With representatives of the Korean Peasants League set to descend upon Hong Kong for next month’s WTO meeting, League spokesman Kwak Gil Seong explained to Chinese business paper The Standard his views on free trade:
"Industrial products can be under free trade, but our culture depends on farming. It’s our livelihood" said Kwak.
How nice. Well, thank goodness for Samsung and POSCO that American culture and livelihoods didn’t depend on the nation’s consumer electronics and steel industries.
23 Comments
I often wonder why the Korean Government has not done more to wean Korean farmers off of crops like rice and helped them to grow things that can be marketed more effectively in today’s marketplace. The governement could even forgive some if not many of the loans made to these rice farmers so as to take more pressure off of them as well. Such would be much more reasonable than forgiving the large number of credit card junkies in Seoul, many of which should be put to work on a farm instead so that they could learn some real discipline.
To be fair, the farmers in just about every developed country seem to be saying the same thing. And quite a few of the agro-industries (like sugarcane) who actually benefit the most in those countries are more than happy to let the small farmers make that argument. Just as long as the people in those countries realize the money transferred to farmers needs to come from somewhere.
I am a bit worried, though, if subsidies were to stop, farm land prices would fall and put pressure on the conversion of farmland to urban sprawl.
Ah the never ending battle between globalization and root hugging…
While I do feel for the turmoil the farmers must be going through right now, they need to wake up and smell the coffee.
As a supporter of sustainable farming who puts her money where her mouth is by participating in a CSA co-op, I support all independent farmers. Some parts of rural Kansas are giving away land to any family in order to build up a tax base for local schools. Young Kansans are fleeing the state because nobody wants to live next to a smelly factory farm incarcerating thousands of pigs and oozing out tons of manure and chemical waste into the local water supply.
Good article in today’s Hong kong Standard:
‘Shining paragons of free trade’
Vast, dry Australia and compact, lush New Zealand may be worlds apart in terms of landscape, but they share a recipe for farming success - they have both abandoned subsidies.
http://tinyurl.com/75htr
I don’t agree what the goverment did, but these farmers are shameful.
Songagi wrote:
Some parts of rural Kansas are giving away land to any family in order to build up a tax base for local schools.
21st century homesteading! If that’s what it takes.
The free-market argument would be that if someone else could provide rice more efficiently, then they should be allowed to. Korean and Japanese rice farmers (it is Korea and Japan that are most loudly making the rice-is-culture argument) could then make the transition and do something else.
But it is not that simple a situation. As someone pointed out, the danger of urban sprawl is a real possibility. Related to that, the vast amount of rice paddy land in Korea and Japan are a key factor in soaking up excess precipitation during monsoon season and typhoons. Were these to disappear, there would be serious problems with flooding and erosion, which could adversely affect other forms of agriculture, as well as urban safety.
In other words, the value of rice farming is not just about markets and price. These things need to be considered, but the free-market, when it is 100% free, tends to steamroll beneficial things we don’t know the value of until they disappear.
This might be very naive of me, but I sometimes think it would be better if each country were given, say, one or two “cultural goods” that it can keep a protective fence around.
America could have steel; Japan and Korea could have rice; France could have French fries. Free trade would still dominate, and it would be up to each country to absorb the external costs of maintaining protectionism over that certain “cultural good.”
Kushibo who decides which “cultural good” to keep? Hell will break lose between interest groups.
I do agree with you that all out globalization has the danger of cutting all fat out of the system, fat that is necessary for survival. But in case of Korea, I say some more fat cutting is good. Especially the rice farming sector, where except for some innovative farmers, most of them are there for free rides. I know this sounds harsh, but that is what they are doing. They may put in hard manual labor, but that alone does not guarantee a livelihood these days. The ability to adabt is the key here, and there is no golden key to success. Farmers who are able continuosly innovate are the ones who are going to survive and hopefully thrive. Farming is not a “traditional”, “cultural” activity that needs to be protected due to it. I’m sure most farmers would move at the first chance to make better cash, not keep their “heritage.”
The Korean rice farmers are in a near state of panic and I believe that both the government and farmers themselves are to blame. The Korean government got a 10 year delay on the rice and both parties squandered that buffer time. Well people do not respond well to a “quiet crisis”, but the fact is that “quiet crisis” will soo turn out to be an immediate crisis.
Having said all that I agree with Kushibo on that a crusade for globalization when not kept in check, tailored and paced according to the characteristic and ability of the nation, will end up causing so much harm that the benefits will be smothered by rising strife within the country.
The problem with anti-globalization crowd is that they are too radical. The more moderate tailor globalization crowd are often pushed aside by the pro or anti-globalization crowd.
Kushibo who decides which “cultural good” to keep? Hell will break lose between interest groups.
And that’s not happening now?
“Interest groups” and “hell breaking lose” go together like peanut butter and jelly, rice and kimchi, or noodles and broth.
I meant deciding within the nation. If the rice farmers garner further support from the government for protection, what about the film industy, the automobile industry, the legal industry, the medical industry on and on, that are finally opening up global competition? Things will revert back with interest goups shouting to be heard why they are the “cultural good” too keep and fight for.
