In 1919, the failure of President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles
caused diplomat Harold Nicolson to relate the following account of
United States’ actions: “America, eternally protected
by the Atlantic, desired to satisfy her self-righteousness while
disengaging her responsibility.” It is lamentable to think
that we have made little improvement since then.
This regret stems from the outcome of the annual Group of Eight
summit, held three weeks ago in the luxurious Gleneagles Resort in
Scotland. As a result, aid to developing countries will be doubled
by 2010 to approximately $50 billion per year, at least half of
which will go to Africa. Though the summit has since vanished from
media coverage, its effects will be felt by millions of people
worldwide for many years to come.
Although aid is generally considered a good thing, neo-liberals
will argue that it is in fact a rather unwieldy crutch for
impoverished nations. Whether this is simply old-fashioned American
isolationism rearing its proverbial head, or the instinctual
reaction of fiscal conservatives to reject anything resembling
welfare handouts, it is a valid point.
Sustained economic growth requires much more than simply
well-meaning donations to poor countries. Press these neo-liberals
a bit further, and they will likely expound the seemingly limitless
virtues of a competitive market. However, despite the public image
we have created, the United States is not the world’s largest
proponent for global free trade.
In fact, the United States maintains major barriers to free
trade, inflicting serious damage on the struggling economies of the
developing world. An example is our recent generosity to the
ravaged coastal nations of South East Asia. The United States
pledged $350 million in tsunami relief, after collecting $1.8
billion in duties on imports from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
and India in 2004. A reduction of tariffs would do a great deal
more to help these nations than the comparatively small sum of
relief.
The donation appears to be nothing more than a shallow show of
concern to appease international media. If the United States is
genuine about its desire to spur development in impoverished
nations, it should consider revising its detrimental trade
policies. It isn’t charity; it’s justice.
The United States, Japan and those in the European Union pay $47
billion, $49 billion and $100 billion yearly in agricultural
subsidies, respectively. Most of this money goes to large
agribusiness, not the mom and pop operations that linger so
romantically on the collective American imagination. Agriculture is
one of the few markets in which poor countries have a relative
advantage, an advantage which is being undermined by agricultural
subsidies in wealthy nations. Poor farmers simply cannot compete
with cheap American imports.
In the final statement put forth by Tony Blair, this
year’s chairman, the G-8 “reaffirmed [their]
commitment” to free trade and the reduction of domestic
subsidies by “a credible end date.” No end date was
actually set. President Bush claimed to be ready to work with the
EU to discuss the abolition of farm aid, and that this could be
conceivable by 2010.
French President Jacques Chirac, however, claimed that the
commitments made by Bush to the media did not align with those made
during the summit. This is a prime example of the United States
creating an image of self-righteousness while deceitfully
abdicating responsibility. If past actions are any indication, the
U.S. government will be extremely reticent to reduce agricultural
subsidies, despite public statements.
In the meantime, 10 million farmers in West Africa will continue
to suffer in silence, lacking the power to demand justice from a
world in which national self-interests trump all else.
Stevenson is a third-year international development studies
and economics student.