doesn’t have to be like this
Trade is central to every economy. World trade has grown at an unprecedented rate over recent decades, but the poor have seen little of the increase in global wealth. Whilst living standards have risen year-on-year for the rich, life expectancy in some poor countries is actually getting less.
- 10 – The number of times world trade has increased since 1970, whilst the number of people going hungry in Africa has doubled.
- 33 years - Life expectancy of a baby born in Zambia in 2001
- 47 years - Life expectancy of a baby born in Zambia between 1970 and 1975. [20]
What CAFOD wants from the WTO
Special and differential treatment for developing countries.
- Poor country governments must be allowed to decide on trade policies that suit their development needs and help them to end poverty.
- In agricultural negotiations, developing countries should be able to protect crops that are essential for food security, livelihood security and rural development from further liberalisation.WTO negotiations should accept the G33 special products proposal.
- In the case of a drop in prices or an increase in the volume of imports, a Special Safeguard Mechanism should provide flexibility to developing countries to protect small farmers.
Stop trade distortion that generates poverty.
- Stop dumping of rich country exports on developing country markets, which destroys the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers and threatens a country’s ability to feed itself.
- Northern countries must commit to substantial further reform of their agricultural subsidy regimes.
Agriculture given a clear priority.
- Agriculture is central in the battle against poverty. Securing livelihoods, food security, fighting hunger and promoting gender equality must be the key priorities in the negotiations.
- Concessions given in agriculture by rich countries should not come at the expense of conditional liberalisation by poor countries in other areas of WTO negotiations
CAFOD is part of the Trade Justice Movement and Make Poverty History.
