Remarks by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D.C. June 16, 1999 Release No. 0251.99 Remarks As Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman Center for Strategic and International Studies Washington, D.C. June 16, 1999 "Thank you Richard (Fairbanks, President). "Agriculture plays a pivotal, and often behind-the-scenes role, in international policy. And it is because of this sort of out-of-the-mainstream existence in international policy that agriculture sometimes seems less important than it actually is. "Because food is one of the basic essentials in life, the movement of food across international boundaries can have a profound effect on how governments and people deal with each other. Historical Perspective "When World War II ended, the single most important challenge in rebuilding the nations of Europe and Asia was in providing food and rebuilding the agriculture infrastructure of these nations. Food made up over 1/3 of all Marshall Plan aid which was crucial to the stabilization of Europe and was a critical building block for democracy and freedom "In 1974 the United States took the lead in the World Food Council in Rome and called for the formation or reinvigoration of new institutions to deal with the food aid issue. Out of that came the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, a rededication by the World Bank to help stimulate agriculture in developing countries and the establishment of the World Food Program. "Today it is the World Food Program that has taken the lead in North Korea, a country that simply cannot feed itself. We've provided aid both through the World Food Program and directly that has allowed the United States access to inspect North Korean nuclear sites. There was no pretension here. There was food for access, quid pro quo. Food Aid "But we must be careful not to use food as an instrument of foreign policy except in the most extreme circumstances. That's why this Administration established a revised sanctions policy whereby food and medical supplies are generally off the table when it comes to disagreements, and even hostile relations, with other countries. "In the long run, our ability to meet the humanitarian needs of other nations is a positive step toward developing freedom and democracy around the world. "This year the United States, responding to food crisis around the word will provide nearly 10 million tons of food aid. That's over three times our traditional aid of 3 million tons annually in recent years. Included is aid to North Korea, aid for Balkans/Kosovo refugees, and an unprecedented package for Russia. "The Food aid package for Russia totals 3.2 million tons, including grains, meats and other commodities. The U.S. is working closely with the EU, especially as supplies dwindle in months before the 1999 Russian harvest. Crash of the ruble and poor '98 grain crop made aid necessary to feed the Russian people and maintain stability. In the long run, Russia must meet most of its own needs domestically, and through commercial imports. To help support recovery in Russian agriculture, the first U.S. shipment was 15,000 tons of planting seeds for Russian farmers. "In Kosovo, our plan is to provide food aid until refugees return safely to their homes and begin producing their own food. The peace accord doesn't change this commitment. Europe and others are also providing food. "There will be no harvest in Kosovo this year and with winter not far away and a limited harvest next year, this aid will need to continue. The U.S. is now shipping 14,000 tons per month for direct feeding. We've also set up a one-month emergency food stockpile in the region. In addition, USDA is providing at least 160,000 tons of commodities to the region for governments to sell in local markets--proceeds to support development projects, reforms, budget initiatives. As refugees begin returning, we'll continue to review food aid and rebuilding needs in Kosovo and surrounding countries. "The fact is that economic and political security is often inextricably linked to food security. The United States has never had a shortage of food. For that reason, sometimes in our country we take our food producers for granted. But in societies which have seen hunger, starvation and war, a different attitude about food policy, farmers and trade emerges. A well-fed society is more capable of learning democratic and pluralistic values than a hungry one and certainly of becoming more economically viable. Trade "As food is a force for peace, stability and democracy, it is also a force for progress in international trade. "Earlier I talked about U.S. efforts after World War II to rebuild Europe and Japan. Today Japan and the European Union are our two largest agricultural trading partners. The United States projects two-way ag trade between the EU and the US to be over $15 billion this year. "Consider the recent negotiations with China over Chinese ascension to the World Trade Organization. The biggest non-political stumbling block was agriculture. By coming to an historical agreement that broke down many agricultural trade restrictions and reformed others, between China and the U.S., China can now move forward toward the next steps for ascension. But without those concessions in agriculture, the issue would still be dormant. "When it comes to trade, how agriculture goes, I believe will largely dictate how all trade policy develops. Simply stated, I believe agricultural issues will be the dominant and most difficult issues to resolve in the next round of trade negotiations. The results of our ability or inability to further reforms in this area will probably make or break issues for non- agricultural subjects as well. "That's why, not only is it important to break down obvious trade barriers, such as tariffs or quotas, but we must discipline state trading enterprises, export subsidies and indirect programs -- such as resolving disputes regarding sanitary and phytosanitary issues. Countries cannot be free to independently develop ad hoc policies based on questionable science. That will lead to trade chaos and thwart progress for agricultural and non- agricultural issues of the next round of the WTO. "Earlier this year, in their Agenda 2000 proposal, the EU walked up to the line and then retreated from fundamental reform of domestic agricultural policies which have invariably led to the use of export subsidies and domestic protection. "On beef hormones: EU's failure to comply with WTO rulings on lifting ban on U.S. beef from hormone-treated cattle sets a bad example; as with bananas, the EU has now requested WTO arbitration to further delay or mitigate retaliatory U.S. tariffs on $202 million in EU products "For issues such as beef hormones and bananas we need to develop a conflict resolution process that works that all countries adhere to. "In biotechnology, the slow pace, indecision and failure to develop a consistent, science-based approval process has disrupted trade and threatens to constrain innovation in one of the most promising new technologies for ensuring future global food security. I'm not saying proceed forward without adequate safeguards or without understanding that in the end, it is the consumer who is the final arbiter. But I am saying let's be smart about biotechnology-- let's embrace its potential while remaining responsive to concerns of consumers and responsible in letting science be our guide. "In the upcoming round of the WTO, we expect strong resistance from the EU and some others to key U.S. goals to achieve fairer and more open markets. But I will say this, look at the benefits of free trade in all sectors, and the only conclusion is open borders work, if properly maintained." #