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.