The 5th ministerial meetings of the WTO officially began this morning. Security was tight around the Cancun Convention Center, but we had little trouble moving through the well-patrolled streets. Given the limited number of passes to get into the convention center, Br. Dave and I opted to spend the morning and early afternoon at the NGO center a few blocks away. During the official meetings of trade ministers, various NGO groups hold parallel or "shadow" forums to discuss trade and development issues.

The morning began slow when two forums, one by Public Citizens and another by Oxfam, failed to produce any speakers. Although this may seem like poor organization by the NGOs, we speculated that they had to sign up for rooms weeks or months in advanced, but inevitably changed their programs - and venues -- in the dynamics of this international gathering. Simultaneous meetings are taking place at another site, and no doubt that is where many NGO participants can be found. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to get the word around.

Nevertheless, an 11 am meeting convened by the International Commission on the Future on Food and Agriculture did take place. And once again Vandana Shiva served as moderator. This commission first met in Tuscany, Italy (where the regional government declared their area GMO-free) and began work on a manifesto to critique the global industrial agri-food system. They also presented a framework for a new model of agriculture, based on agro-ecological principles, food sovereignty and agricultural biodiversity. Their manifesto is not unlike the same platform and principles stated by our sustainable agriculture network in the United States. This international call for a new model of farming is certainly welcomed.

But not by all. A gentleman from South Africa challenged the presenters in their analysis that trade liberalization was leading to hunger and poverty. He claimed that more open trade in South Africa since the days of apartheid was helping small farmers. If I heard him correctly, his organization is called the "free farm foundation". Perhaps worth a goggle search to see if where he is coming from -- and whether he truly speaks in the name of the poor and hungry, as he claimed.

The presenters, including Vandana Shiva, argued their point persuasively. A recent report from the UNDP shows that more than 40 vulnerable nations have slipped in their overall development indicators over the past 5-10 years. This is the same period of time that the benefits of more open trade have been heralded. Perhaps South Africa is a shining exception to the more obverse turn in basic human needs over the past decade. The protests that were peacefully organized in Johannesburg seemed to suggest that resource-poor and landless people had yet to benefit from the dominant world system. Were they actually protesting for a more liberal trade regime? They were certainly looking for ways to gain access to the market system, but a fair and transparent one. And one that allows for the principle of subsidiary, which is to say a foundation of local production and local self-reliance. Not a market dominated by global corporations, as argued by the International Commission on the Future on Food and Agriculture.

So the debates continue here in Cancun that we hear back home in the American heartland. Br. Dave and I continue to join these discussions, and in fact now head to one featuring Prof. Darryl Ray, University of Tennessee, and his recent study on "Rethinking US Agricultural Policy". If you are not familiar with this report, you may want to download it at http://agpolicy.org (which is UT-Knoxville Agricultural Policy Analysis Center).

Robert Gronski
National Catholic Rural Life Conference

Cancun events Wednesday 9/10

Every day at 4 pm, staffers of the US Trade Representative provide a briefing for NGO participants. The conference room at the Grand Caribe Hotel has been full and there is an opportunity at the end of the briefing to ask questions. During the Wednesday briefing, the spokesman for Amb. Zoellick repeated the US administration line that the United States is "very willing to cut subsidies if others do so as well". No doubt this is referring to the European Union. Then a few minutes later, the spokesman added that cuts or eliminations in American subsidies is also dependent on "gaining market access overseas".

It is interesting to note a contrast: At the NGO sessions running in the shadows of the WTO ministerial meetings, discussions often focus on the high levels of agricultural subsidies for nations of the North. This is the "problem" that must be dealt with. Whereas the "problem" in the eyes of the US authorities is market access -- by the North into the South, not vice versa as would seem to be a very big problem as well.

Speaking of problems, a couple questions from NGO participants were directed at the so-called consensus surrounding the US negotiations. How can the Trade Representative offer to reduce agricultural subsidies when that decision rests in the hands of the US Congress? Has the Administration come to some type of agreement with Senate and House agricultural leaders? This was asked by Maria Riley of the Center of Concern, Washington, DC. The spokesman did not say such an agreement had been reached, but it was certainly part of the ongoing discussions between the Administration and Congress. Then Br. Dave Andrews posed a follow-up question: Can we see a list of the "Ag Trade Coalition" members? This is a body put together to advise the US Administration; it seems to be composed of Senate and House agricultural committee members, plus corporate agribusiness officials and perhaps a couple actual farmers. The spokesman responded that this should be possible, but no clear indication of when or how this list would be made available.

Our routine, then, is to continue to show up at these briefings and continue to ask such questions of the Administration. If not much seems to come out of the answers to our questions, at least our presence is made apparent. Indeed, someone belonging to an animal welfare group came up to Br. Dave later and wanted to hear more about the work of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. (Humane treatment of animals and livestock is a trade issue, and in fact has been part of the briefing reports.)

Later in the evening, Br. Dave and I attended the opening reception of the Fair Trade Fair. This three-day event is a combination of small producers from around Mexico and the Central American region who are displaying their products and a series of open forums on socially just and fair trade issues. We caught up with many of our friends in our sustainable agriculture and family farm networks. The outdoor event was festive, but muted by a couple of developments during the day. One was the increased security presence, including a checkpoint set up right next to the Fair Trade Fair venue. However, this did not seem to prevent a good turn out to the opening ceremony.

Second was the demonstration at the main entry road to the "hotel zone" and WTO conference area. Mexican students and trade union groups made up the largest groups. Efforts were made to tear down the security fences blocking the road, and though some feared a strong response from the Federal Police, no tear gas or other strong-armed action occurred. The most dramatic moments came from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, who paraded with drums and a coffin. Then to the utter disbelief of the crowd, one of the Korean demonstrators committed hari-kari, plunging a knife into his side. This became the morning headline of local newspapers.

When Br. Dave and I passed by the area later that night, police still controlled the movement of cars and buses, but there was little indication of a mass protest. Some of the damaged fencing was being hauled away, and only a few banners remained. The next large demonstration is planned for Saturday, September 13, when word of WTO negotiations and agreements should be widely known. The closing ceremonies are Sunday, and it is far from certain what the governments of 140 WTO members will achieve at their fifth ministerial meeting. Many continue to say that no agreement is better than a bad one.