U.S. uses world food woes to push trade agenda
PETER'S NEW YORK, April 18, 2008--It looks like the United States
does not mind holding the starving masses of the world hostage to approval of a
U.S.-dominated trade regime.While it is quite evident that the American
inflation and its importation abroad is the real culprit behind
apparent shortages, U.S. policymakers lost no time in turning a tragedy
into a battering ram to coerce countries into accepting American dominance in
agriculture.
At a press conference last week before departing for the Middle East,
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said the United States
would examine ways to deal with worldwide food shortages, adding that
one step toward solving this problem was to move forward with the
so-called Doha round of trade talks. These talks are basically centered
around agreements within the world community to lift agricultural trade
barriers. At the very point when the developing world is most
vulnerable, with food riots breaking out in many nations in response to
shortages, the U.S is apparently willing to use this situation as a way
to force concessions from poorer nations to open their economies to
western dominance. Control of a nation's food supply certainly means
absolute
control over its people. Such control rivals that of an occupying army.
The United States is capable of flooding the markets of developing
nations with cheap agricultural produce that would price domestic
agriculture out of the market. Many of these nations impose tariffs to
protect farmers from predatory pricing. If trade barriers were
removed, as the United
States wants, it could pave the way for Western control of the world
food supply. It would be possible for the West to create an artificial
famine, much the way the Ukrainians were starved out by Stalin in the
1920s and 1930s. As elites have emphasized the importance of population
control, it is not a far-out possibility that they would use this
technique to pare down numbers to bring them in line with overall
policy goals, which, of course, are not discussed with the general
public.
Make no mistake about it. The same thing could happen in America. Food
stocks in the United States have been considerably drawn down from
comparatively higher levels in past years, according to farmers
contacted by Peter's New York.
If
inflation resulted in pricing food outside the purchasing power of a
large portion of the population, the government could
end up nationalizing the farms. Once the states and local
communities lose
control of their food supplies, they would basically be at the mercy of
the Federal government. It behooves each community to strengthen its
ties to local farmers, and to prevent the
government from initiating measures that would allow it to seize the
food supply and nationalize farms. Through currency swings and
subsidies, the government has already interfered with the market
signals that a healthy economy would send to the agricultural industry,
disrupting the livelihood and planning capacity of farmers. Since
the
government will have failed to have fulfilled its basic function of
providing basic services to its citizens, it will no longer be able to
remain in power through democratic means, and some critics fear that it
will declare martial law to maintain order. It behooves each citizen to
contact his or
her
local government leaders to deal with a Federal government that has
essentially departed from norms regarding human rights and democratic
principles. Citizens, in consultation with neighbors and state and
local officials
where they are found to be open and cooperative, should each have their
own "continuity of government" plans in the face of such an
eventuality.