Sir James Goldsmith argues that Free Trade and Modern Agriculture are Destroying Society. Peter Myers, May 28, 2002; update November 1, 2004. My comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Goldsmith, now deceased, was a Jewish member of the British Establishment. Lyndon Larouche roundly condemned him, but I find his ideas in this book eminently sensible. The book is based on conversations with Yves Messarovitch.

The front cover of his book The Trap asks, "How is it that humanity's greatest leap forward in material prosperity has resulted in extreme social breakdown?"

(1) Sir James Goldsmith, The Trap (2) Sir James Goldsmith, The Response (refutes the critics' responses to The Trap)

(1) Sir James Goldsmith, The Trap, Carroll & Graf, New York 1994.

{p. 103} You believe that intensive farming, on which modern agriculture is based, damages public health and destabilizes society. Why?

Intensive farming is based on the belief that food is like any other product and that agriculture will respond to technology in the same way as industry does. If new technology is introduced, the argument goes, enhanced efficiency and productivity will follow. Large, mechanized modern farms using the latest scientific discoveries will produce more food, more cheaply, for the benefit of the economy and of people throughout the world. The necessary elimination of rural jobs, the reasoning continues, is no different from the daily loss of industrial jobs due to technological innovation. What is more, men and women will be liberated from the land and made free to participate in the dynamic sectors of contemporary industry, where they will contribute to the growth of GNP and to public prosperity.

At first sight this seems obvious. Yet it is totally wrong. When people leave the land, they gravitate to the cities in search of work. But throughout the world there are not enough urban jobs and the infrastructure - such as lodgings, schools, hospitals, etc. - is already insufficient. The result is increased unemployment,

{p. 104} with the attendant costs of welfare, as well as a need for substantial expenditure on infrastructure. These are the indirect costs of intensive agriculture and they must be taken into account.

There is also a deeper price. When, as a result of change, jobs are lost in a particular industry the fundamental balance of society is not altered. Some declining companies necessarily suffer while other, more competitive entities emerge. But loss of rural employment and migration from the countryside to the cities causes a fundamental and irreversible shift. It has contributed throughout the world to the destabilization of rural society and to the growth of vast urban concentrations. In the urban slums congregate uprooted individuals whose families have been splintered, whose cultural traditions have been extinguished and who have been reduced to dependence on welfare from the state. They form an alienated underclass. From the first world to the third, these huge shantytowns have become tragic, morbid intumescences. The cost of such social breakdown can never be measured. The damage is too fundamental. Throughout the world social breakdown in the mega-cities threatens the existence of free societies.

As Jose Lutzenberger, the far-sighted former Environment Minister of Brazil, writes, the notorious slums of Brazil, known as favelas, were the direct result of the rural dislocations caused by the Green Revolution of the 1950s. This was the first major scientific

{p. 105} initiative to apply intensive farming to a large area. It was supposed to end, for all time, famine throughout the world.

But do you question the assertion that intensive agriculture is more productive?

The only measure by which large farms are more productive is in the use of labour. If productivity is measured in terms of production per acre, or per unit of energy, or relative capital input, it is the small farm which comes out best.

Output per person might have been an important consideration in the highly developed western nations, where the cost of labour is great and standards of living are high. But we are entering a new world in which we must accommodate 4 billion people who have suddenly joined the world economy, including the populations of China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh and countries of the ex-Soviet Union among others. These populations are growing fast, and are forecast to reach 6.5 billion in thirty-five years. Under these new circumstances, the question is no longer how to save labour. The problem is how to stabilize these vast and fast-growing populations, a very large part of them unemployed.

Take Vietnam as an example. It has a population of 74 million of whom 80 per cent live in the countryside (compared to 14.8 per cent in Australia, a major

{p. 106} agricultural country). Driving them from the fields into urban slums would create devastation.

In the world as a whole, there are still 3.1 billion people living in the countryside. If intensive methods of agriculture were imposed universally and productivity per person were to reach the levels of Australia, then, as we have discussed, about 2 billion of these people will lose their livelihood. Rural communities throughout the world would be washed away as if by a great flood. Whole populations would be uprooted and swept into urban slums. As the affected nations become ungovernable and impoverished, so their people would be forced to seek refuge elsewhere. Mass migrations of displaced people would follow. Yet economists totally disregard these social and economic costs when they calculate the cost of food produced by intensive methods.

