Libya 1986->2011

What is "World Music?" - Angola Soundtrack: The Unique Sound of Luanda 1968-1976

As Americans we tend to fall into an Anglo-American trap when it comes to selecting music. If music falls outside the North American – Continental European divide, it is ultimately labeled “World Music.” It is the quintessential example of why musical categorization (and genres in general) does little to aid the listener in understanding more about the music he/she is listening to.


You have to ask yourself, what is similar about Cuban and South African music? And if you cannot come up with a definitive response then it might be time to give up one’s simplistic classification attempts. We often talk about the afrobeat/afrofunk influences of Talking Heads or Vampire Weekend without really diving deeper into those influences. Not to say that Angola Soundtrack: The Unique Sound of Luanda 1968-1976 is an afrobeat album, but you get the idea. Often, I find myself reading “ he incorporates a lot of tribal influences into his drums,” or something to that effect. I don’t know what that means, but I think “tribal,” in that instance, essentially means non-western.


Having said that, you can hear Congolese psychedelic guitar influences in Angola Soundtrack, reminiscent of the rhythms popularized by Konono No 1. The music itself has a unique Angolan twist. There’s a touch of Caribbean and merengue influences. Much of Brazil’s African population came from Angola. There is noticeable resemblance in the semba music off Angola Soundtrack and the samba heard on Brazilian airwaves today. Angolan-influenced, Portuguese group Buraka Som Sistema brought kuduro, an urban take on semba, to the world. Hopefully, Angola Soundtrack will bring the world to Angola.


Much respect to Analog Africa. They make an effort to go search for the artists of these songs, wherever possible, and make sure they are paid a fair portion of the record proceeds, which has often not been the case in “African” compilation deals of the past. I know we regularly encourage you to purchase the music we post, but we especially encourage you to do so for any one of Analog Africa’s compilations. I first came across their third release African Scream Contest: Raw & Psychedelic Sounds From Benin & Togo 70s in a record shop in St. Mark’s Place. I later came across Vol. 5 Legends from Benin looking through crates at Amoeba in Hollywood.


Purchase Angola Soundtrack: The Unique Sound of Luanda 1968-1976 here.


More from Analog Africa.

Crisis Averted

What about Yemen?

Yes! What about Yemen, or any other country with violent, authoritarian regimes? What do we do with them? As with Libya, I do not wish the United States to get involved in regime change in other countries across the Levant, the Persian Gulf and Sub-Saharan and North Africa. But, one can see where laying the foundation of war on humanitarian precepts, countries arguing for action can find themselves in double-standards in other situations where they are more complacent and predisposed to inaction.

Having said that, principally, I think last week’s Economist cartoon summed up my feelings on the War in Libya (It is even quite comical that the phrase “War in Libya” is in and of itself is controversial, as if calling a war by another name, e.g. intervention, distorts the scope of the realities on the ground). My feelings being primarily that the case for intervention on humanitarian grounds in Libya and not in Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Ivory Coast or Yemen was arbitrary on a "responsibility-to-protect (R2P)" spectrum.

What the wording of the UN Security Council resolution has done is leave the US and NATO-led war against Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi and Qaddafi’s forces up for criticism based on the limits of the scope of involvement and humanitarian basis of war itself. For this reason, limiting the scope of the allied involvement for humanitarian purposes has drawn criticism from countries not involved in the intervention when juxtaposed with the overt allied rhetoric for the need of regime change in Libya.

Notably, the case for war was based off the need to prevent of a “humanitarian disaster” in Benghazi by Qaddafi’s forces. This claim was made from the dual presupposition that there was truth in the stylistic ranting by Qaddafi and his son, Saif al-Islam (over various interviews where they promised to go “door-to-door” and warn of the threat of “rivers of blood,” if civil war were to ensue) and that thousands of civilians would perish at the hands of Qaddafi's retaliatory revenge against the uprisings. In last Monday’s speech, President Obama said:

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen." 

