The decision came at a time when imperialist powers and governments of semicolonial nations have been involved in several trade conflicts over agricultural export markets. In Geneva a week earlier, in an effort to get the governments of Third World countries to come to the table and resume the WTO trade negotiations known as the Doha round, U.S. and EU representatives promised concessions on some of the many subsidies they pay out to farmers in their countries, the main beneficiaries of which are capitalist farmers. The so-called Doha negotiations began in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001 and broke down in September 2003 when ministers from semicolonial nations walked out of a trade conference in Cancún, Mexico.

“This ruling, just like the cotton decision, confirms that there are immense distortions in international agricultural markets,” Clodoaldo Hugueney, a Brazilian foreign ministry official, told the New York Times. “It also confirms that serious negotiations need to take place to do away with farm subsidies, both for exports and domestic consumption.”

In June the WTO ruled in a complaint brought by the Brazilian government that $12.5 billion in U.S. cotton subsidies also violated trade regulations. Washington has indicated it will appeal the decision. The WTO has not released the details of either ruling.

With the largest economy in Latin America, Brazil has been among the most energetic in pressing the demands of its export industries. Over the last decade Brazil has become the largest sugar producer in the world. Its sugar exports rose from 5.8 million tons in 1996 to 13.4 million in 2002. The EU runs a distant second, exporting about 5 million tons per year.

The 25-member European Union, an imperialist trade bloc, sets quotas for sugar production for its domestic market in order to limit supply and maintain high prices. Companies in those countries that use sugar, such as soft drink companies, pay three times more than their competitors on the world market, according to the Bloomberg News agency. Any “surplus” sugar must be exported at lower prices. The EU budget provides subsidies to these exporters, allowing them to sell cheap and maintain a steady stream of profits.

Six European sugar companies, which include Suedzucker of Germany, Tate & Lyle in the United Kingdom, and France’s Beghin-Say, received a total of nearly $900 million last year in export subsidies, half of the annual EU sugar export subsidy.

The EU agricultural policies also include price supports for a number of African, Caribbean, and Pacific Island (ACP) countries as part of the efforts of the European imperialist powers to reinforce their markets there. While they lay out massive sums to the agricultural giants in Europe, EU officials hypocritically opposed the WTO ruling with claims that the Brazilian government’s goal is to “steal” market share from the ACP nations.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home