[THIS IS A REPUBLISHED ARTICLE...THE ORIGINAL WAS DELETED]

It turns out that fair trade isn’t necessarily fair after all.

In July of 2008, The representatives of the nation members of the World Trade Organization holed themselves up at the WTO’s Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The objective was to try – once again – to resolve differences between two major camps (developing countries and developed countries). These negotiations were started as part of the Doha Development Agenda which commenced in 2001. The issue, when it really comes down to it, was a difference in opinion of what is “fair” as far as trade goes between the nations. That’s what the WTO is all about, you know…fairness. Negotiations broke down after 9 days over something called a “Special Safeguard Mechanism”, which would allow the developing countries more leeway to deviate from WTO guidelines to ensure that local farmers didn’t suffer too much in the event of a price crash…or something to that effect. The developed countries (including the US and EU) weren’t keen on that then; they still aren’t now.

The idea of fair trade, grand in its inception, just hasn’t worked in practice. That’s often the way with great ideas. Once they truly come into play, they can be interpreted, adjusted and twisted to suit the needs of the people in control. Organizations like the WTO and IMF, particularly in their approach to dealing with trade and development in the developing world, have not been able to produce the results once imagined for their schemes. Some of the key principles of the IMF include transparency, non-discrimination and “special and differential” treatment for developing countries. These goals are really important-sounding…high, lofty and other adjectives like that. On closer examination though, one can’t help but see the cracks.

Transparency is fair enough; everybody has equal rights etc, etc, etc. With the idea of non-discrimination one can start to see problems emerge. It basically means that no favoritism would be shown to any party in trade e.g. a domestic company over a foreign one, or a one nation over another. This should apply no matter what coalitions, relationships, deals etc. already exist. Do you see any problems there? Well, me too. However, special treatment was the one that really caused – is still causing – all that uproar at the WTO negotiations. Just what is fair in regard to the treatment of developing countries? This is trade, not charity (see Bob Geldoff for help with that). This is about profit. And since we are talking about international trade here, we are therefore talking about Multi-National firms, some of which have been reaping huge rewards off these deals for decades. Their model of “trade” has helped the economies of the US and EU to get to the strong position they are in – or were in before the global recession set in. Trying to merge this world where competition, exploitation and underhand practices are the norm with the feel-good, equality for all, fair-trade dream-world is asking for trouble.

Just look at the Banana Trade, for instance. Bananas are one of the most consumed fruit on the planet. They are also among the biggest profit-makers for supermarkets. So, we can all agree that they are big business; so big, in fact, that companies have been involved in exploitation, bribery and even the overthrow of governments since the early 20th century…all that good stuff just to keep business going; not to mention the Banana Wars between Europe and the USA in 1999. During this “conflict”, America actually levied duties on European products (completely unrelated to the Banana), whilst the EU stopped importing American beef. They eventually sorted this out once they had worked out a way to ensure all parties could reap their fair share in the bounty, except of course the poor sods from whose countries they got it.

The search for competitive advantage causes players to find ways, understandably, to reduce costs where possible. As I indicated previously, you cannot ask them not to do this. It’s the only way they can stay in the game. So, if there’s a way find the product for cheaper from another supplier, they will go for it. If there’s a way to pay less to workers and take short-cuts, they’ll also do that. It is what it is. Now add in developing countries with IMF Programs as suppliers and you have the potential of a tragedy in the making. Here’s how: A developing country gets some more money off the big boys (the EU, for instance) to invest in their countries. In return, said developing country has to implement IMF Structural Adjustment Programs. Essentially, they are given some “direction” on how to spend the money loaned, amongst other things. Usually, this involves growing of cash crops i.e. stuff they can export to the developed countries for money e.g. Banana. The country then concentrates primarily on this industry (often to the detriment of others – seems to happen all the time). Now, imagine a multi-national company involved in farming in the developed country. Do you think the government can adequately dictate practices to them? Do you think the treatment of workers will be of paramount importance? As for the EU that is importing the bananas…what happens when something goes wrong…like a disease outbreak that makes banana production more expensive? They can abandon ship…go somewhere else where it’s cheaper (this is precisely what happened to Jamaica).

