加载中…
正文 字体大小:

致世贸组织总裁电邮-1 Email to WTO Director-General

(2010-07-13 03:15:12)
标签:

打破世贸组织

多哈谈判的僵局

Jian-Ming Zhou Email to WTO Director-General Lamy of 23 Sep. 2009

周兼名2009923世贸组织总裁拉米的电邮

Subject: Developed countries will not lose agriculture

Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:50 PM

From: "Jian-Ming Zhou" <jmzhou46@yahoo.com>

To: Pascal Lamy 

Dear WTO Director-General Dr Pascal Lamy,

I appreciate your persuading the developed countries to make more concessions in agriculture. For example. (http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl116_e.htm)

'25 February 2009 Lamy underscores Doha Round benefits for Japan'

'Of course, Japan will face pressure from other WTO members to further open its agricultural market and to accept new disciplines for fishery subsidies. I understand this is a difficult decision at home and that it will take some time. But I just want to assure you that this happens everywhere. It is not easier for the US or European Union to reduce its agricultural subsidies or for the Chinese government to reduce its industrial tariffs further. Multilateral trade negotiations are a GIVE and TAKE, no country can ever get everything it wants, and no country will LOSE EVERYTHING without returns. Eventually, a delicate balance of rights and obligations will be reached.' 

However, this might cause a concern that they would lose agriculture while gaining more access in the developing countries for industry and services. Because agriculture (especially cereals production) is a strategic lifeline, they would not be willing to lose it and rely on imports. This would lead them to refuse to make more concessions in the Doha negotiations.

But my Proposal would make them NOT lose agriculture. 

In most countries (EU, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, etc.), once the protectionist subsidies have been abolished, many (particularly small) farmers might not produce sufficiently on their land, nor lease it to the remaining full-time farmers. Under such circumstances, the government should give full-time farmers access to the under-producing land beyond family consumption need of part-time and absent farmers, by creating a Dual Land System. A landowner may keep a part of his land as land for family consumption even if he does not produce sufficiently on it. The rest of the land is land for market. If nobody would like to lease it in, the landowner may keep it even without sufficient production, so that overproduction could be prevented. But if other farmers, without being forced by any one, merely out of their own economic considerations, would like to lease it in so as to achieve economies of scale, reduce costs and become viable or more competitive, the owner could not refuse even at low rents, so that the irrational production abandonment could also be avoided.

In the USA and Canada, the earlier immigrants had formed the largest farms of the world with very low costs which could easily feed their small population. Thus once the protectionist subsidies have been lifted, even if many small farmers do not produce sufficiently on their land nor lease it to the remaining full-time farmers, the nation’s food basic self-sufficiency would not be lost, just as in New Zealand and Australia. Only after their population has grown to the extent of threatening food basic self-sufficiency (especially in cereals), demanding more food and crops for biofuel, the above-mentioned Proposal would need to be applied. 

This Proposal is a modification of the current and former US and Western European laws, overcoming their shortcomings. For details, please gently examine my fifth FAO publication (http://www.icarrd.org/en/proposals/Zhou.pdf), pp. 1-7 only.

Therefore, the developed countries do NOT need to worry about losing agriculture after abolishing protectionist subsidies, NOR need to ask the developing countries to open more industry and services to the extent that they cannot afford as an exchange. Because my voice is too weak, would it be possible for you to graciously convey my opinions to the Doha negotiators publicly? If so, I should be most grateful. 

Of course, if you have any comments, please let me know.

Looking forward to hearing from you. With many thanks and best wishes. 

Sincerely yours,

Jian-Ming Zhou

PhD and Researcher

Florence, Italy

题目: 发达国家不会丧失农业

日期: 2009923日星期三下午07:50

发自: 周兼名"Jian-Ming Zhou" <jmzhou46@yahoo.com>

发给: 巴斯卡尔拉米  

尊敬的世贸组织总裁巴斯卡尔拉米博士:

我赞赏您劝说发达国家在农业方面作出更多让步例如(http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl116_e.htm)

“2009225日拉米强调多哈回合对日本的益处

当然,日本将面对来自其它世贸组织成员国要求其进一步开放农业市场和接受渔业补贴新纪律的压力。我理解这在其国内是一项困难的决定并且要花费一些时间。但是我恰恰想向你们保证,这种情况发生在每一个地方。削减农业补贴对美国或欧盟来说,或进一步降低工业关税对中国政府来说,并非容易一点。多边贸易谈判是一种付出获得。没有一个国家能够得到它所要的一切,也没有一个国家会失去一切而不得到补偿。最终,权利和责任之间将达成一项微妙平衡。 

但是,种观点可能使得发达国家担心在获得发展中国家更多工业服务业市场的同时失去自己的农业。由于农业(尤其是谷物生产)是具有战略性的生命线,所以它们不愿意失去之而依赖进口。这将导致它们拒绝在多哈谈判中作出更多让步。 

但是我的建议可以使它们不丧失农业

在大多数国家(欧盟日本韩国瑞士等),一旦贸易保护主义补贴取消后,许多农民(尤其是小农)便会既不在自己的土地上充分生产,也不出租给留下的全职农民在这种情况下,政府应当创建两田制,给予全职农民在兼职农民和离农农民超过他们家庭消费所需而生产不足的土地上充分生产的权利土地所有者可以保持他的一部分土地作为家庭消费田,即使他未在其上充分生产他的其余土地则为市场田如果无人愿意租种,土地所有者即使并未充分生产也可以持有它这样,生产过剩即可避免但是如果其他农民,没有受到任何人的强迫,完全出于对他们自己经济利益的考虑,而要租种之,以便实现规模经营降低成本、从而可以生存或更具竞争力,那么即使只交低额地租,土地所有者也不能拒绝如此,非理性的生产抛弃也可防止

在美国和加拿大,早期移民已构建了世界上面积最大的农场,具有非常低的成本,可以容易地供给相对其它国家而言较少的全国人口因此,一旦贸易保护主义补贴取消后,即使许多小农既不在自己的土地上充分生产,又不出租给留下的全职农民,国家的粮食基本自给自足也不会丧失,就象新西兰和澳大利亚一样只有到它们的人口增长到了威胁到国家的粮食(尤其是谷物)基本自给自足需要更多的粮食和生物燃料农作物的程度时,上述建议才有必要实施 

这项建议对当前和以前美国和西欧有关法律做了修正,克服了它们的缺点详细内容请审阅我在联合国粮农组织所发表的第五篇文章(http://www.icarrd.org/en/proposals/Zhou.pdf) (仅占第1-7)。中译本见

(http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4cd5a06a0100k25p.html),

周兼名在联合国粮农组织发表的第五篇文章正文中译本-1

(http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4cd5a06a0100k25x.html),

周兼名在联合国粮农组织发表的第五篇文章正文中译本-2

(http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4cd5a06a0100k261.html)

周兼名在联合国粮农组织发表的第五篇文章正文中译本-3

由此可见,发达国家不必担心在取消贸易保护主义补贴后会丧失农业,因而也就不必要求发展中国家更多开放工业和服务业以达到它们无法承受的地步来作为交换但由于我的声音太弱小,能否请您慈悲为怀把我的意见公开转达给多哈谈判者?如果行的话,我将最为感激 

当然,若您有任何评语的话,请告知

盼复多谢、祝好! 

您诚挚的,

周兼名

博士研究者

于意大利佛罗伦萨

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报
已投稿到:
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 不良信息反馈 电话:4006900000 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有