Subject: Vandana Shiva's "The Poor Can Buy Barbie Dolls"
- from Diverse Women for Diversity
DWD: Vandana Shiva, the fate of the poor, quantitative restrictions
THE POOR CAN BUY BARBIE DOLLS
Removal of QRs and the fate of the poor
by Dr. Vandana Shiva
2 April 2001
When the French peasantry was reeling under a severe famine and
Marie-Antoinette was told that they had no bread to eat, she
nonchalantly said, "If there is no bread, let them eat cake".
When thousands of our farmers are committing suicide, when
millions of our women and children are facing hunger and
starvation, a leading economist said that, "The poor can buy
Barbie dolls". This statement was made when I was on a T.V. panel
with him to discuss and debate the impact of the removal of import
restrictions (Quantitative Restrictions or QRs)
We were discussing the disastrous impacts of free flow of products
into Indian markets on small-scale producers and farmers. A video
clip had been shown of the 100,000 lock makers in Aligarh whose
units were being shut down as cheap locks from China were flooding
our markets. Import of agricultural commodities like edible oils
have already destabilised the agricultural economy and with 147
more agricultural items removed from the restricted list, other
sectors will be hit.
The removal of QRs has been celebrated by the media as a consumers
bonanza. Sample one of the headlines -- "Johnie Walker, fine wines
in 2 weeks", "The consumer bonanza", "The Indian consumer has
finally been crowned king", "The brand India will be wearing
Overcoat -- Dolce & Gabbana, Scarves -- Hermes, Belt -- Calvin
Klein, Skirt -- Margaretha Ley Escada, Pullover -- Chloe, Diamond
Necklace -- Van Clef and Arpels".
The diamond laden lady is not the typical Indian consumer. Most
Indian consumers are already consuming less than their basic needs
require as livelihoods are destroyed, incomes disappear and
purchasing power evaporates. Cereal consumption has declined by
12% in rural India during a decade of reforms. As imports further
destroy livelihoods, especially of the poor, their consumption
levels will further fall. No one is addressing the declining
consumption of the poor as imported goods drive out domestic
production and livelihoods. And when the issue of survival of the
poor was raised, our worthy economist stated seriously, "the poor
can buy Barbie Dolls".
It is this mindset of elite India, blind to the growing hunger and
destitution of the people of this country but enthralled by the
junk that can now be imported, which is fooling the country about
the reason and impact of lifting QRs. Among the unrestricted
imports are carcasses of sheep and goats, offal (animal waste
parts) of chicken, sheep, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, hares,
swine.
We have opened up our markets to meat imports when Europe is in
crisis because of Mad Cow Disease and the Food and Mouth Disease.
More than 500,000 animals are being killed and burned.
The U.S. Centres for Disease and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta has
calculated that nearly 81 million cases of food borne illnesses
occurs in the US every year. Deaths from food poisoning have more
than quadrupled due to deregulation, rising from 2,000 in 1984 to
9,000 in 1994. Most of these infections are caused by factory
farmed meat. CDC estimates there are nearly 20,000 cases of
poisoning by the mutant E. Coli 0157.H7. This mutant bacterium was
unknown before 1982 and contamination of meat by E. Coli 0157.H7
results from sloppy high-speed slaughter and processing industry.
The so called Hazard Analysis Critical points (HACCP) is in
reality a Trojan Horse for deregulation which has resulted in
removing 1400 food inspectors and leaving food safety in the hands
of the factory farming industry which produces food hazards in its
rush to slaughter more animals faster. A few high-speed slaughter
operations have driven out thousands of small packers out of
business.
The US slaughters 93 million pigs, thirty seven million cattle,
two million calves, six million horses, goats and sheep and eight
billion chickens and turkeys.
Now the giant meat industry of US including the disreputed meat
giant Tyson, wants to dump contaminated meat produced through
violent and cruel methods on India, a predominately vegetarian
society.
Fewer employees were slaughtering more animals and the worker
turnover rate in high-speed plants is nearly 100 per cent per year
according to the United Food and Commercial International Union.
Workers in America's slaughterhouses call working in the meat
industry worse than slavery.
Factory farms and slaughter houses are prisons for animals and
humans. Article XX of the GATT allows the exemption of WTO rules
relating to prison labour (Article XX (e)). On grounds related to
products of prison labour the removal of restrictions on imports
from the US should be immediately stopped.
The Government's announcement that the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act will be used to ensure "Biosecurity" under free
import conditions is far from reassuring. PFA is an outmoded food
law, designed before the age of Mad Cows, prions and GMOs. The
Government has so far failed to pass a law drafted by the Social
Welfare Ministry for labelling of vegetarian and non-vegetarian
content in food items. It has not shown the will to protect public
health or the citizens right to know. It cannot guarantee food
safety in the face of imports through the instruments it has
offered. The "Licence raj" has not ended. Our public health is
being put in the hands of corrupt inspectors who will give
licenses for the import of the most hazardous food stuffs without
blinking an eyelid. Article XX allows for bans on imports and this
is the route that should be used for agricultural products that
carry risks for animal or human health.