The case isn't as strong as Samantha Power, et al, would have you presume. This is not an intervention to prevent genocide, or violence on some comparable level. Invariably, it is difficult for us to judge the true merits for war given that the word 'humanitarian,' itself, is vague. Is there a threshold of deaths needed for the 'humanitarian disaster' label?  The Blaine Truth argued last month that the case was clear - the United States must protect the rebels and aid them in their overthrow of Qaddafi. This goes beyond the stated scope of the UN Security Council Resolution. In a previous post, I stated what the difficulties were with such a limited scope, but nonetheless they were necessary to build a coalition.

Although we may not like Qaddafi, although we may not want him to be in power, we are limited by the wording of the resolution - as Dr. Cordesman highlights - which is a consensus piece and not itself a diver of policy. Nevertheless, it is the basis for justification of intervention. Ultimately, what is important and what Stephen Walt highlighted is that President Obama's speech "did not matter," it is the results of the No-Fly Zone that matter. The justifications for intervention can change with time (as witnessed in Iraq), but there is only one clear rendering of the results, which remain to be seen.

References:

Marc Lynch’s article:

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/29/the_case_against_the_libya_intervention

Stephen Walt’s article:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/29/why_obamas_libya_speech_didnt_matter

http://csis.org/multimedia/video-anthony-cordesman-unrest-libya

Libya Cartoon

Austerity ≠ Progress

I agree with Republicans. I agree that the United States should not let itself become the next Greece.

Hence, I agree that we should not indiscriminately slash government spending on the unfounded assumption that austerity fuels prosperity.

Critics argue that there cannot be economic growth without fiscal austerity. Really? Where in fact is this true? Is this true in the United Kingdom? To your right, you will see a graph of GDP growth in the United Kingdom over the last four years. Notice the dip in GDP growth in the 3rd quarter of 2010 following the implementation of Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne’s austerity measures. The UK treasury downgraded its economic outlook for 2011 from 1.7% to 1.5%. Does this smell like prosperity? I think not.

In pre-election debates last year, Gordon Brown lashed out at David Cameron and the Tories for threatening to sink the UK economy back into recession. The now defunct Labour leader's cries were loosely headed by the "sweeping" victories of the Conservative Party in parliamentary elections last spring. What has become of the economic policies of the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition?


Inflation rose to 4.4% at the end of 2010. There will be ever increasing demands by proponents of of tight monetary policy to increase interest rates to prevent an inflationary spiral. Unsurprisingly, austerity is not fueling growth. Rising inflation will force the government to raise the interest rates, thereby, increasing the costs of borrowing, which would in turn diminish demand and further sink the economy as the private sector lags to fill the gap left by diminished government spending.

Let us now venture across the pond. Republicans would have you believe that austerity is the only option. Without austerity, they argue, the bond markets would make the financing of the United States government impossible. Further, Republicans highlight that without austerity there cannot be any increase in business investment in the economy. If the government were to make broad-based and deep cuts to spending and investment, the private sector would fill the gap to re-stimulate the economy and lead us on the road to economic recovery.


After the IMF and EU-led bailout of the Greek economy and the implementation of austerity measures and budget cuts, did the Greek economy rebound into the heights of Aristotelean Athens? The GDP figures for the past six quarters sure aren't supportive of this argument.

This, however, is not something new we seen from the Republican party and the ideological right in the United States. Austerity breeds prosperity is just another in long line of empirically unsupported arguments coming out of the Right Wing. And there are many: Alan Greenspan, et al. - financial de-regulation leads to economic growth. The Laffer Curve - lowering taxes increases government revenues. The Neo-Conservatives - overthrowing Sadaam Hussein is necessary to win the Global War on Terror. As Paul Krugman reiterates, let us not fall for this new "ignorance wrapped in a fallacy."

Republicans have told us time and time again that without austerity, the bond market "hawks" that forced borrowing rates to go up across Southern Europe and Ireland will swoop the shores of the United States. These hawks are nowhere to be seen. Interest rates remain at historic lows. Core inflation in February rose slightly to 1.1%. These bond vigilantes have yet to take on US Treasury Bills as their next victim. But, as Republicans would argue, the threat alone is sufficient to shore up defenses. We cannot fall prey to the bond vigilantes and we must appease their advisers, Moody, Fitch and S&P.


