Reply #12: Re: third world country protectionism. As I point out below, globalization is a

[Peace Patriot]

difficult, complex topic--I agree with you there--but I think the entire topic needs to be expanded, and seen in all its aspects, for the best solutions to arise and succeed. Globalization. Global warming. Global justice. And global peace.

We can't just look narrowly at the US economy--and jobs and protectionist issues here. Every action here has repercussions elsewhere, which in turn rebounds back on us. If corporate corn farming for biofuels pushes up the tortilla price in Mexico, creating more acute poverty, we will see yet more illegal immigration, and, ultimately, we will see revolt in Mexico. There is a leftist revolution now being suppressed there, as it is. Illegal immigration affects jobs and wages. We will have more fuel for our cars, to drive to our three different low-wage jobs. IF we can afford the fuel. The spiral of poverty spins downward, drawing us all into it. And massive corporate corn farming is meanwhile further poisoning the environment, and making it harder to stabilize the climate and prevent more destruction of the biosphere.

The protectionism of third world countries has two aspects: The vast injustices to these countries and their peoples, in the past, that has led to vast poverty and to their inability to "catch up." OUR protectionism has destroyed them. How can they compete now, without protected markets?* But, to "catch up" with what? In what way? To "catch up" with the kind of industrialization that is destroying the planet?

For Brazil to "catch up" now--on industrialization--will likely mean the destruction of yet more of the Amazon rainforest, one of the bulwarks against global warming. And industrialization--such as Lulu and Bush are discussing (vast corporate land conversion to corn for biofuel)--can be very, very bad in the long term: vast environmental destruction, displacement of tens of thousands of small farmers, LOSS of jobs, and other devastation. Lulu wants Bush to lift US protection for US corn/biofuel producers, so Brazil can exploit this market. Neither thing--US protectionism, or Brazil's desire to vault over those protections--is a good thing. The main beneficiaries will be global corporate financial predators. The core problem is overconsumption of fuel and other resources in the US. And that is not addressed in any way by the destruction of Amazon forest for corn fuel production. We will simply move from excessive oil use--which is directly destroying the atmosphere--to excessive corn fuel use--which will destroy one of our planet's main defense mechanisms, the remaining forest land.

This is not a good way for Brazil to "catch up." Lulu may be desperate, in agreeing to it. Bush, we know, is the tool of global corporate predators, and has neither our interests nor Brazil's at heart. He is after maximum profit for the super-rich, and is utterly incapable of intelligent planning, or of concern for us, for the Brazilians or for the planet.

-----------------------------------

*A good example is Jamaica. First they were colonized, subdued and their resources and labor greatly exploited. They ended up a basketcase, upon independence. Then the rightwing political class incurred crippling, onerous World Bank debt. They ripped off the money, leaving the poor to pay the debt. The World Bank/IMF used that leverage to force US ag products on Jamaica. Cheap powdered milk was flooded into the country, destroying the local fresh dairy farmers. They lost their farms. Their skills are also being lost, since sons and daughters will not learn them. And this was done with other US ag products like bananas. The final insult was to create a "free trade zone" at the port area, where Jamaicans cannot enforce labor laws or impose taxes, and where products are manufactured, with sweatshop labor, for direct export around the world (loaded on the tankers right out of the factory), cutting Jamaica out of the loop in every way, except for the unprotected, greatly underpaid labor in the sweatshops.

So-o-o-o-o-o, how can Jamaica recover from all this--stimulate local industry, create good jobs, achieve food self-sufficiency, restore their sovereignty, and meanwhile provide education, skills training and basic support for the poor (food for the hungry, medical care) while they recover? They need protected markets, among other things. It is a matter of justice--and, in the big picture, a matter of environmental/economic sustainability. The short term may be a loss of ungodly profit for the rich (the CEO's of US ag conglomerates and their investors), and possibly some short-term pain for US workers and small investors. But the US ALSO needs a more innovative, creative, sustainable and truly competitive marketplace. If we had the right farm policy, for instance, local US farmers would be providing most foods to local US markets--and it would be a lot better food than US corporate ag produces, and a lot better for the environment (no GMOs, no pesticides, etc.). There would be NO NEED to dump powdered milk or Florida bananas on Jamaica's market--and further, no permission to do so. Each food market would become self-sustaining, and better for the environment and the economy, if global corporate profiteering and monopolies were eliminated.

Jamaican protectionism would be only one aspect of accomplishing this. If you look at it by itself, you might say that it is selfish behavior by the Jamaicans, or anti-US, or harmful to us. But can we say that starving, dirt poor people are being "selfish" in wanting, and desperately needing, protected markets? And you can't really hark back to old trade protectionist history. Or, if you do, you have to also look at the destruction of Jamaica's economy by OUR protectionism, and our rape of their industries and resources. We have to look at things NOW, and comprehensively.

There is a justice issue. There is an environmental issue, and food issues. Is not OUR country being polluted by corporate ag, and our food chain endangered in every way by their profiteering policies, and lack of caution on GMOs, pesticides and other practices? And have their mechanization and other practices not decimated small farmers here as well, and cost many jobs? Why should we have any allegiance to them--or to the profits of bankers in Switzerland or Saudi Arabia? Those profits are obviously not being spent here, to create good jobs or support good government. Small time US investors are the main group that I can think might suffer unjustly from cutting Monsanto, or oil giants' rice farming in central California, out of the global picture, and out of our lives. Or possibly the investment portfolios for teachers or government workers. But these investors shouldn't be profiting from death in third world countries anyway. It would be a slight hardship to endure to find better things to invest in, to create a green and sustainable and peaceful world.