The Government has also announced that it will import sensitive
items through State Trading Agencies. However, soya oil and palm
oil which are already flooding our markets are not on the list of
canalised imports. Further, while the bound rate for tariffs on
edible oil imports is 300%, the government has kept the tariff for
soya oil. This does not benefit the Indian farmer but the seed
giant Monsanto and the grain giant Cargill abnormally low at 45%.
The announcement of a "war room" might reassure some people. But
such militaristic metaphors could only emerge from thinking which
sees economics and trade as war. Tragically, the EXIM policy has
declared a war against the hard-working people of India, but the
"war room" will fail to see the victims of this war, as millions
are pushed into hunger and destitution. The problem with the free
trade logic is that it puts trade above people's lives and shifts
government focus from the welfare of people to the promotion of
exports and imports. The EXIM policy makes this singular focus
that neglects people but protects trade very evident. The
destruction of the economy of a billion people is being destroyed
with a pathetic target of exports by 2005 accounting for 1% of
global trade.
In any case, the rush to remove QRs is not justified. India's
trading partners had accepted the deadline of 2003. Only the U.S.
had called for removal of QRs by 2001. In Oct 1997, the United
States initiated action at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB")
to establish a Panel to examine this dispute. In its request, the
United States considered that quantitative restrictions maintained
by India, including but not limited to, the more than 2,700
agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the
WTO in Annex I, Part B of WT/BOP/N/24 dated 22 May 1997, appeared
to be inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1
and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture. Furthermore, its contention was that the import
licensing procedures and practices of the Government of India were
inconsistent with fundamental WTO requirements as provided in
Article XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Agreement of Import
Licensing Procedures.
The DSB established the Panel on 18 November, 1997, with the
following terms of reference:
To examine in light of the relevant provisions of the
covered agreements cited by the United States in
WT/DS90/8, the matter referred to the DSB by the United
States in the document and to make such findings as will
assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in
giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.
In other words, the US demanded a much shorter phase-out period
for the removal of Quantitative Restrictions.
In April 1999, the WTO Panel ruled in favour of the US. The Panel
chose to only take in to account the IMF position that India's
balance-of-payments situation was not such as to allow maintenance
of measures such as QRs for BOP purposes and therefore India was
not justified in maintaining its existing measures on the pretext
of BOP problems.
The Government of India at this stage did not raise any arguments
by way of exerting its rights as a founding member of the WTO,
premised on the probable recurrence of BOP problems due to
increase in imports.
The Panel asked the parties to negotiate a new
implementation/phase-out period. The Panel also recommended that
DSB ask India to bring the measures at issue into conformity with
its obligations under the WTO Agreement.
In May 1999, India notified the DSB of its decision to appeal
against certain issues of law in the Panel Report and filed a
notice of Appeal with the WTO Appellate Body.
In August 1999, the Appellate Body rejected India's appeal. Among
other things the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that it
was competent to review the justification of India's
balance-of-payments restrictions under Article XVIII:B of the GATT
1994.
In September 1999, the Indian Government indicated to the US that
it required more than the normal 15-month period to remove QRs.
However, the latter did not agree to this time schedule, though
all other trading partners did.
In December 1999, by the exchange of letters between two trade
bureaucrats, Susan Esserman of the US Commerce Department and N.N.
Khanna of the Indian Ministry of Commerce, an agreement between
the two governments was executed to the effect that:
a. on or before April 1, 2000 India may notify to the United
States a listing of up to but no more than 715 items of the
1,429 items on which India currently maintains quantitative
restrictions, and with respect to the up-to-715 items so
notified, the reasonable period of time shall expire on April
1, 2001 and
b. with respect in all the other items, the reasonable period of
time shall expire on April 1, 2000.
This agreement in effect drastically shortened the phase-out
period to 2001 by which date all QRs on 1,429 items would be
lifted. This is despite the fact that the European Union and other
countries had agreed to a phasing out of import restrictions by
March 2003. But the Indian Government, bowing to pressure from the
US, advanced the lifting of QRs by three years.
However, the U.S. is itself violating international obligations
such as backing off the Kyoto Protocol to regulate CO2 emissions
though it is the biggest polluter. Responsibility is a two-way
lane. And the lack of responsibility being shown by the U.S. in
respecting international commitments should have been used by
India to gain space in setting policy that ensures her people's
survival. In any case, India is arguing for maintaining QRs in the
review of the Agreement on Agriculture. It should have maintained
QRs as a right.
It is also arguing for a livelihood and food security exemption
from the rules of the Agreement on Agriculture. Instead of
defending the livelihoods and food security of the country, the
Commerce Minister has threatened the survival of the Indian
people, especially the farmers twice over -- firstly, through
removing restrictions on imports and secondly by announcing an
agribusiness centered export oriented policy for agriculture. This
"farm-to-port" export policy is a recipe for corporatisation of
Indian agriculture. It will undermine our food security. Farmers
loose markets by imports of artificially cheap products due to
removal of QRs. They will loose their land, their water, their
homes as corporations take over Indian agriculture to grow flowers
and vegetables and fruits and shrimps for exports, with state
support.
The Commerce Minister has through his EXIM policy committed
India's markets, soil and water as public subsidies to global
corporations.
Barbie dolls might flood super market shelves soon, but how will
the poor be fed if they have no livelihoods? How will farmers
survive when both markets and resources have been snatched away
from them?
Vandana Shiva <vshiva@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in>