I, for one, am thoroughly unimpressed by the arguments for fiscal restraint. Surely, I, along with those who see the negative, immediate effects of austerity, are not calling for an opening of the flood gates of government spending. Simply, we are stating that it is unnecessary to so adamantly seek the retraction of government spending during a recession of such magnitude as this one. I urge policymakers and the American public to look towards Greece and the United Kingdom as examples, not of fiscal restraint, but the Hooverville consequences of slash and burn government spending.

My apparent "Marc Lynch"

To any of you who have read my last two blog posts. You may be confused. For I, apparently, have pulled a "Marc Lynch," which in this case goes from overtly supporting intervention in Libya to taking a more measured stance on the situation. For Marc Lynch, this shift is witnessed on his blog for Foreign Policy, Abu Aardvark's Middle East Blog, from this post to this post. It is only right that I concede that I too have made an ideological shift to a more tempered response. Given that since my last post, the United Nations Security Council has voted in favor of a No Fly Zone or a No Drive Zone, depending on how you define, I now must defend my shift away from liberal interventionism.

I will admit, as Stephen Walt contends, there are many similarities to the decision-making process that I underwent and the "gut instincts" aspects of decision-making under the George W. Bush Administration. Initially, I was angry at Col. Muammar al-Qaddaffi's brutal retaliation against the Libyan Rebel Forces and I hoped on the interventionist bandwagon. I, myself, am quite surprised by quick shift in the ideological stalemate in the Obama Administration towards intervention. The cool response, I advocated for, in my last post, was not headed.


Now that I have apologized for my ideological shift. I will go on to further justify why I made the shift away from intervention through the words of Stephen Walt:

More importantly, despite Obama's declaration that he would not send ground troops into Libya -- a statement made to assuage an overcommitted military, reassure a skeptical public, or both -- what is he going to do if the air assault doesn't work? What if Qaddafi hangs tough, which would hardly be surprising given the dearth of attractive alternatives that he's facing? What if his supporters see this as another case of illegitimate Western interferences, and continue to back him? What if he moves forces back into the cities he controls, blends them in with the local population, and dares us to bomb civilians? Will the United States and its allies continue to pummel Libya until he says uncle? Or will Obama and Sarkozy and Cameron then decide that now it's time for special forces, or even ground troops?  

And even if we are successful, what then? As in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, over forty years of Qaddafi's erratic and despotic rule have left Libya in very poor shape despite its oil wealth. Apart from some potentially fractious tribes, the country is almost completely lacking in effective national institutions. If Qaddafi goes we will own the place, and we will probably have to do something substantial to rebuild it lest it turn into an exporter of refugees, a breeding ground for criminals, or the sort of terrorist "safe haven" we're supposedly trying to prevent in Afghanistan.

Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

In the debate over how to respond to Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi's retrenchment of power against rebel forces in Libya, US foreign policy decision-makers should apply the spirit of Paul Newman's words concerning poker in Cool Hand Luke, "Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand."

The United Kingdom, France, the Arab League and Senators John McCain and John Kerry have all called for the creation of a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya. The diversity of humanitarian deterrence proponents should not be a basis for the justification of the creation of a NFZ.

The only certainty in Libya is the apparent uncertainty of the turmoil.

We do not know who controls the Libyan rebel movement, beyond the confines of the National Transitional Council. Provisional councils have been established, but it would be shortsighted to assume control or influence of any one group, tribe or political affiliation over the rebel movement. 

Neither are we entirely sure of the motivations of all those involved in these movements. Are their grievances economic, social, religious or political? Or, are individuals taking advantage of a power vacuum, or perceived power vacuum in Libyan politics? It is difficult to judge the motivations of those who defected from Qaddafi's military so quickly. Could they re-align with the regime if the rebel movement proves unsuccessful?

Then, there is the growing realization that the struggle between the Qaddafi regime, the pro-Qaddafi forces and African mercenaries on the one hand and the Free Libya rebel movement, the National Transitional Council and Qaddafi defectors on the other hand is defined on regional, territorial and tribal lines. These geographical and familiar delineations put pressures on the foundations of advocates of “humanitarian intervention.” Effectively, the United States and the International Community would no longer be defending helpless Libyan civilians, but picking sides in a Civil War.