What we end up with is an unhealthy dependence on the cash crop by the country. There just isn’t room for them to do much else because of the programs in place. It’s kind of like credit companies insisting on dictating what you spend the money on before they lend. It’s a great way to ensure they get their investment back. It’s not a great way to help provide sustainable development to an economy. This, apparently, is at least part of the goal of the IMF program in question. It fails. When the crap hits the fan, these countries have to do all kinds of things to make their exports attractive e.g. devalue their own currencies to keep the prices low. Majority of the land is devoted to growing cash crops to raise money, while people starve because other food crops and industries are neglected. These countries actually import food from the US and EU. It’s a sweet deal for developed countries. They get the raw materials for cheap, then process it and export back to the original source, ensuring they make more profit. They are in a position of power (those of us who have owed money to someone might better understand the helplessness in this situation). Finally, if anything happens that causes prices to go up, they can apply pressure to keep it lower for them (their loans, remember?). Heck, they can even change to another cheaper source who is equally under similar pressure. It’s a crappy system:

- Country has a crop which they produce for export
- They are provided with money to grow this industry…with limits
- More and more competition amongst companies (and other nations exporting the same) mean that prices invariably fall. It’s a race to the bottom. Everyone wants stuff for cheap.
- More effort and resources have to be put into the industry to ensure that the debt is paid, and to generate money
- Substantial mismanagement, corruption and dodgy practices ensue (individuals are greedy, and thinking of one’s fellow countrymen really won’t do when you can get rich)
- And on and on it goes

It doesn’t really matter what was intended. In this case, it isn’t the thought that counts. It’s the results. The results here suck…big time. So we see that:

- Overall trade increases (yay!)
- Multinational companies and the developed countries rake in profits (yay!)
- More people in the developing countries starve, as they export so much of their food (not so yay)
- They actually have to IMPORT food from the US and Europe (sigh)
- There is little room to expand any other industries as all the resources are devoted to producing cash crops…education etc. suffer (bummer)
- Rinse and repeat…because the idea is sound; it’s just mismanagement etc. that has caused it to fall flat on it’s face in this case…blah, blah, blah – further nonsense like this continues

So, the safeguard mechanism is supposed to help protect the poorer parties. It’s a way to say that if it goes to hell they won’t be forced to drop prices so they don’t sink further – along with other provisions of similar nature. This isn’t entirely crazy. It’s how the world works, right? Costs in general get transferred to the buyers. Why sell something for less than it costs to produce it? However, when you have buyers controlling the market, then you have a problem. They can say “I simply won’t buy”. Then you are buggered. The problem is the system. It’s one that works quite well for some, and not so well for others. Everyone has to look out for themselves. After all, who is to say that the America and the EU will remain at the top of the food chain forever? There is already change in the air as China, Brazil and others step up their game. It’s okay to do favors for others…as long as there is potential for gain. It’s just best not to call it fair trade.

The idea of these organizations as benevolent entities going around spreading goodness and cheer is obviously flawed. What is the IMF? Where does the WTO get its funding from? Even bodies like these are subject to the pressures of powerful members. The idea of equality for all is fine; however we all know that some are more equal than others. In this game, the developing countries don’t stand a chance…until the rules change.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Related posts on World Issues
• Canada Goose | Outdoor Sporting Goods

It’s okay. You don’t have to run away; it’s just good ol’ Death…the end of life as we know it. And you know what…it might not be so bad…really. In fact, the good thing about death is the certainty. I mean, if there’s one thing you can be sure of when you are born, it’s that you will die. It’s a fact of life…like crappy traffic on the I-95 on Labor Day in the United States. Why the fuss? Why am I so uncomfortable writing about this that I feel the need to insert unnecessary bad jokes in the first paragraph of this write-up? Why? Because Death scares the life out of me – pun intended.

I suspect I am not alone. Death has been scaring us humans since the dawn of our species. I am not going to go into details about how Bo, my caveman ancestor, handled his fear of death. I have already written a brief summary of his explioits here. Suffice to say, I don’t think he thought about it that much. This attitude of not thinking about the coming of the Grim Reaper has remained with us till now, except the context is completely different. I’ll try to explain this as we go along, so try to keep up with me.

What is death? What, I ask? The answer is…well…to tell the truth, I haven’t the foggiest idea. No one does, as far as I know. All I know is that at some point, I will stop breathing, and my body will start to decay…unless I am eaten by sharks or something. But you get the picture. We are born, we live, then we die, one way or the other. It is the way it is. But why do we die? The answer really depends on who you ask.

