Food Sovereignty People's Forum Series: Who Does Free Trade Really Belong To?
Text / Chen Tzu-hui
Editors / Chen Ying-en, Chen Szu-ying
Photography / Coolloud, Sun Chiung-li
(Photo content: vegetable seedlings laid out on Ketagalan Boulevard to spell "Farmer 1st")
On February 3, the weather was clear, and the Taiwan Rural Front held the "People's Forum on Food Sovereignty" on Ketagalan Boulevard. In the breakout session "Free Trade and Agriculture," moderated by Chen Hsin-hsing, associate professor at Shih Hsin University, and Chen Szu-ying, a member of the Taiwan Rural Front, Mr. Lee Kwang-soo, president of the Korean Peasants League, and Ms. Kang Da-bok, president of the Korean Women Peasants Association, shared their views; about 100-plus farmer friends from all over Taiwan, as well as consumers concerned about agriculture, gathered together in the tent to take part.
The forum began with an introduction by Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing and Chen Szu-ying. They mentioned that Taiwan and Korea are very similar in many ways, and that we can look at Korea's experience to understand Taiwan's situation in the face of trade liberalization and how to respond to it. Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing then raised a question: "Trade 'liberalization' - whose 'freedom' is it?" Next, President Kang of the Korean Women Peasants Association began sharing what she had observed about how different groups in Korea face the harsh situation brought by trade liberalization.
First, Korean enterprises.
In February 2003, the Korean government began devoting itself to FTA (Free Trade Agreement) negotiations with countries around the world, and so far eight have taken effect and fourteen are underway very quickly. The FTA signed between Korea and the United States has put local enterprises in a very weak position when facing foreign-funded enterprises, because as soon as the domestic government does anything to protect local enterprises, it can immediately be sued.
For example, an American company, LongStar, committed illegal acts in Korea. The Korean government wanted to correct this, but LongStar instead filed a suit with the ISD (Investor-State Dispute) arguing that the Korean government treated local and foreign enterprises differently." As a result, "the Korean government was fined a huge sum of money."
Regarding the ISD, in later discussion Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing added two more very frightening examples. At present, in streets and alleys, many beef noodle shops label themselves "This shop does not use American beef," but once we sign an FTA with the American government, the Taiwan government will have to crack down on the shops that put up such labels, "because this is discrimination!" There are only three American slaughter and packing companies. This kind of free trade - "whose freedom is it, after all?" And consumers "do not even have the freedom to know."
In addition, after Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Canada once stated that its gasoline had a high lead content, and the United States sued it at the ISD on the grounds of "discriminating against American gasoline." As a result, Canada lost the case and had to lower its environmental standards.
As for Korea, besides enterprises, agriculture has suffered even more damage.
President Kang said that although Korea has many dairy cattle farmers, under the situation of large-scale imports of American beef from large-scale livestock farming, Korean cattle simply cannot compete with it on price. Thus, in Korea today, nearly half (43.9%) of beef comes from the United States. According to expert analysis: "The most direct impact of bringing in foreign products is that one can only enter a vicious cycle of price competition."
At the same time, because free trade with the United States took effect, Korea also imports large quantities of vegetables and fruits. This year alone, imports increased by 80% compared with the same period last year. And this year's tomato season, because of competition with large quantities of cheap American fruit, fresh locally grown tomatoes one by one were left with no fate but to be thrown away.
Also because of free trade, no matter whether goods are good or bad, or whether they will harm the people after import, the Korean government has no compulsory power at all to impose sanctions. For example, in June last year, large quantities of Monsanto genetically modified crops were imported. Although the Korean government also opposed it, President Kang said: "Because of the FTA framework, when foreign-funded enterprises cooperate with domestic enterprises to import, the Korean government has absolutely no way to act."
What is even more frightening is that this kind of free trade agreement process is not democratic at all. For example, Korea and China have currently already conducted four rounds of FTA negotiations, and as of the end of last year, the Korean government produced a research result investigating the impact of signing an FTA with China on twenty-seven fields, but only three could be made public. Clearly many scholars' research pointed out that because China has large agricultural output and, with different climate zones, can produce many crops, free trade in agricultural products with China would leave Korea with only large agribusinesses able to compete, and small farmers would all be wiped out. Yet the official investigation research was simply not released.
