But some other bigtime pop music figures… well, at least one… feel differently, according to this AP report on the President’s address to the United Nations today:
Irish rocker Bob Geldof, who organized the Live Aid concerts and campaigns against poverty, said he was sitting in the General Assembly chamber with U.N. anti-poverty chief Jeffrey Sachs and they couldn’t believe what they heard.
“I think he’s really throwing down the gauntlet. It’s a very bold move,” Geldof said of Bush’s trade tariff proposal, adding that he was impressed with the president’s acknowledgment that terrorism “comes from despair and lack of hope.”
Reactionaries like West are unlikely to… [Hey, be easy on the dude. He was just tryin' to sell some albums.-ed. Right. I forgot. I'll start over.] Gentlemen songsters like West are unlikely to comment on Bush’s challenge to world leaders to abolish all trade tariffs, even though that could arguably help diminish world poverty more than all the charitable donations by all the charitable organizations in history combined, nor will ‘progressive’ states like France and Germany likely show much interest in his proposal… but it is one of the more interesting ideas to come down the pike in some time. New York Times… Washington Post… how’re you going to cover this one? Same old… same old… I suppose.
MORE on Bush’s proposal in this report:
Bush’s call to eliminate all trade barriers would essentially create a worldwide free trade zone, something that goes far beyond the goals of the 148 countries who are seeking to wrap up a new round of trade liberalization talks known as the Doha Round, for the city in Qatar where the talks were launched in late 2001.
Those discussions, which have a more limited agenda of simply reducing current trade barriers, are currently stalled. Officials are worried that an upcoming December meeting in Hong Kong could fail to make progress in such key areas as reducing barriers that rich countries have erected to protect their farmers. Poor nations see a reduction in farm subsidies as key to making their farm goods competitive on global markets.
Saying that the Doha negotiations would eliminate farm subsidies, Bush said, “Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to free flow of goods and services as other nations do the same. This is key to overcoming poverty in the world’s poorest nations. It’s essential we promote prosperity and opportunity for all nations.”
Most Third World poverty has been intractable for generations, making the term “Developing Nations” no more than a euphemism. What we need now are radically new approaches and Bush has offered one.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
21 Comments
1. Plainslow:Sir Bob has been working on this for a while. He has seen things that have not worked, and realizes that Bush is trying to solve problems, and gives him credit for trying. Others just want to attack him until he’s gone, even if it means real progress gets delayed, or never happens.
Sep 14, 2005 - 5:25 pm 2. richard mcenroe:Hey, even Sir Charles Barkley (a real basketball player, Roger *g*) stood up for the Feds…
Sep 14, 2005 - 5:42 pm 3. Terrye:West is a race baiting bigot and a gangsta.
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:09 pm 4. Roger:Kanye West is a bore and I apologize for starting this post with him. But I’d love to hear reactions to Bush’s free trade proposal. Is it worth putting our energy into backing? I don’t know enough to say for sure, but I’d like to. It’s certainly interesting. The obvious reaction is that it is mere grandstanding because such an initiative is doomed from the start, but still…
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:12 pm 5. Peter G.:The initiative is doomed to fail in the short term, but it has to be raised. Let the rich nations that benefit from subsidies explain why they need these subsidies to protect them from poor nations. They have no argument, and eventually the policies will change.
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:29 pm 6. PJ:Well said, Bush.
Instead of hosting interminable meetings and conferences (at US expense), he’s putting his money where his mouth is. He really has nothing to lose. If everyone agrees, he’s a hero. If most nations (as I would expect) refuse, they look like reactionaries…which we know, of course, they are.
It will tend to make him popular with the people, unpopular with the diplomatic corps.
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:30 pm 7. Curmudgeon:Actually, I think the euphemism was changed to “less developed countries” some time ago because their lack of development and even retrograde motion was too obvious to cover with the old euphemism.
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:36 pm 8. Ed Poinsett:I don’t know if it ranks up there with Reagan’s Zero Option in Iceland, but it’s a great idea! I’d like to hear the thoughtful reasons against it.
