|
WASHINGTON, July 26 /PRNewswire/ -- In testimony today before the
Senate Agriculture Committee, Former U.S. Trade Representative
General Counsel and Ambassador Ira Shapiro said that the sugar
program was ``the Achilles Heel of U.S. Trade policy. '' .He
cautioned that ``achieving the Committee's goals of opening foreign
markets to US food exports will be impossible unless the sugar
program is reformed. Government economists now project will cost
taxpayers more than $1 billion during the next five years.''
``Maintaining the sugar price support program in anything like
its present form will undercut our ability to open foreign markets
for a whole range of U.S. products and services, particularly
agricultural commodities and value- added products...This is not
simply about the price of a five-pound bag of sugar, or even the $2
billion extra that consumers spend annually because of our sugar
program. It is actually about our ability to deliver on the promise
to open markets more fully around the world for our farmers,
ranchers, food processors and everyone else who is part of America's
food industry.''
In prepared remarks, Ambassador Shapiro stressed the
``contradictions of the program could no longer be denied.''
Taxpayers will bear an increasing burden if the current program
continues. The Administration projects that the sugar program will
cost $141 million this year and more than $1 billion through 2005.
The current program has stimulated too much production. In the past
four seasons, production has grown an average of 6 percent while
demand has grown by less than two percent. The market price for
sugar is lower today than when the Department announced its
intention to but 132,000 tons. The Administration's ill-advised, ad
hoc responses have failed. The law should be permitted to work as
intended. The program encourages sugar cane production at the very
time the Congress is proposing to spend more than $7.8 billion to
clean up the Everglades, a national environmental treasure. Clearly,
there is a disconnect between spending billions to preserve the
Everglades and spending billions more on a program that directly
leads to the environmental degradation of the Everglades.
International Hypocrisy
``It is quite clear to me that the U.S. sugar program stands as
one of the principal impediments to our hopes for continuing
agricultural trade liberalization.
``First, the program makes our calls for 'a fair and market
oriented system' sound hollow and hypocritical. If we saw this
program in another country, we would regard it as a major and
unacceptable distortion of trade...The 1996 Farm Bill ended
government controls and phased out payments to farmers of corn,
wheat, cotton and other crops. The sugar program is a glaring
exception to this progress...Why should other nations be expected to
end protection and government management of their sensitive
commodities, and open their markets, if the U.S. is unable to do so?
The answer -- readily apparent in Seattle -- is that they will not.
Working with Allies For Reform
``Second, worldwide agricultural trade liberalization will occur,
if at all, through the combined and determined efforts of the
leading agricultural exporters -- the United States and the members
of the Cairns Group -- coming together to overcome the opposition of
those nations mostly strongly opposed to liberalization, notably the
European Union and Japan. Our sugar program has driven a wedge
between the U.S. and one of the leaders of the Cairns Group nations,
Australia...The incongruities in the U.S. position created by the
sugar program take the pressure off the European Union and Japan,
who can oppose real agricultural liberalization with impunity.
Anti-dumping Laws Should be Used
``The sugar industry will no doubt argue that the decline of the
world price of sugar over the past year is the result of dumping and
is a sure sign of things to come if the sugar program is
eliminated...To the extent that a lower price may be reflective of
dumping, however, U.S. antidumping laws provide an effective remedy
to a domestic industry that is being injured by less-than-fair-value
imports. There is no reason why the antidumping laws and the
countervailing duty laws which protect other industries from
unfairly traded products will not afford similar protection to the
sugar industry, assuming that dumping or subsidizing is occurring
and resulting in injury.
Sine Qua Non -- Without Sugar Reform There Can Be No Progress
``Third, there are few issues, if any, that matter more to more
nations than increased sugar access to the markets of the developed
world. This issue stands close to the top of the agenda of two of
the leading developing nations, India and Brazil, as well as several
rapidly developing economies, such as Chile, Thailand and the
Philippines. But it is also the highest priority for some of the
smallest, struggling economies in Central America, the Caribbean and
in Africa. These developing nations tend to maintain the highest
tariffs against our agricultural products. They are potentially
among the fastest growing markets for our farmers and ranchers if
those barriers can be reduced. We know from Seattle, and the
discussions since, that many developing nations believe that they
have been shortchanged by the international trading system. Many
believe that they made significant market opening commitments in the
Uruguay Round and have received too little benefit in terms of
reciprocal access to the markets of the developed world. The
inequities of the U.S. sugar program compel the conclusion that the
grievances of the developing countries are well justified, not just
deeply felt.
``Reform of the U.S. sugar program would provide a vital boost to
the economies of many poor nations, and would be particularly
beneficial if it helped force the EU and Japan to reform their
programs. At the same time, such reform could be a major catalyst in
expanding export opportunities for our producers of grains,
oilseeds, cotton, meat, processed foods and value- added
agricultural products.''
The Coalition for Sugar Reform is a group of more than 20
organizations and associations whose objective is market-oriented
reform for the U.S. sugar program. Coalition members represent
consumers, environmentalists, think tanks, and advocates of fiscal
responsibility, businesses and other interests. A listing of
Coalition members and other additional information is available on
the Coalition's website: www.sugar-reform.org.
|