ROME – It was a moment that exposed the hypocrisy of many of the world’s food producing and trading countries, a clear message that the rest of the world should do as they say, not as they do.
The minutes were ticking down late in the evening of June 4, the last scheduled day of the United Nations-sponsored world food summit, and the looks on the faces of many delegates trying to approve a declaration of concern and action showed a distinct annoyance at Argentina.
Unanimity was needed from the more than 180 countries represented, the conference was hours past its scheduled adjournment, restaurant reservations were in jeopardy and still the Argentine delegate raised objections.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
His point seemed trivial to many. In the face of overwhelming support for a declaration that flagged high food prices, growing world food instability and the need for action, Argentina continued to object to one word in the proposed declaration.
Trade should be open to enhance food security, the declaration said.
“For this purpose, we affirm the need to minimize the use of restrictive measures that could increase the volatility of international prices.”
Why, he asked repeatedly, was the word “restrictive” used. The sentence would be effective without it.
On one level, it was simply a national defensive response. Argentina has imposed a tax on grain exports, aiming to either keep more grain in the country to moderate prices or at least raise needed revenue when grain is exported.
The vast majority of countries at the conference were aiming the word at the many governments whose reaction to soaring food prices and tightening supplies has been to slap restrictions, bans and taxes on exports, including action by India to curtail rice exports.
Led by the United States and the European Union, most delegates at the Food and Agriculture Organization conference saw that as exacerbating the food shortage problem. Open the floodgates, they insisted, and keep the market supplied.
While Canada was not a leader in that anti-protectionist charge, it certainly supported the majority and saw it as one of the key themes at the conference.
Alex Himelfarb, Canada’s ambassador to the FAO and head of its delegation, said a benefit of the meeting was that countries with export restrictions would hear the condemnation of the world.
“They are hearing from country after country that is not a good response so it would be a good thing if some of that was reversed.”
However, the rub for Argentina and a number of other Latin American countries is that industrialized countries have a long history of using their surplus food supplies as a political weapon, helping friends or client states with easy access and punishing those out of favour with less or no access.
There is no greater modern example of this than the almost half-century-old U.S. embargo against trading with Cuba. Yet there was the American voting delegate demanding that the condemnation of “restrictive” export measures be maintained.
It is little wonder that Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and other silent delegates, opponents of the modern American Monroe Doctrine, came to Argentina’s defence.
Open trade purity clearly is in the eye of the perpetrator.