"Free trade and food sovereignty are irreconcilable."
After President Kang shared her views, President Lee of the Korean Peasants League then shared his experience. Because they opposed free trade, they went to the United States to make contact with members of Congress and American farmer groups. What surprised him greatly in this process was that American farmer groups actually also opposed exporting agricultural products to Korea. They believed that they too were "victims of price competition," that exports were of no benefit at all to small farmers, and that the real beneficiaries were large American agribusinesses.
What is even more painful is that agribusinesses even treat "food" as a tool for making money. For example, seeds originally belong to nature, yet American farmers "all have to beg the agribusinesses" to obtain them. And agribusinesses do not care whether local food is produced locally or about regional living communities. The American strategy is to sell genetically modified crops to other countries through free trade, so that consumers do not even notice when they eat them.
President Lee further stated that he believed: "Free trade and food sovereignty are irreconcilable" and "opposing free trade is defending food sovereignty." In the past, Korea's rice could be 100% self-sufficient, but now only 80% remains, and American beef has nearly 50% market share; but relatively, the price of rice is the same as 20 years ago, while the price of beef is only half of what it was. "The whole of free trade lives for agribusinesses," and "Korean farmers sincerely report to Taiwan that this matter of free trade must be blocked, otherwise there are only two things left to do: one path is to become agribusiness laborers, and the other is to leave the countryside."
President Kang of the Women Peasants Association also said that she opposes free trade that is fake freedom and real exploitation, and looks forward to a fair trade relationship built on the mutual protection of power between consumers and producers. She believes: "Food is not just a commodity, but a human right. Only when each of us can assert the right to healthy food and the right to survival can free trade proceed."
Regarding the exchanges between Korean farmer groups and American farmer groups, Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing added further. He said that Korea looks like a very important competitor to us, for example: Samsung and HTC. "The question is, what does it matter to us if HTC makes money or Samsung makes money? What does it matter to farmers if large American agribusinesses make money?" Another example is genetically modified soybeans. China was originally an important soybean producer, but starting in 2010, imported American GM soybeans reached three times local output, and thousands upon thousands of farmers in Jilin and Heilongjiang therefore went to Shenzhen to become Terry Gou's laborers. "Was that satisfying?"
Looking at free trade from the perspective of ordinary people at the bottom, "whose freedom is it, after all?"
[Comprehensive Discussion]
"Free Trade" and Its Possible Costs
After President Kang and President Lee shared their views, questions and discussion were opened to the participants present.
The audience asked questions about the follow-up to the LongStar investment case in Korea, the contradiction between farmers and laborers caused by falling prices of imported products, clear data on the impact of free trade on health in Korea, and the movement's situation and strategies of Korean farmer groups. President Kang of the Korean Women Peasants Association was mainly left to respond, while the audience and moderators added and expressed their thoughts.
Regarding the follow-up to the LongStar investment case, President Kang said that in the end the Korean government compensated LongStar with a large sum of money. She also added that the operation of the ISD (Investor-State Dispute) is composed of the Korean government, corporate representatives, and representatives of various countries, and that the position taken by the country's representatives is not the interest of their own country, but how to make free trade operate even more unimpeded.
Under such circumstances, the LongStar case even allowed the LongStar company to borrow four trillion won from Korean banks, hollowing out the banks, and forcing the Korean government to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. On this point, a friend at the scene added further that, just like Carrefour in Taiwan, it can use "free trade" as a reason to demand that the Taiwan government give it the same treatment, yet it can very easily just walk away.
In addition, a participant asked: "Signing free trade will cause agricultural product prices to fall, which is unfavorable to farmers, but may be favorable to urban laborers and ordinary white-collar workers. How should both be taken into account?" In response to this question, President Kang, along with some participants, said that we should think about why friendly-cultivated food is so expensive, while imported agricultural products, which clearly require time costs and high transportation fees, can be so cheap; many cheap agricultural products are produced through large-scale production and heavy use of agricultural chemicals, and buying them gives a discount, but perhaps in the end we have to pay with a large medical bill and our bodies and lives; and Taiwan's experience of importing American beef very clearly shows that consumers' health has not benefited.
