Agriculture subsidies knock down benefits that global trade is supposed to bring

This time again the die-hard would like us to believe that Cancun would begin to address the plight of the poor. Once again they were wide of the mark, the script was a replay of old themes. Rather than develop new approaches to world poverty, the Cancun conference served only to reaffirm the political and moral virtue of the wealthy. This time again, not only have the rich countries insisted on retaining generous agricultural supports, they have also demanded that developing nations reduce their own agricultural subsidies, eliminate remaining tariffs, and fully open their industrial and capital markets to foreign penetration. These demands fly in the face of much in recent history and current practice.
It’s no secret that exporting agricultural products is the only way for most developing countries to grow. A World Bank study reported a Cancun agreement, reducing tariffs and agrisubsidies, could have raised global income by $500 billion a year by 2015 — over 60 percent of which would go to poor countries and pull 144 million people out of poverty.
Unfortunately, this will not happen until wealthy nations are allowed to sell farm commodities on world markets at well below the cost of production. (Briefly, if it costs a farmer $3.5 to grow a bushel of corn, but the market is paying $2 a bushel, rich nations governments pay the farmer an extra $1.5, allowing the farmer to sell the crop for less than he otherwise could.) This is called dumping. It's flatly illegal under international trade rules. The United States, the European Union and Japan are notorious for such schemes.
And yet, in the case of the US, less than 2 percent of the population is directly dependent on agriculture for its income. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz asserts: "America's $4 billion cotton subsidies to 25,000 well-off farmers bring misery to 10 million African farmers and more than offset the US's miserly aid to some of the affected countries."
Everyone understands that the policy options the rich countries impose do not reflect their own path. Indeed, earlier US and other rich nations industrial development depended on tariffs for infant industries. The world should unite to bring wealthy nations to reason to restructure their farm-support programs so as to reduce the burden on their own taxpayers and improve the environmental performance of farms, without crippling producers in undeveloped nations.

BAHIR DAR – Dominated by Meles

The bi annual meeting of the EPRDF in Bahir Dar clearly showed the increasing dominance of the Prime Minister and his inner circle of advisers and colleagues, with the attendant diminution of the role of the ordinary members of the party. Power has definitely shifted more towards the executive arm of government, with Meles as the dominant figure.
Democracy did not prevail in Bahir Dar. What we have seen is the old African tradition of an ‘elected’ dictatorship. And so we will have to endure another few years of more of the same politics and people.
Frankly, people will not be energized unless far reaching reforms are contemplated, notably reforms bringing a shift to participatory democracy by such measures as direct election of prime ministers, region premiers and mayors; the separation of executives and legislatures; increased use of referenda and citizen initiated referenda; electoral reform; fixed four-year terms of office and proper levels of representation. Can the party handle such issues?