Since rice makes up about 45% of a rice farmers total income and the rest coming from big brother. then it’s a toss up between spending that tax money on social or economic infrastructure, or guaranteeing the traditional farming livelyhood. How about helping young people getting jobs in hi-tec, because I don’t know to many people in Korea who want to remain or become peasants anyhow.
The government pays 75% more for the rice from farmers than do most foreign markets. Korea is dependant on trade to develop its economy, whereas rice farming only makes up a portion of 5% of GDP. Imports don’t guarantee cheaper rice, only better quality which may be the real threat to farmers.
Farmers accuse the U.S of threatening their
livelihood by FORCING them to open their market to cheaper imported rice.
I found this statement from an article written by Jungsoo Han.
“China accounted for about 95% of rice imports of South Korea (about $10,140,000). Despite strong effectiveness of the US on the progressive agreement between WTO and Korea, US companies derived little profit from Korean rice market because of its higher production cost than other exporters’ in Asia.”
So Han, where are the China bashers based on your evidence (busy investing in China’s rice markets no less).
As for the rainy season argument, only 30% of the rice fields are rain fed, the rest are irrigated.
joyboy I just wanted to correct one of your data.
“Rice farming make of 5% of GDP”:
According to the 2004 data including all farming (not just rice) and forestry and fishing activities make up 3.7% of the Korean GDP. In reality meaning that the ratio of rice farming makes up a portion lot smaller than 3.7%
Please, please, please spare me the “farming is culture” hogwash. If any industry could have been more intrinsic to local culture than the coal-mining that was ripped out of northern England in the 1980s I would like to know what it is.
Farming is a business like any other. Farm subsidies, quite apart from unnecessarily inflating food prices for consumers, help keep African (and other) farmers in perpetual penury. Cows in Europe are subsidized to the tune of $2 something a day, more than millions of the world’s poorest live on ferchrissakes!!
Yes, adjusting to globalization is doubtless painful for many farmers. But to argue that the farmers’ plight is uniquely trying, or that agriculture occupies some untouchable, hallowed position among industries is, frankly, bunk.
Prince Charles of England was on PBS the other day talking about supporting farmers in his country. He used the word like “Food security” and “Food defense”.
I guess it is not a good idea for a country to depend heavily on other countries for food. It may be used as bargaining chips against the country.
Some concessions should be made by the both parties. Farming subsidies? Maybe.
The logic of “Food Defense” does hold water. Yet we have to realize that the cost of “Food Defense” also needs to be kept in check. The fear of another country using food as a bargaining chip is not something we can ignore easily. But #1. Unless the whole geopolitical scene changes greatly, there will always be countries competing with each other to sell foodstuff at a cheaper price, whoever the buyer is. The more interdependent countries become due to the market flattening the world, it is near impossible for a country to use stuff so easily avaliable as food as a bargaining chip. (Of course there is always the possiblity of an physical embargo during war times, which is a difficult strategy to pull off.)
#2. Because Korea is opening up its market (rice market in this instance) does not mean its food production is going to drop down to zero. Korea has been overproducing food stuff (rice in this instance) since the late 70s, and the opening of the rice market, and other food market will not totally rob Korea of its ability to produce food stuff on its own.
“…Of course there is always the possiblity of an physical embargo during war times, which is a difficult strategy to pull off…”
Yes in today’s world I don’t see how this could happen, if you mean historical examples such as British Navy blockades of Germany during both world wars (& German attempts to counterblockade with submarines).
A total blockade of all imports into a country just isn’t an acceptable weapon of war anymore. US and ROK provision of food to North Korea is one example, the oil for food fiasco to Iraq is another. Indeed, the use of blockade can be considered to be counterproductive politically, given the willingness of dictators to hold their own populations hostage to Western sensibilities.
So I don’t think an argument of “defense of food supplies” in this day and age is a credible defense of a sustainment of domestic agricultural subsidies for any country — at least as long at the US Navy controls the world’s sea lanes.
The Korean gov’t in its infinite wisdom is trying to get farmers to grow an even more expensive rice it is calling “Top Rice,” and as usual benchmarking Japan by copying that country’s premium rice. When in doubt, copy Japan….
So I don’t think an argument of “defense of food supplies” in this day and age is a credible defense of a sustainment of domestic agricultural subsidies for any country — at least as long at the US Navy controls the world’s sea lanes.
Great news! The 2006 Defense budget authorizes construction of just four new ships, accelerating the dismantling of the World’s Finest Navy. We’re rapidly heading for a fleet of 150 ships, to cover the whole world.
Oops. 120.
And we’re ending C-17 production.
I realize that’s Air Force, not Navy, but it still speaks to a deterioration of forces.
It will also make humanitarian missions much harder.
And we’re ending C-17 production.
I realize that’s Air Force, not Navy, but it still speaks to a deterioration of forces.
It will also make humanitarian missions much harder.
“?? ? ?? ??, ??? ???!”
screamed this headline at YTN last weekend. Three ??s in a 6-word headline, that’s a classic.
“I often wonder why the Korean Government has not done more to wean Korean farmers off of crops like rice and helped them to grow things that can be marketed more effectively in today’s marketplace.”
Probably because that’s not a government’s job.