Another participant said: "Land, producers, and consumers cannot be separated. Many cheap prices are obtained by exploiting the land. Consumers only see the price and ignore the value of land and the environment. As a result, under economic considerations, farmers use fertilizers and pesticides to increase output and speed up crop growth. Therefore, the fundamental solution is still that consumers must wake up." On this point, he further asked about the situation of Korean consumers.
Korea's Agrarian Movement Experience and Community Connections
Regarding the situation of Korean consumers, as well as other participants' questions about President Kang's experience in the agrarian movement and the context of Korea's agrarian movement and the issues it handles, Chen Szu-ying of the Taiwan Rural Front said that we can see that the intensity of Korea's movement is very strong. For example, in the candlelight vigils against American beef, they gathered millions of farmers. We very much deserve to hear them share their experience.
President Kang said that she has taken part in Korea's agrarian movement for more than 20 years. At the beginning, Korean farmers also did not understand so much. It was some intellectuals who kept in contact with them, and only then did farmers discover how serious the matter was. At the same time, Korea, like Taiwan, mostly presents information about free trade in a simplified way only in the print media, with even less careful policy debate, and information still must be spread through the continuous efforts of farmer groups. For example, the Women Peasants Association spreads understanding of the relationship between diet and producers in different regions through various shared communities of women farmers; and in different places it borrows large venue sites to hold different activities.
President Kang added further: "Explaining things to consumers cannot be reduced merely to moral discourse." Although crops are cultivated by farmers with blood and sweat, consumers far away will not feel it; a more effective approach is to develop regional relationships between consumers and producers, so that consumers realize that buying good food is investing in their own health, and also investing in farmers, as well as the sustainability of local agriculture.
As for the impact of free trade on the health of the Korean people, President Kang said the most direct one is the import of mad cow disease beef. There were several cases in which consumers developed very obvious symptoms after eating American beef. Therefore, in 2008, Korea's movement against American beef included many consumers, and also successfully suspended the import of American beef.
Szu-ying of the Taiwan Rural Front said that if American pork and American beef are confirmed to enter Taiwan, it will also have a rapid impact on consumers. In addition, because of Taiwanese people's dietary habits, what the American Institute in Taiwan actually cares about most is the import of American pork, because that is where huge profits can be made. The government originally kept declaring "separation of beef and pork," but now there are signs of loosening. All sectors need to keep paying attention, and we need even more to think again: is this kind of free trade beneficial to consumers? At the same time, the information generally available to the public is really too little. For example, regarding the impact after signing ECFA, the government has never provided public data or reports.
In addition, a participant asked about the aging of Korean farmers and the situation of leaving farming, as well as the effectiveness of Korea's policies promoting return to farming. President Kang said that people who want to live sustainably in the countryside need sufficient economic support. But at present, the price competition for agricultural products and problems such as the FTA are not conducive to farmers' survival, and the government has no supporting measures in its return-to-farming policy, so many people leave again after returning to the countryside for two or three years.
On the other hand, however, Korea has some mutual-aid civil groups that support farmers in returning to their hometowns. These farmers generally also spend several years planning, and after returning, most are able to continue production with the support of the mutual-aid groups.
We Must Firmly Believe in the People's Consciousness and Power
Finally, a participating friend suggested that perhaps we could make agricultural policy better by manufacturing legislators, for example: all victims could be united in specific electoral districts to elect, say, fifty legislators. However, Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing was relatively pessimistic about this, believing that it might not necessarily work. He also said that victims often feel that electing a president means taking care of farmers, that what scholars and experts say is more effective, and that legislators making laws is more effective. It is true that all these people should do their work, but if voters do not stand up, it is still ineffective.
"No one will solve the GM issue or the food sovereignty issue for us. Only when the people are aware of it can we solve it ourselves." So said President Kang and Teacher Chen Hsin-hsing. Only the power of the people will be real, and it is the power that can continue to form change and take deep root.
Conference Handbook for the People's Forum on Food Sovereignty
Free Trade Fuels Global Exploitation, "Food Sovereignty" Is the Way Out
Agricultural Sovereignty - The Crisis of Taiwan Entering the Second Production Sequence
American Pork Incoming? Obama Criticizes Taiwan's Import Restrictions
The Great Army of Chinese Radishes Takes Over the Taiwan Market