Maybe you can file this one under “tomorrow’s news today.” As November turns to December, a story prominently displayed in the news will be the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. In one sense, this is not news. Week in and week out, there is almost always some kind of international trade meeting going on somewhere. In another sense, this is more than news, it’s an historic trend. As the millennium ends, the primary expression of political power is rapidly shifting from military to economic might and international treaties and conventions on trade are quickly taking precedence over national governments or the nearly-obsolete United Nations.
It’s a disturbing trend, because a world governance system dominated by trade is a government of, by and for multinational corporations. An official of this world government might have been working for Dow Chemical yesterday, the World Trade Organization today and the U.S. Department of Commerce tomorrow, and have the same duties all along – to remove barriers to the flow of capital across the globe.
But let’s get back to the meeting in Seattle. As things now stand, the meeting may not be a celebration of mutual admiration. Europe, which for years has had a common market, but is just now finding its feet as a single political unit, stands ready to challenge many of the agricultural products the U.S. is trying to sell in the Old Country.
The controversy covers most of the food groups. The European Union does not want to accept U.S. beef that has been treated with hormones, U.S. dairy products which contain Bovine Growth Hormone or U.S. fruits and vegetables which contain genetically-modified material. Since American agriculture is increasingly dominated by mad scientists, the E.U.’s position shuts the door to a good deal of the food we want to send over.
To the American trade bureaucrats, all this looks like a European smoke screen. The U.S. clams the E.U. is banning our foodstuffs, not because it is concerned about safety, but to give European farmers an unfair trade advantage. Accusing a nation of seeking an unfair trade advantage is to the 90s what an accusation of being “soft on Communism” was to the 50s: fighting words.
But consider the situation from the east side of the Atlantic: the UK is still getting over the mad cow crisis, the government in Belgium was thrown out of office because any number of food products were contaminated with dioxin and officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admit they have not conducted even the most rudimentary tests on the safety of most of the food we want Europe to swallow in silence.
The U.S. retaliated by placing a 100-percent tariff on certain European food items, which in turn inspired a group of Roquefort cheesemakers in France to march into town and dismantle a McDonald’s fast food franchise. As the good book says, blessed are the cheesemakers.
A likely outcome to this trade war is that Europe will be forced to accept genetically-modified food, but U.S. food processors will be required to put a label on foods containing genetically-modified ingredients. Then, as the free-trade mavens like to say, we can let the market decide. Already several European food processors and grocery chains have promised not to sell genetically-modified foods under any circumstances. There’s the free market speaking already.
A silver lining to this arrangement is that it will strengthen the hand of the majority of American consumers who want labelling of genetically-modified foods in this country, so we can stop buying them, too.
That’s the news of the future and until it becomes the present, now might be a good time for that vacation in Europe. Bon Appetit.
Vive la Difference
Maybe you can file this one under “tomorrow’s news today.” As November turns to December, a story prominently displayed in the news will be the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. In one sense, this is not news. Week in and week out, there is almost always some kind of international trade meeting going on somewhere. In another sense, this is more than news, it’s an historic trend. As the millennium ends, the primary expression of political power is rapidly shifting from military to economic might and international treaties and conventions on trade are quickly taking precedence over national governments or the nearly-obsolete United Nations.
It’s a disturbing trend, because a world governance system dominated by trade is a government of, by and for multinational corporations. An official of this world government might have been working for Dow Chemical yesterday, the World Trade Organization today and the U.S. Department of Commerce tomorrow, and have the same duties all along – to remove barriers to the flow of capital across the globe.
But let’s get back to the meeting in Seattle. As things now stand, the meeting may not be a celebration of mutual admiration. Europe, which for years has had a common market, but is just now finding its feet as a single political unit, stands ready to challenge many of the agricultural products the U.S. is trying to sell in the Old Country.
The controversy covers most of the food groups. The European Union does not want to accept U.S. beef that has been treated with hormones, U.S. dairy products which contain Bovine Growth Hormone or U.S. fruits and vegetables which contain genetically-modified material. Since American agriculture is increasingly dominated by mad scientists, the E.U.’s position shuts the door to a good deal of the food we want to send over.
To the American trade bureaucrats, all this looks like a European smoke screen. The U.S. clams the E.U. is banning our foodstuffs, not because it is concerned about safety, but to give European farmers an unfair trade advantage. Accusing a nation of seeking an unfair trade advantage is to the 90s what an accusation of being “soft on Communism” was to the 50s: fighting words.
But consider the situation from the east side of the Atlantic: the UK is still getting over the mad cow crisis, the government in Belgium was thrown out of office because any number of food products were contaminated with dioxin and officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admit they have not conducted even the most rudimentary tests on the safety of most of the food we want Europe to swallow in silence.
The U.S. retaliated by placing a 100-percent tariff on certain European food items, which in turn inspired a group of Roquefort cheesemakers in France to march into town and dismantle a McDonald’s fast food franchise. As the good book says, blessed are the cheesemakers.
A likely outcome to this trade war is that Europe will be forced to accept genetically-modified food, but U.S. food processors will be required to put a label on foods containing genetically-modified ingredients. Then, as the free-trade mavens like to say, we can let the market decide. Already several European food processors and grocery chains have promised not to sell genetically-modified foods under any circumstances. There’s the free market speaking already.
A silver lining to this arrangement is that it will strengthen the hand of the majority of American consumers who want labelling of genetically-modified foods in this country, so we can stop buying them, too.
That’s the news of the future and until it becomes the present, now might be a good time for that vacation in Europe. Bon Appetit.