Sep 14, 2005 - 6:41 pm 9. darkcoffee:What poor countries need, I think, is far more trade with one another and not necessarily a great deal more with the U.S. — not yet. Let’s face it, other than natural resources, what do they have that we would want? Not a whole heck of a lot. Cheap labor, too, which is a kind of natural resource, but with no infrastructure or decent system of education, of limited value. They need to build real cities that are self-renewing, real industries that are something other than relocated western “plop downs,” and the only way they can do that is to start small and build little by little, just as the developed world has done, and create things or ways of doing things that nobody else thought of. Even free trade won’t be a quick fix — although a heck of a lot better than the wholesale wealth transfers that’ve been tried and that have failed so miserably. This “trade among yourselves until you reach escape velocity” is exactly the path the great success stories of development in the 20th century, Japan, Singapore and Korea, took. So, though I think Bush is right, the real benefit, in my opinion, will be lowered barriers between states on similar economic footing.
Sep 14, 2005 - 7:30 pm 10. Katherine:Yes. One more boring proposal from the merely adequate president. Libertarians yawn. They know in their heart of hearts that Bush cannot possibly mean it because he once raised steel tariffs for a couple of years (he happened to campaign on this particular issue and kept his promise ñ even it if it was regrettable).
I find it interesting that all the CAFTA, all the free trade agreements with Australia and Chile and India find no traction with the ìlibertariansî. Sure, Bush cut taxes, but where is comprehensive overhaul of a tax code (anything less than flat tax will not count) and where is the Social Security reform (anything other than full privatization will not count either)?!!!! Economy may be growing, world may be democratizing, but Bush did not reign in Congressional spending. Conclusion: he is a fraud, and we can safely join our leftist friends in bashing him. It is, after all, a fashionable opinion: all the right thinking people know that Bush is an evil moron.
I am not trying to ìworshipî Bush. I disagree with him often enough. But, as people were pointing out on another thread, we do not have a luxury of voting for Perfection Incarnate. And I am convinced that if he stays the course and if majority of us will not waver in our support for his far sighted, liberating policies this President and todayís American people will go down in history as one of the greatest that this country ever produced. Like Reaganís America, Bushís America once again is opening the door of freedom for oppressed peoples in this world. Some will take this opportunity to go into the blinding light ñ some not. But every nation who choses freedom will help to ensure that this planet will stay in one piece for years to come.
Sep 14, 2005 - 10:48 pm 11. kparker:Not nearly good enough. We should do it unilaterally–we can certainly afford it–and let the Euros cower behind their barricades.
Sep 14, 2005 - 11:02 pm 12. Doug S.:I take it as a sign that Geldof and Bono have grown up at least a bit that they now understand the importance of free trade and have embraced what has traditionally been a important Republican issue. Maybe they’re smarter than I gave them credit for back when “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” came out. Now they’re on board with the likes of Larry Kudlow and President Bush. Now that’s a coalition.
Ed, when I read that story Reagan’s Zero Option came to mind, too. Like Peter G., I don’t think it will accomplish much of practical value in the short term, but it does throw down the gauntlet and set the tone for the debate to come. I hope we will look back in ten years and see it as just as memorable. The problem, of course, is that we’ve been fighting with the Euros and the Japanese on ag subsidies for decades now, and they’re still an issue. Heck, ag subsidies are a domestic issue, too. There are many votes in red states on the Great Plains and in the Midwest that need to be kept in the fold. So I think Bush is right not to go unilateral with this. But he’s begun by shaping the debateó preparing the battlefield, as they say in the military.
Sep 14, 2005 - 11:20 pm 13. flenser:Depends on who is meant by “the worlds poorest nations”. Zimbabwe and North Korea probably qualify, but no trade agreement will help them. Their problems are with their leadeship.
What is basically being proposed is that the First World price supports for farm products be done away with, allowing food from poorer countries to compete in First World markets, or even in their own markets. The US exports about 25% of its farm production, and these goods are subsidised by the US taxpayer.
The losers in this would be farmers in Western nations, and they have a lot of clout. The winners would be farmers in developing nations. Sounds like a good move to me, from a global perspective. But it seems like a risky proposal for a Republican president whose base is in the farming states. Which is why I don’t think it will happen.
