World trade talks end in failure, delegates say

[jos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/international/14WIRE-...

[Maple]

1. Yes, the rich nations

aren't willing to give up their agricultural subsidies that are doing so much harm to poor countries.

The poor countries have been hit with a lot of damage because of this failure on our part.

We should be ashamed.

[Don_G]

2. Offhand

I would say the Western agri-business nations saw the sustainable agricultural goals of the poorer ones as impractible and unprofitable.

[Maple]

3. They would do fine

if they had a level playing field.

However, we want to keep it tilted to our benefit, no matter how many starve elsewhere.

[Don_G]

4. True

And I'm certain Monsanato and Dow Chemical had quite a bit of influence toward the American position as well.

[Maple]

5. No, it has nothing to do with

your 'evil corporate' ideology.

It's subsidies to farmers.

It doesn't benefit Monsanto or Dow...actually the more countries allowed into the agbusiness, the better those companies would do.

Having the third world starve doesn't help anyone.

[Paschall]

6. But don't Monsanto and Dow also have a lot to gain...

...by "opening" trade in GM crops, which splits the US position from that of some EU and developing countries? Wasn't this issue also on the table...or a negotiating chip being played in the background? I would think so.