Oxfam notes:
This gives a lie to the French argument that it uses EU subsidies to support its small farmers.
It did not say it uses EU subsidies "only" to support small farmers. The affirmation that it uses the subsidies to support its small farmers is true, even if it is not the only thing it uses them for.
As pointed out in the link above to an earlier diary (Some facts about CAP), the CAP has ALWAYS been seen by the French as a way to support production, not producers, and they certainly have not been the first to use the argument that it supprots small farmers. Neverheless, as noted above, the proposal of a CAP per farm on subsidies was blocked by the UK, because thye have a higher proportion of large farms. So who's hypocritical.
ATinMN's arguments that Oxfam's statistics do NOT prove the points they are trying to make is correct. That does not mean that CAP is all good, but if you use bad arguments to criticise it, it can only penalise you political goal (to reform it). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Let me begin where we agree. If you build them (subsidy mechanisms), they will come (wise guy profiteers who game the system legally or not). CAP helps the big guy a lot before it helps the little guy a bit so the needy farmer defense of it is disingenuous.
But what's with the "African country of the minute" posts? First it was Kenyan farmers allegedly starving because of fancy English tomatoes, now it's irony about people whining in Mozambique. Nothing Jérôme has said suggests indifference towards the hungry so you're really being a bit harsh.
Now for Africans: I've bought green beans at a Paris grocer that were produced in Kenya (anecdote, sorry). As for Mozambique, they clearly are not well off but I'd blame colonization, post colonial soviet style government and civil war way before farmer Brown/Marron from Idaho/Poitiers for their plight. I've read a lot of what you've written and often agree but this "look at the poor Africans" line of reasoning might sound condescending and insufficiently backed by data to some.
Cheers
As for the multiple African countries, I could throw in some Jamaicans and Brazilians, if you want.
My criticism is NOT about form but content. It boild down to this: Where Halliburton is the major global war profiteering corporation, OXFAM is the major global hunger profiteering charity. Both get stinking rich on public money (or subsidies), which allow their execs to live extravagant lifestyles. I also pointed out that OXFAM has unsound business practices which are not even compatible with the ethic code to operate in the capitalist lion den of Wallstreet. To make it even clearer: OXFAM is the gatekeeper who stands between the poor in 3rd world countries and the donor countries in the 1st world. Their main task is to make sure that the peoples will adopt to their (Oxfam's that is) project dev plans and methodologies. They introduce 'modernity' and western thinking to the 'natives' societies. They also keep their hands tightly on the purse (whilst being paid grotesquely high experts fees)and make sure that they keep in control. The indigenous people and their leaders are assigned a role of sub alternity. They are also expected to bow to the technical, operational and professional wisdom of their OXFAM overlords. I have seen these guys at conferences here and on the field overseas. It's Burmese days all over again. Hypocrites and hunger profiteers. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
NGOs want oil companies to spend money locally (good idea) and to pay decent amounts to the host government (mostly a good idea), but they then say that these governments and local authorities are corrupted by the oil money and need outside supervision (i.e. theirs) to spend it "properly". While they were no doubt well-intentioned at the start (pushing to spend on schooling, local development ,etc...) what they are now doing is perilously close to
(i) neocolonialism (the locals are too dumb and too corrupt, let's "help" them;
(ii) racketeering of the big oil companies, who pay them to get the stamp of approval provided by the still highly positive reputation of these NGOs;
I'll say that ironically, the NGOs are still probably cheaper to "buy" (if more time consuming) for the oil companies than the local authorities, and thus the local populations are probably losers in that transfer... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The cotton subsidy to American producers is loathsome. Cotton farmers in western Texas deliberately plant thousands of hectacres of short-staple cotton and then hope the crop fails -- in order to get the Crop Failure Insurance and so they can re-plant a crop proper to the area. The cotton is substandard, hard to gin, hard to spin, and is manufactured into a substandard fabric. Meanwhile the crop is dumped on the market at much less than the cost of production depressing cotton prices world-wide and is directly responsible for starvation in African countries.
The situation is compounded by the fact African long-staple cotton is prefered by the market and is made into a desired high-quality fabric.
I will be even more forthright: American cotton subsidies starve Africans to death so President Bush can received political support for bombing Iraqis in the attempt to control oil resources.
This drives me absolutely crazy but there is diddle-squat I can do about it except make long posts pointing out policy alternatives in the hope someone, somewhere, will read them, have the interest in the presented alternative, and have the political 'pull' to actually do something to actually change the objective conditions.
