Subsidies for the poor could help solve the problem the world finds itself in, writes Chris Patten
I FEEL a little sorry for President Bush. Whatever his other failings, he has a pretty good record on aid to poor nations, particularly in healthcare. He recently announced a big increase in US food aid; good for the hungry poor and good for American farmers.
What made me feel a little sorry for Bush was the reaction to his announcement. He referred to the reasons for shortages and price hikes. He did not dwell on the diversion of American corn from food to heavily subsidised biofuels. Nor did climate change feature prominently in his argument. Bush pointed his finger elsewhere. Food prices had responded to growing demand. In Asia, economic growth had stimulated food consumption. The Chinese and Indians were eating more and eating better. Over a 20-year period, for example, the Chinese had doubled meat consumption.
What Bush said is of course true. But it is only part of the truth. While globalisation has benefited India and China, and the rest of us too, many Indians are still wretchedly poor. Grain consumption per head in India has remained static, and is less than one-fifth the figure for the US, where it has been rising.
Bush's partial explanation of the world food crisis, accurate as far as it went, drew the anger of India's media and many politicians.
Now, all this is more than the knockabout of international politics. One day soon, Bush and Cheney will be out of office. But we will still be left with the most difficult global issue we have ever faced: as more of us prosper, how do we deal fairly with some of the economic and environmental consequences?
This conundrum will lie at the heart of the diplomacy next year to find a successor to the Kyoto agreement. Can we prevent a calamitous increase in global warming in a way that is fair, that takes account of past and present responsibility, and that does not thwart legitimate hopes for a better life everywhere? We have never faced a more difficult political task.
Meanwhile, there is a food crisis to solve. We have already seen examples of how not to deal with it. Stopping food exports is stupid. If we restrict market forces, there will be less food and higher prices. We should also avoid the cheap political trick of suppressing what we pay to poor farmers in order to benefit poor city dwellers.
Why do governments do this? The answer is obvious: city dwellers riot; in the countryside, people just starve. The best way to deal with the problem is to subsidise food for the poor; we should not cut the price we pay farmers for growing it. - (Project Syndicate)
Lord Patten is a former governor of Hong Kong and European commissioner for external affairs