In fact, Libya today resembles more Colonial Libya than the modern state of Libya. Essentially, the country is starting to split, if it hasn’t already, between Benghazi and Tripoli. Benghazi was previously the capital of Cyrenaica, an Italian colonial administration that spanned the eastern part of modern-day Libya. Tripoli was the capital of the Italian Tripolitania. These administrations remained separate until merged together with Fezzan to form what we know today as Libya. 

This deconstruction of the arbitrary Italian 1934 borders by the National Transitional Council poses questions not only to the system of boundaries with which we operate in the Middle East today, but attachment of the United States and other Western allies have to these nominal borders.

The paradox then is whether to solve problems in part created by the Italian colonization in Libya (empowering and preferring Benghazi vis-a-vis Tripoli) with further “colonization.” In other words, does the United States solve the Libyan crisis with NFZ’s, Special Op’s and targeted strikes? Does the United States follow the Italian example and empower one side of the country over another? Or, does the United States follow in Paul Newman’s example and play the only “real cool hand” they have (and do "nothing")?

Doing nothing, in this sense, does not have to be doing nothing in the strictest definition of the action. Doing nothing can certainly involve moving against Qaddafi's assets and isolating him internationally. Both actions are strong measures, which invariably cost the United States very little.

The complexity of the situation in Libya is compounded by the obscurity of American Foreign Policy towards the Middle East following the ouster of President Ben Ali from Tunisia earlier this year. The inability to either commit to regional autocrats or support regime change outright has left the United States without the tactical credibility to be taken seriously by regional and international powers. When President Barack Obama calls Qaddafi to “leave immediately,” but does not implement a program to provide aid for his ouster, Qaddafi feels emboldened to stay.

Thus, while the United States moves to find long-term responses to the Arab Spring, let us not be tempted to give answers to questions we don't know all the facts about. The United States has been dealt a difficult situation in Libya: a tenuous rebel alliance, with a poor central command structure and differing incentives. With this "hand," it may be difficult to justify going all-in (military intervention, i.e. Afghanistan) or raising the bet knowing the cards at hand (NFZ, i.e. Iraq 1991), but doing nothing, although unattractive in the press, provides the most measured response and in this case can be a "real cool hand."

An Escalating Question

In response to a post by The Ten Bells, entitled “An Escalating Situation,” the United States should not base its foreign policy decision-making on anecdotal conjecture, i.e. Iraq or Vietnam, but base it on a nuanced and appreciated understanding of the problem at hand. That the situation of Muammar al-Qaddafi is similar to that of Sudaam Hussein in 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait, is of no use to decision-makers today beyond the simplistic assumption that all dictators in the Middle East are created equal. In their view, we should propose similar policy prescriptions to foreign policy problems at hand, e.g. a no-fly zone. These conjectures tell us nothing of the events Libyans face under the retrenchment of Qaddafi’s forces in Libya, they simply offer a short-cut avenue to come up with solutions to problems.


An even easier short-cut is to look at the man who Colonel Muammar al-Qaffafi has become, a megalomaniac. Beyond the ludicrousness that is Qaddafi, insisting on traveling in Bedoin tents to the UN meetings, proposing the excommunication of Switzerland from the International Community, hosting talks on the role of women in Islam to Italian supermodels or hiring between 50 to 200 “virgin, Amazonian” bodyguards for his protection, ultimately the question at hand to policy makers in the United States is not whether advocating the ouster of Qaddafi is functionally equivalent to the military entanglements of recent memory (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam), but a more salient question of whether or not our foreign policy should reflect our values?


And if our values, as the case in Libya demonstrates, are securing a market for EU arms exporters, assuring access to oil and natural gas for Italy and preventing African refugees from crossing the Mediterranean, then we should not question the rapprochement of Libya with the West since Libya gave up its WMD program earlier last decade.