Sep 14, 2005 - 11:40 pm 14. kiwi:I think that New Zealand can offer a very practical and relevant example of what happens when a “first world nation” removes all government subsidies and protections from its farmers. In 1984 a left wing Labour Government with a secret right wing economic agenda…yes I know this sounds bizarre, but believe me it happened!…was elected to power in New Zealand. One of its first actions was to remove ALL subsidies and price support to NZ farmers. Initially there was much moaning and angst, but faced with reality NZ farmers got down to doing what they do best…producing the best agricultural produce in the world at unbelievably competitive prices. Despite the fact that NZ’s main markets are in the Northern Hemisphere, with freight distances up to 120000 miles, our agricultural produce is still cost competitive in these markets…so much so, that the US, EU and Japan restrict our imports with quotas to protect their own producers. NZ farmers would never wish to return to Govt. subsidies and handouts. These policies send the wrong signals to producers; our farmers are proof positive that Western world agricultural producers can not just survive, but prosper once the price and incentive distorting subsidies are removed. President Bush is to be commended for his initiative in this regard, but I suspect he will very quickly come under great pressure from the US farm lobby, like so many northern hemisphere farmers, reluctant to wean themselves from the teat of taxpayer subsidies. NZ farmers stand as an example to the Western World that there is not just life after the removal of taxpayer funded support, but with innovation, technology implementation and hard work, good profits as well.
Sep 15, 2005 - 2:18 am 15. RogerA:As one with an Adam Smith outlook about trade, I am fully in support of the president’s initiatives..Kiwi’s example was excellent and will impell me into some research! The issue for Bush will be to make it happen politically. Regretably American farmer’s have much the same influence on our politics as do French farmers on the French government. But I think it is important to get the vision on the table.
Sep 15, 2005 - 7:49 am 16. Steven Mitchell:What would happen domestically if the US somehow managed to overcome the political bottlenecks to dropping farm subsidies (whether or not anyone else dropped them):
1. Good, smart farmers would often switch to different crops than they grow now.
2. Adequate farmers would struggle on with same crops for a long time, which will be possible because of all the good, smart ones getting out of direction competition.
3. Marginal farmers will sell the farm. This also removes competition from the above two groups.
4. NBA players running farms as tax shelters will no longer find them attractive, unless they hire a good, smart farmer to manage the enterprise.
Next effect–remaining farmers get same or better money, but more reliably and without subsidies while consumers get cheaper food. Or more accurately, consumers get a wider variety of relatively cheap food.
Sep 15, 2005 - 9:52 am 17. Kyda Sylvester:It’s a politically astute play. It allows Bush to line up on the side of the angels with little chance of having to make good.
That being said, I believe Bush to be a dedicated free trader and sincere in his belief that it’s a vital component of any plan to develope the third (or even second) world. And what I wouldn’t give to watch the Bush administration trying to persuade Congress (Reps and Dems alike) to end farm subsidies. Oh happy day.
Sep 15, 2005 - 10:32 am 18. Cynic:flenser,
“The winners would be farmers in developing nations. ”
Which developing nations? If you are excluding African ones then it seems a reasonable statement, but considering the situation in Africa, even South Africa now has lobbies to remove the White farmers to create small holdings for the “landless” which cannot produce in economical quantities for export but just for subsistence.
If Geldorf had read Moeletsi Mbeki’s paper
“The private sector, political elites and underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa”
http://www.saiia.org.za/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=500
maybe he would not have been such a demagogue with respect to Africa. Then again he must have made a fortune selling his music CDs at the G* summit …. and employs expensive people to reduce his tax burden which could form part of that which he demands of Britain for charity.
Moeletsi Mbeki is the South African President’s brother by the way.
The Cato Institute has this by Mbeki:
“Shield Africa’s Wealth from Self-Serving Political Elites”
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/mbeki-050419.html
“Geldof said of Bush’s trade tariff proposal, adding that he was impressed with the president’s acknowledgment that terrorism “comes from despair and lack of hope.”
After all we have seen these past 4 years it amazes me that Bush could still trot out that nonsense. Just take those bombers in London full of “despair and lack of hope”.
Sep 15, 2005 - 12:46 pm 19. submandave:Sir Bob has long been a fan of Bush’s sincerity and commitment to Africa (poverty, trade, AIDS, etc.). I still laugh at his comment that Clinton talked a good game “but did fuck-all.”
kiwi: 120000 miles? Methinks thou hast a sticky zero key.
Sep 15, 2005 - 1:02 pm 20. kiwi:To submandave: you are correct..that should have read 12000 miles. My apologies.
Sep 15, 2005 - 1:44 pm 21. Royalty Free Beats For One Dollar:Royalty Free Beats For One Dollar
At
http://upbeat.tk
Oct 5, 2006 - 10:38 am