By the
pond Asia
and the politics of food
By ARTHUR JONES
Americas next major civil
feast is Thanksgiving. It focuses on food.
Most Americans either never knew or dont remember that in
the 1970s the United States let some Asian nations run short of protein and
allowed 400,000 Bangladeshis to die of starvation rather than risk
importing inflation to the United States.
Asians remember. And as dependent as they are on food imports, the
Asian-Pacific nations look with alarm as U.S. agriculture increasingly
consolidates and integrates -- with fewer and fewer corporations owning
everything from seed patents, to growing fields, to grain, to processing
plants, to transportation, to export mechanisms, to retail outlets. Asians also
know America can play politics with food.
I doubt that the world trusts an American assurance on equal
access to its food supplies, Shigeru Endo told the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council earlier this year. NCR asked Worldwatch Institute
chairman Lester Brown to comment on whether Endo and other Asians are correct
to be concerned. Brown placed the issue in todays context.
The tragedy of three decades ago began with anchovies -- the tiny,
bony, salted fish kids dont like on pizza. The fishing world was
harvesting 12 million tons of them annually, transforming them into livestock
feed.
In the early 1970s, the fisheries collapsed from 12 million tons
to 2 million. Importing nations switched to soybeans to feed their animals and
people. From 1972-74, grain prices doubled and tripled. (Endo, at that time a
soybean trader, is now counselor to Mitsui & Co., the giant Japanese
trading firm.)
The United States grows half the worlds soybeans and is the
principle source of exports. In 1973, Washington simply embargoed soybean
exports.
That disrupted nations economically and scared them
politically, said Brown, because national governments have to be able to
feed their people. Brown said at the time he addressed a conference of U.S.
flour millers and bakers who were calling for a U.S. wheat embargo, too.
Domestic wheat prices were going so high they were fearful Americans
would stop eating bread. There was no wheat embargo.
Were these events to occur today, said Brown, One could
easily imagine a Pat Buchanan, a real America First type, saying in
a political campaign, Our obligation is to feed American people first,
and were not going to do anything thatll drive up food prices for
working Americans. You can imagine the rhetoric.
So can the Asians.
In 1974 with the grain crisis still roaring, Bangladesh requested
U.S. wheat to avert a famine. Brown was at the Rome Food Congress with a
high-powered U.S. Congressional delegation (such high-profile senators as
Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern and Robert Dole) where it was fully
expected the U.S. would announce it would supply the wheat.
We did not, said Brown, and the reason we did
not was because the Treasury secretary, the late William Simon, said this is
going to be too inflationary, too risky for the United States. And 400,000
Bangladeshis starved to death.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissingers staff put together a blacklist
of those countries that asked the United States for food aid that did not
support the United States in the United Nations.
Endos 21st-century starting point criticizes the way in
which nations like the United States, which call for open markets in other
countries, retain trade barriers and give domestic subsidies to products --
textiles and clothing particularly -- that Third World nations need to sell to
pay for their food imports.
Asia is densely populated, and arable land is limited,
said Endo. Equal treatment for domestic and international customers must
be a fundamental principle of world trade -- and exporting countries must
provide importing countries with assured access to supplies. And markets
for their products.
If we do have to depend on a system of market-based
profitability, he said, Southern Hemisphere countries should be
encouraged to become more important suppliers.
But this, says Brown, runs counter to what the mega-corporate
agribusinesses want. They believe the world food economy should be
integrated into a single economy with no barriers. Then the most efficient
producers would dominate the food economy. Thats the law of
economic comparative advantage.
Brown said his advice to the Japanese is to maintain their
self-sufficiency in rice.
Free trade and the law of competitive advantage has a
certain rationale, said Brown. On the other hand, if you have to
choose between the benefits of comparative advantage and those of national food
security, that, it seems to me, is not a difficult choice.
Endo said, There is grave concern about the worlds
ability to supply enough food at a stable price.
Americans meanwhile, continue to enjoy the lowest overall food
prices in the world. Arent we lucky.
Arthur Jones is NCRs editor-at-large.
National Catholic Reporter, September 22,
2000
|