However, if we are to stand by our convictions in democracy and freedom not only as Americans but as human beings, can we tolerate Qaddafi to remain in power beyond a hypothetical eradication of the “Free Libya” rebel movement? Can we tolerate the continual destruction of the the LIbyan countryside? Can we tolerate the “Escalating Situation,” as The Ten Bells phrases it, of civilian causalities? Or, are our values and foreign policy apparatus irreconcilable? If then, we should advocate isolationism do what scholars have ascribed to our generation (The Millennials), nothing.


As The Ten Bells noted, this is not a new discussion in American public discourse. Over forty years ago, former Senator Ted Kennedy responded to this debate in the eulogy he gave for his brother Robert F. Kennedy. His words address the fear of action in the face of adversity much better than mine.

"There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.” 

“That is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.” 

"For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event."

"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

Feeding 9 Billion in the Media - Courtesy of Al Jazeera and CNN

 

Feeding 9 Billion in Graphs - Courtesy of the Economist and UN FAO

Feeding 9 Billion

The United States Department of Agriculture should end its support programs for domestic agricultural production. 70% of agricultural support goes to 10% of the farmers, which is almost entirely comprised of oligopolistic, multinational corporations. Farmers in developing countries cannot compete against products produced on subsidized farms in developed countries. Farming is one of the few economic sectors where developing countries are considered to have comparative advantage. Meaning, agricultural products could be produced cheaper in developing countries, whilst developed countries could concentrate on manufactured products and intellectual property. On top of which, agricultural support programs in the United States go to subsidize corn-ethanol biofuel production, which crowds out the land, labor and resources available for food-slated corn production. Global food prices have hit records highs this year after hitting records highs only three summers ago. The population of the planet is estimated to reach nine billion in forty years. In order to feed nearly a third more of the population in four decades, the Green Revolution of agriculture of the 1970’s will have to be replicated. Agriculture support programs distort market realities, artificially raise prices, and raise the barriers to entry into the system for farmers in developing countries. Combined with incentives for food producers to switch to biofuel production, these policies do not help the world and benefit the few at the expense of the many. In this age of austerity, the budget for farming support for the United States Department of Agriculture should be significantly cut, if not eliminated. These policies impede the success of the Doha Development Round, conflict with the principles espoused by the North American Free Trade Agreement and impede, not encourage, global economic development. Ultimately, one has to ask, “Are there any good reasons to support agricultural subsidies?” The answer is, No.[1]

Republicans achieved the highest gains in seats in the House of Representatives in the November 2010 on heals of austerity and government reform. Since the election, the bi-partisan Debt Commission has presented the results of its study to both houses of Congress. One of their recommendations included cutting $3 billion in agricultural subsidies.[2] The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been supporting farmers since the Great Depression, when a sharp decline in the demand for commodities pushed commodities prices below the costs of production and forced many farmers out of the profession. And although the world is still recovering for the economic catastrophes caused by the Great Recession of 2008, the agricultural market today is much different from the market faced by farmers and policymakers alike in the 1930’s.[3]   

            While Republicans and the Tea Party Caucus are quick to propose cuts for education, service projects, maternity care and public broadcasting, their free market rhetoric ends when it comes to criticizing the USDA’s agricultural subsidy programs.[4] These programs are widely considered my proponents of trade liberalization as distorting the true market price of commodities.[5] Further, the USDA goes beyond merely subsidizing agriculture production. Farmers receive insurance guarantees, marketing support, export subsidies, import tariffs on agricultural products from abroad, protection from competition and guaranteed price floors for commodities. Invariably, these policies go beyond elevating food prices domestically, they create a whole-host of negative ramifications throughout the world.