Let’s start with Religion; Christianity, in particular (sorry, I was raised a catholic). Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden…Paradise. All was well. Then Eve screwed up (women, eh?), allowing the snake to convince her to eat fruit from the one tree that God had warned them against. She then got Adam – poor sod – to do the same. Now I don’t like to point fingers, but this blatantly shows that women can’t be trusted. I have shared this sentiment with my wife in the past; but she threatened to stop feeding me, so I took it back.

Where were we? Yeah, God was pissed off, as you can imagine. He decided to chuck them out of paradise; and he threw in a death sentence as well, for good measure. He also decided that all their offspring would suffer the same fate. I have always thought this was a bit harsh, but what do I know? In any case, that is why we die. I can’t speak for other religions, but if you’re a christian, you can walk around knowing that your life will end someday because your great, great, great, great, great…[repeat...not really sure how many times]…great grandpa listened to his female companion. Be warned…Ouch! [that's me expressing pain as my wife smacks the back of my head. Don't shoot the messenger dear, okay?]

In Scientific terms, we age until we die from complications that result from, well, ageing (this is the practical case for religion as well, except without the cool romantic tragedy as a backdrop). This is of course assuming trauma or disease don’t get us first. That’s key in the overall question of the cause of death from a scientific point of view. What I am thinking about here is why it is that we age at all, or more to the point, why this ageing leads to death. It’s an interesting point. Evolution (I pick this because it’s largely accepted in Science) seems to be really good at preserving the “best-suited” of our offspring. How come even these chosen ones are thwarted by death?

In simple terms, this seems to happen because immortality – or more practically, longevity – is not the point; Reproduction is. In the early days of life on this planet, the living environment was much harsher. Death happened…a lot. It can get complicated to define what makes an organism a separate unit, instead of just a group of cells, but I think it’s safe to say that life was comparatively short for our much less complex ancestors. They starved, were ravaged by infections and disease, fried by radiation, or eaten by others long before they could collect their pensions. From that perspective, the survival of a species really comes down to how many children one can spawn, and how much better suited to the environment the kids are.

This was cool for them back then. It was even cool for the Bo the caveman and his brethren as the same deadly dynamics were still much in play during his time. However, for the civilized man of the future i.e. me, this is bad. Everyday, I work towards defeating all of these factors that might separate me from life prematurely. I don’t go on safaris (no chance of ending up as some crazy lion’s lunch), I eat enough for 2 people (no chance of starvation), try to exercise every now then to stay healthy, etc. Modern society allows me to spend time developing my intellect, for instance by watching Jersey Shore. However, Selection (natural, group…whatever) has just not caught up. As a species, humanity is better now at successfully avoiding the stuff that would kill us off while we are young, and we are reproducing exceptionally well – RE: Octomom. In our relative old age, we are now encountering new killers that evolution simply has no answer for…yet: degenerative diseases, bone depletion etc. Put simply, solving one problem has simply allowed another one to emerge.

There are obviouly other theories around, including the idea that death is necessary for life to be the way it is, but I can’t get into them right now. At the end of the day the result is the same, whichever way you arrive there. We die. There is definitely a suckiness to this fact. This suckiness can be compounded by dwelling on how soon one might die. I know it has become a mini-obsession of mine since I officially became old this year. Turning 30 raises one’s all-round cheerlessness exponentially, at least in my experience. We can hear the Grim Reaper calling out to us (or maybe that’s just me). In any case, thoughts about death might arise a bit more as we grow older.

I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, considering one’s mortality can actually allow you to appreciate the time you have here more. I like life a lot more now. I love my wife, my children, friends and family. I am also able to remove unnecessary things from my life with more ease. I now work more on maximizing the good stuff, and minimizing the negative stuff. I just don’t know how much more time I have.

And sometimes death might be welcome. My comment on the I-95 traffic at the start of this piece is there for a reason. People will do extreme things to get away from it, like jumping off a bridge.

Besides, it’s what comes after death that’s the real problem for most of us when it really comes down to it, not the dying bit. Though I would rather not go out like the chap on the highway above.

More on this next time.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Related posts on Musings
• Musings: Kristin La Flamme » Blog Archive » More Costuming

• Related posts on Philosophy
• Meaning of life reflection « Philosophy@Utah State
• Philosophy: Home, private and public schools · Documentaries Online
• Embellish Design for Entertaining (logo) » Archives » More photos …