GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

Globalization: Kicking the Poor When Theyre Down

Ryan Seguin Utah State University

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

PROBLEM Websters Dictionary defines globalization as "the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets. Many factors contribute to globalization, but one seems to have the greatest negative impact on poor countries: free trade, which is the unrestricted international exchange of goods. How exactly does free trade affect a struggling country, and why are these effects negative? Free trade has an anti-Robin Hood effect on the world. In essence, it steals from the poor and gives to the rich. Free trade floods struggling nations with cheap product from overseas. This product, sold below the price of production, drives local farmers out of business and ensures, to a greater degree, the poors dependence on the rich. This explains, in large part, why the main endorsers of free trade are large corporations and wealthy nations. One example of the devastation that comes to poverty-stricken nations as they open their borders to free trade is what happened to Haitian rice production in the late 1980's and early 90's. In 1986, the U.S. exported just 7,000 tons of rice to Haiti. Local Haitian farmers grew the majority of this staple crop throughout the country. The following year, the International Lending Agencies introduced a free trade policy that lifted tariffs on rice imports. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. started shipping large amounts of rice to Haiti. The U.S. crop was subsidized, so they were able to sell it at extremely low prices. Local Haitian farmers could not possibly compete with these prices, and by 1996, Haiti was importing 196,000 tons of foreign rice at the cost of $100 million annually. Once the Haitian farmers were put out of business and the country was dependent on foreign rice, import prices began to rise, putting the destitute at the mercy of the money-hungry corporations of the

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

world.(1) Today, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is at the forefront of the push for globalization. John E. Ikerd, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri stated that, "The WTO appears committed to removing all barriers to international trade, to achieve free trade, and thus, to removing all economic boundaries among nations. Once the economic boundaries are removed, cultural boundaries will become further blurred and ecological boundaries will be left open to economic exploitation."(2) How exactly is this economic exploitation achieved? In essence, the wealthy countries of the world whose markets are already saturated, aggressively try to open up foreign markets by pushing for free trade agreements. Once a free trade agreement is in place, many farmers from the wealthy nations receive subsidies from their governments. As a result, these farmers are given adequate pay for their product, and governments then have excess product to sell abroad for extremely low prices. Oftentimes, these prices are below the cost of production. Numbers from 2010 show that the U.S. exports 74% of its cotton, 49% of its rice, 50% of its wheat, and 34% of its soybeans.(3) Obviously, all of this product is not shipped to struggling nations and sold at a minimal price, but these numbers reflect the amount of product leaving our country, and large amounts of these exports do end up in third world countries. EFFECTS Poor countries experience many negative effects as a result of opening their borders to cheap food and selfish organizations. Many poor countries experience something similar to what happened to Haiti in the 1990's. In his book titled, "The World's Wasted Wealth II," J.W. Smith explains that Kenya, which had been completely self-sufficient until the 1980s,

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

now imports 80 percent of its food. In 1992, European Union wheat was sold in Kenya for 39 percent cheaper than the price paid to European farmers. In 1993, it was 50 percent cheaper. Consequently, imports of European Union grain rose and, in 1995, Kenyan wheat prices collapsed through oversupply, undermining local production and creating poverty.(4) Smith goes on to say that, "Exporting food may be profitable for the exporting country, but when their land is capable of producing adequate food, it is a disaster to the importing countries. Far from ending hunger and promoting the economic interests of small farmers, agricultural liberalization has created a global food system that is structured to suit the interests of the powerful, to the detriment of poor farmers around the world."(4) Many farmers in Mexico are being driven from their land through globalization, although Mexico was once mostly self-sustaining in basic grains. Once the tariffs were removed from agricultural products, Mexico became increasingly dependent on imported grain. Today, Mexico imports 95% of its soy, 58% of its rice, 49% of its wheat, and 40% of its meat.(5) This has resulted in large amounts of local Mexican farmers being put out of business. In this one country alone, an estimated 600 peasant farmers are forced off their land each day because they are unable to compete with the cheap agricultural commodities dumped in their country.(6) As these farmers are displaced from their land, they are forced to find other forms of employment. Some are hired by the same large corporations that pushed them off their land. They go from being independent farmers to cheap labor farm hands on the very property they used to call their own. Many of the women and children resort to working in sweat shops for next-to-nothing pay. Since the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994, Mexico has built over 2,700 sweatshops producing for export.(5) Sex trafficking has increased and suicide has become common