            And here, one can draw connections to the modern-day revolutions throughout the Middle East. Although the popularity of the many of theses protests, whether in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia or Algeria, stemmed from the lack of political accountability in governance, protesters sight the rising cost of food as one of their main grievances.[6] Global food prices spiked earlier this year above the previous heights set during the summer of 2008. Although in developed countries, food prices reflect a very small percentage of commodities fluctuations, commodities prices account for roughly sixty to seventy percent of food prices.[7]    

            The current spike in food prices, specifically wheat, has been attributed principally to the poor harvests in the Untied States last summer as a result of higher than expected temperatures, droughts and fires in Russia last year and proposed export bans in India and China to meet domestic demand, there is a correlation in the increase of commodities prices and market distorting measures by the United States and other developed countries.[8]

            The developing world and agricultural importing countries have demanded diminished support for domestic agricultural production by the Untied States, the European Union and Japan.[9] Initially, the United States cozied up to the idea of reducing its domestic support of agriculture during the era of free trade fostered by the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but continual dissatisfaction from the outsourcing of jobs by the American public has led many politicians to shy away from the espousing free trade.[10]

            Ironically, the Tea Party’s austerity platform has yet to sincerely consider cuts to the USDA agricultural support programs, despite ranging from $10 to 30 billion per annum. Comparatively small when compared to the budgets of other governmental agencies, but cutting agricultural support programs in all its forms could add hundreds of billions of dollars of growth and trade to the world economy. Possible growth figures range from slightly over one hundred billion dollars to the tune of half a trillion dollars. Further, these support measures were and still remain one of the points of contention for the resolution to the Doha Development Round.[11] 

            The Doha Rounds of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on the future of global trade began nearly a decade ago following the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Then-US Trade Representative and now president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, sought to rally support behind the Doha Round as a means to bulwark Al-Qaida’s threat to the world economic order.[12] Ten years later, the Doha Rounds have stalled since 2008 after continued disagreement over agricultural subsidies bogged down the talks. Zoellick’s attempt to rally the world around the need to stand tall against the Al-Qaida threat failed miserably.

            Aside from domestic politics and the various interest groups associated in the agricultural sector in the Untied States.  Popular support for the maintenance of agricultural subsidies remains strong amongst several policy makers for fear of sabotage of the world food markets by would-be terrorists. These appeals to fear may reside with segments of the greater public, but besides extorting the threats Global Jihadism play on the agricultural production, they are not rooted in any semblance of logical thought.[13]

            Playing up fears over food security are as much of a threat to trade liberalization as the agricultural subsidies themselves. Terrorist conspirators could arguably sabotage everything that is traded; yet we do not subscribe to these argumentum ad baculum when it comes to importing electronics or automobiles, why should we do so when presented with these same arguments in agriculture? The ludicrous nature of these polices is demonstrated best by the recent trade row between Brazil and the United States. In 2002, Brazil appealed to the World Trade Organization to force the United States to discontinue illegally subsidizing the American cotton farmer to the tune of 1.5 to 4 billion dollars per year.[14]

 After nearly eight years of appeals by the United States to World Trade Organization, the WTO allowed Brazil to impose retaliatory measures. When Brazilian trade officials warned American businesses operating in Brazil that over 100 American products would be receiving higher import tariffs by the Brazilian government, these businesses turned around and lobbied the American government to send a trade delegation to Brasilia. Crisis adverted. Brazil dropped retaliatory measures on American products and the United States ended its subsidies to the American cotton farmer – not exactly. Instead of dropping subsidies or at least diminishing subsidies, US trade officials negotiated an annual $147 million subsidy to the Brazilian cotton industry. This subsidy would continue until the United States could satisfy Brazil’s original dispute of artificially propping up the American cotton farmer.        

The ludicrousness of American agricultural policies is not limited by recent trade deals orchestrated with Brazil; the broader implications of market distorting policies on agriculture are present in the current food crisis. The Obama Administration continues the Bush-era policies to encourage, through subsidies, the allocation of maize production for biofuels. Much was touted about biofuels in the wake of September 11^{th. [15]}They were deemed necessary to remove the dependence of the United States on oil from the Middle East. Under the theory that “authoritarianism breeds terrorism,” funneling money to Middle East autocrats who oversee the production of a significant share of the world’s proven oil reserves was counterintuitive to national security. Our national security was preserved by rerouting money from Middle Eastern despots to the American corn farmer for corn-ethanol production.

