Consistent pattern of destroying developing countries

A couple of days ago did I write that misinterpretation of competition is stifling the development of a modern, fair and unified healthcare system in US. I think that I can observe something very similar in US foreign policies.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Cabinet okays strategy for WTO Hong Kong conference: Pakistan won’t accept pressure in WTO talks: Humayun

Staff Report

ISLAMABAD: The Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) of the Cabinet at its special meeting on Tuesday approved a Comprehensive National Strategy to effectively negotiate on vital issues of market access, reduction of domestic support and elimination of export subsidy at the WTO 6TH Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong beginning from Dec 13.

Commerce Minister Humayun Akhtar Khan held a news conference soon after the special session of the ECC on "WTO and Pakistan’s position" here at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. He said Pakistan would take a firm stand on its policies towards the WTO and press for elimination of all distortions and subsidies being provided by the developed countries to their farmers.

He said 150 members of WTO countries were likely to attend its 6th Ministerial Conference at Hong Kong and discuss matters relating to agriculture, industrial goods, services, rules, anti-dumping, trade facilitation and Special Preferential Treatment facilities.

Source - Daily Times

Pakistan is not the only country who is against agriculture subsidies in developed countries which include US. Agriculture subsidies in developed countries are literally destroying agriculture in developing countries, and this is why developing countries do not have real economy. One of reasons why developed countries, in particular, US subsidize agriculture is that they misinterpret the meaning of competition and justify the fact that they take advantage by bringing down their competitors. Subsidizing agriculture is all right because that puts US and other developed countries above developing countries. The end result is what matters.

...

"The Iraqi people are stepping forward to claim their liberty, and they will have it,'' Bush told an audience from the local World Affairs Council in Philadelphia.

But the president said more casualties lie ahead. "As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the terrorists and Saddamists will continue to use violence,'' he said of the fighting that has occurred since the U.S.-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

And, for the first time in a formal appearance, the president put a number on the toll of Iraqis, saying "30,000 Iraqis, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our troops in Iraq."

Source - San Francisco Chronicle

Over 30,000 Iraqis died since the beginning of the war, but there is almost no genuine concern or feeling of guilt in US. As a matter of fact, the report is comforting to many people in US in some level because the report clearly shows that Iraq is far worse shape than US as a country. This is interpreted as "winning" while both sides are losing in reality.

There are number of logistical and economical reasons why developed countries subsidize agriculture (one of reasons is that agriculture subsidies essentially destroy economies in developing countries, and thus, it always makes cheap expendable labor force available). There are also many logistical and economical reasons why US is fighting war in Iraq (one of reasons is that chaos in the middle east limits supply of oil, and this gives more power to those who control oil today and they can generate much bigger profit). However, there is this mentality that brining down opponents is also a part of competition and staying above them is what matters. It is a clear misinterpretation of (fair) competition, and this needs to be recognized as a problem.