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

among farmers who have lost their land. Anuradha Mittal put it this way, "We can go through numbers of farmers displaced from their land. But numbers numb us. Each one displaced has an individual story. The end result is loss of livelihood, centuries-old traditions, ancestral farms and human dignity."(5) ACTION NEEDED In order for things to get better, there needs to be a renewed view of how to help the poor countries of the world. Many assume that these countries have no means of providing for themselves and that a cheap, or free, handout is what they need. What does cheap food do for them? Today, it feeds them. Tomorrow, it leaves them jobless. As more and more money leaves their poverty-stricken nations, they develop a dependency on the next cheap handout. As time has shown, free trade and removal of tariffs from agricultural imports and exports is not the answer. The answer is found as we turn our backs to these greedy corporations and focus on the real needs of the needy. Instead of providing them with cheap food which they will become dependent on, we need to give back their farmland and help them get back to their roots. J.W. Smith stated, If the poor and unemployed of the Third World were given access to land, access to industrial tools, and protection from cheap imports, they could plant high-protein/high-calorie crops and become self-sufficient in food. Reclaiming their land and utilizing the unemployed would cost these societies almost nothing, feed them well, and save far more money than they now pay for the so-called cheap imported foods.(4) He goes on to explain that if the money a nation spends on imports were to be spent

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

within the local economy, it would multiply several times as it moves through the community contracting local labor. This movement of money is the reason there is so much wealth in high-wage manufacturing and exporting countries and so little within low-wage countries that are dependent on imports.(4) Local governments need to take action. They need to get behind their people and look toward the long-term advancements of their country. They must start supporting national agricultural business by rewarding local farmers through giving priority to their products in the markets. They must establish local farmers rights by allowing them access to land and other farming necessities. Anuradha Mittall put it well when she said, A new farm economy should be the centerpiece of the country's entire economic development model.(6) As third world countries strive for change in their own lands, there is a great need for the wealthy nations of the world to push for change as well. Supporting local farmers markets and buying organic produce are two great ways of promoting change here in the U.S. The majority of exported agriculture comes from large, corporate farms. As we buy locally, we not only show our disapproval of the wrongs these corporations are committing throughout the world, but we support our own local economies and farmers. Beyond the food we choose to buy, there are also legal matters that need attention. In a study conducted by the World Bank, it was estimated that the removal of U.S. subsidies would produce a drop in U.S. production that would lead to a short-term rise in the world price of cotton, which, in turn, would increase revenue to West and Central African countries by about $250 million per year.(5) We must take action wherever we are. We must support government officials who realize that things need to change. There are

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

laws to be passed and petitions to be signed. This is not something that is going to change overnight, but we have a voice and need to let it be heard. With constant effort by people who care, we can start lifting the destitute of the world up instead of kicking them while theyre down. SUCCESSFUL MODELS There are many examples of people and groups that are having success fighting against corporate agriculture globalization. In Pennsylvania and South Dakota, people are fighting the corporate takeover of our food system by advocating anti-corporate farming laws and preventing factory farms from being built in their communities.(5) In the inner city of Oakland, a community garden and mobile market have been established.(5) There are farm-to-school programs being set up worldwide, helping to keep local farmers in business. The efforts of these groups in the United States have resulted in the rise of farmers markets and other community supported programs. Today, the organic food movement is the fastest growing sector in U.S. agriculture. In 2009, the gross sales of organic foods topped out at $24.8 billion. While total food sales grew by only 1.6 percent, organic food sales grew by 5.1 percent.(7) These numbers are on the rise as more and more people become aware of the problem. This increase in organic food sales has a definite impact on the large corporations that are pushing globalization. On the other side of the issue, we find developing countries like Sudan, Zambia, and India who have rejected food aid. Through the Landless Workers Movement, the people of Brazil have forced the Brazilian government to award more than 35 million acres of agricultural land to over 1 million local peoples.(8) These starving countries are taking a stand and making a difference one local farmer at a time.

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

These along with many other movements throughout the world are producing results. As we follow their examples and use our voice, we will not only be helping ourselves, but we will be lending a helping hand to billions of less fortunate people the world over.

References

GLOBALIZATION: KICKING THE POOR WHEN THEYRE DOWN

1. Aristide JB. Eyes of the Heart; Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of Globalization. Common Courage Press. June 2000; 11-12 2. Ikerd J. The Globalization of Agriculture: Implication for Sustainability of Small Horticultural Farms. University of Missouri. pp. 2 3. Department of Agriculture. National Export Initiative: Importance of US agricultural Exports. February 2010; 1 4. Smith J. The World's Wasted Wealth. 5. Mittal A. Losing the Farm; How Corporate Globalization Pushes Millions Off the Land and Into Desperation. Multinational Monitor Magazine. August 2003; pp. 7 6. Mittal A. The New Face of Agriculture: Alternative Models to Corporate Agribusiness. Race, Poverty & the Environment. June 2004; pp. 8 7. Organic Trade Association; 2010 Press Release. Available at www.organicnewsroom.com. Accessed on November 15, 2011 8. Lappe F. The Food Movement: Its Power and Possibilities. Available at www.grassrootsonline.com. Accessed November 15, 2011