Ethanol from maize production inherently limits the amount of corn for food consumption. Last year twelve billions of gallons of corn ethanol were produced in the United States, which made a vast share of the biofuel production in the country. Currently, the government mandates that gasoline contain ethanol. Roughly between thirty to forty percent of the maize production in the United States is used for corn-based ethanol.[16] Unlike the Brazilian ethanol market based largely off sugar cane, the US ethanol market conflicts with a food staple for energy production. Brazilian sugarcane is more efficient than corn ethanol in terms of energy production; it uses less land and does not compete with food.[17] In order to preserve the indigenous corn-ethanol market, the United States placed a tariff of $0.54-a-gallon on Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol. There are no such tariffs on imported gasoline, for example. Not only are corn-based biofuels less efficient than gasoline, more expensive than sugarcane and compete with food production land, the subsidization of corn-based biofuels by the United States raises the overall price of corn. Corn prices no longer reflect than price set by supply and demand, but reflect a higher price as a result of market distorting policies by the USDA.

Beyond any Brazilian-American trade disputes, there are serious policy implications from shifts to protectionism that have been witnessed in the United States since September 11. Every policy enacted has to pass the national security test. The difficulty with certifying whether or not something poses a threat to national security is that it is difficult to ascertain a common definition of national security across a broad range of interests. It may be in the interests of the American corn farmer for energy production to be done domestically via corn-ethanol, it may be in the interest for the American cotton farmer to maintain its market share of the global market at the expense of West African cotton producers and it may be advantageous for corn, rice, maize, soy and wheat farmers to receive disproportionate protection from the volatility of the commodities market, but is it advantageous for the American people? Is it advantageous for the world?

As stated previously, the benefits to limiting or eliminating agricultural support in developed countries float between a couple hundred billion to a half trillion dollars in increased growth of trade. These figures are disputed, as is determined by the breadth of their range. Mainly, because the arguments against the figures deal with what can be defined and what cannot be defined as a subsidy. Since, developed countries, like the United States, offer a broad range of support programs to agricultural producers beyond mere “subsidies” it is difficult to predict if x is cut, then y will occur when the proposed x cuts do not deal with full spectrum issues, i.e. total agricultural support, as opposed to subsidies, or direct payments in USDA terms.

Keeping this in mind, it is nonetheless tantamount that the United States, as well as the European Union and Japan reconsider their hostility towards diminishing and ending market distorting agricultural support programs. Farmers from developing countries cannot compete against a glut of subsidized agricultural products from the United States and other developed countries. The dire nature of the global food crisis requires governments of developed countries to restart and resurrect the Doha Talks.

The realities are such that there are no logical arguments for broad range agricultural support.[18]  The population of the world will reach nine billion by the year 2050 at current fertility rates. The Green Revolution in agriculture of the 1970’s will have to be repeated again in order to feed more people in the coming decades. Agriculture is a culprit and a victim of climate change. Methane emissions from cattle contribute the majority of agriculture’s 14% share of the total greenhouse gas emissions.[19] Climate change, by creating more extremes in weather cycles, is going to put pressure on future agriculture yields. A few multinational corporations that work as an oligopoly in the agriculture market are holding back reform in agriculture policy. The idea that domestic agricultural production needs subsidies in order to combat national security threats is a falsehood and grave misleading of the public. In this age of globalization, the tenuous holds to some American cultural phenomenon like the small, hard-working farmer need be relegated with the likes of the American steelworker. If Republicans and the Tea Party Caucus are sincere on austerity that they should start by curbing funding of these policies do not embody the free market spirit. The removal of agricultural subsidies and the shrinking of agricultural support programs; import tariffs, export subsidies, insurance guarantees and marketing aid, are a place where environmentalists, human rights advocates, free market libertarians and global trade advocates can unite. We should take advantage of this opportunity and remove this 20^th century policy from our globalized world.

---

[1]http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research/farmbill07/aeibriefs/20070515_sumnerRationalesfinal.pdf

[2]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606643067587042.html

[3] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

[4] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48097.html#ixzz1C3grT2kL

[5] http://reason.org/news/show/is-there-a-global-food-crisis

[6] http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/18/pm-high-food-prices-cause-concern-in-middle-east-/

[7] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/16/133744524/why-are-food-prices-going-crazy

[8] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/16/133744524/why-are-food-prices-going-crazy

[9] http://www.cfr.org/trade/doha-trade-talks/p10555

[10] http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/

[11] http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/16/us-trade-doha-forecast-idUSTRE57F0KD20090816

[12] http://www.cfr.org/india/food-crisis-could-solve-doha-round/p16614

[13] http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12771

[14] http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=131192182

[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/opinion/22patterson.1.html

[16] http://www.npr.org/2011/02/25/134054231/what-recession-its-boom-time-for-nebraska-farms

[17] http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12623

[18] http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/the-illogic-of-farm-subsidies-and-other-agricultural-truths/

[19] http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

Bibliography

Daniel A. Summer, Farm Subsidy Tradition and Modern Agricultural Realities, Paper prepared for American Enterprise Institute project on Agricultural Policy for the 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond

Timothy A. Wise, The Paradox of Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement Issues, Agricultural Dumping, and Policy Reform. GDAE Working Paper No. 04-02: The Paradox of Agricultural Subsidies, May 2004

Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7^th Edition, Section 18. Agricultural Policy.

C. Fred Bergsten, “Resurrecting Doha Round.” Foreign Affairs, December 2005 – WTO Edition.

Kym Anderson, Will Martin, and Ernesto Valenzuela, “ The relative importance of global agricultural subsidies and market access.” World Bank,World Trade Review (2006), 5: 3, 357–376

Rick Rellinger, “NAFTA and U.S. Corn Subsidies: Explaining the Dispacement of Mexico’s Corn Farmers.”  Prospect: Journal of International Affairs at UCSD. San Diego, April 2010

 Suggested Reading

Daniel A. Summer, Agricultural Trade Policy: Letting Markets Work Washington D.C.: AEI Press, 2005.

“World Food,” Financial Times Special Report, Financial Times, 25 October 2010

“The 9 billion-people question: A special report on feeding the world”  The Economist 24 February 2011

"Fariness in the Workplace and Fairness in Compensation" - Senator Dick Durban on Meet The Press

I used to respect Wisconsin. I admired Russ Feingold. He was one of the few senators to be outspoken about the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also worked with Senator John McCain on Campaign Finance Reform. But the spirit of La Follette's Progressives seems to be extinct in Wisconsin. The Tea Party movement that so eloquently swept the country in the Midterm elections has put people in power  in Madison who are not only inane, but impervious to any sense of reason.

The egregious actions of Governor Scott Walker against the rights of public sector workers to collectively bargain combined with the tax cuts passed by the Wisconsin legislature for multinational corporations demonstrate the full platform of the modern day Republican Party. This platform is fundamentally based on the dual subjugation of the middle class and further empowerment of the ultra elite in the nation.

The Tea Party Express unlike the movements of unemployed youth in Tunisia or Egypt was not predicated on social change, but on a retrenchment of the status quo, the status quo that was fundamentally delivered by the Reagan Revolution. Deregulation and limited taxation continued to be heralded by the right in this country as the “spoonful of sugar” for the American economy. They deny that Alan Greenspan's and Milton Friedman’s economic policies of limited government had anything to do with the current economic crisis.

Moreover, it is a magician's explanation of the financial crisis based on promoting home ownership for the poor and government regulation of the mortgage market that breeds the reasoning behind ending collective bargaining in the public sector. In other words, it was not the ill-advised business practices of the executives of General Motors that necessitated the government sponsored bailout, but wage, benefits and pension demands of the United Autoworkers Union.

With this reasoning, we can see why Governor Walker and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Senate are so impervious to negotiation. It does not matter that the Wisconsin teaching unions are willing to compromise on benefits and compensation, the real elephant in the room is the communistic, socialist workers unions that are weighing down on the Wisconsin budget, not the hundreds of millions in tax cuts passed earlier this year by the State Senate.

Understanding the Republican mentality it is no surprise that the next victims following the ousting of Russ Feingold, the Democratic governor and legislature are the public sector employees. Everyone knows that teachers and other public sector employees serve no purpose in Wisconsin’s society. And what the Republican party has demonstrated is the true nature of their party platform; taking benefits away from the middle class and giving more benefits to the ultra elite. I leave you with Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times last weekend:

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.