Modern society believes in intensive farming because modern culture is based on measuring and counting rather than on trying to understand long-term and more important consequences.

What are the other effects of intensive farming?

Its effects on the environment and on the public are well known: soil erosion, water pollution by chemical effluents, accelerated depletion of ground water, destruction of genetic diversity, pollution of foodstuffs and damage to public health.

{p. 107} You talk of the effects on public health of intensively produced food. What do you have in mind?

The purpose of intensive rearing of animals is to achieve the greatest weight gain over the shortest period of time for the lowest cost. It seeks weight gain not nutrient gain, and that is achieved most easily by putting on fat rather than protein. At present chickens, turkeys, ducks, pigs, veal calves and beef cattle are commonly reared by intensive methods. Salmon, trout, halibut and some other fish are more recent recruits.

As an example I will take the meat which was first produced by modern factory farming, chicken.

Broilers, typically, are reared in sheds each containing 40,000 growing birds. There are eight crops per year, so eight times each year 40,000 one- or two day-old chicks are delivered to each shed from incubators in a hatchery. There they will remain until they are ready for slaughter, forty-two days later. Their feed contains very little natural vegetable material, but instead consists of a considerable proportion of fish meal and what is discreetly called 'bone meal'. This, in fact, is the remains of previous generations of their own and other species. In many cases, to their feed will be added artificial growth promoters such as antibiotics (virginiamycin, for example) and anticoccidials to treat fungal infections. Regular feeding of antibiotics to intensively reared animals produces an additional weight gain of perhaps 5 per cent. Similar industrial processes are applied to other animals.

{Readers, did you know that Australian beef and lamb is produced by free-range methods, not feedlots (except for a few catering to foreign "consumers"). It's not only better for you (if you eat meat), but a much more pleasant life for the animals}

{p. 108} Intensively reared animals are physically different from their free-living counterparts. In the meat of free animals, the protein content far exceeds the fat content. In intensively reared animals the proportion of fat to protein is much higher. After converting the figures to their calorific value, the ratio of fat to protein is often found to be nine times greater in domestically reared animals than in their free counterparts. In chicken, it has been demonstrated that since the end of the last century the carcass fat content has risen by nearly 1,000 per cent.

The change goes further. Generally speaking there are three main types of fat, two of which concern us most - polyunsaturated and saturated. Polyunsaturated fat includes essential fatty acids, so called because they are essential for the growth and development of the brain and are components of all cell membranes which need them in order to function effectively. They help to produce hormone-like substances which regulate, among other things, the immune and vascular systems. Saturated fats, on the other hand, are a significant contributory factor in heart disease and possibly also a factor in breast and colon cancer.

Wild pigs are expected to have twice the concentration of essential fatty acids as of saturated fat. In contrast, the modern pig has five times more saturated fat than polyunsaturated fat - a transformation by a factor of ten times, the wrong way.

So the damage to the value of our food is twofold:

{p. 109} the meat will contain relatively more fat than protein, and the quality of that fat will have been perverted.

{Are our children getting bigger and fatter through eating such meat?}

There is still more. The limited space in which the animals live facilitates the transmission of microbes which increases the spread of infection. The unnatural living conditions are themselves likely to damage the animals' health and reduce their resistance to disease. And as the animals are bred from uniform genetic stock constituting a form of monoculture, they are all vulnerable to the same infections. Vaccines, antibiotics and other drugs are administered to prevent epidemics. The systematic use of antibiotics may create resistant bacteria, which can then spread to man.

Is mad cow disease connected to intensive rearing of animals?

Mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is one of a group of infectious diseases known as TSEs: transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. The TSE which affects sheep is called scrapie and the form which principally affects humans is known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The diseases are always fatal and there is no known treatment. They are transmissible to other species, have very long incubation periods and are present in many tissues of the animal's body long before symptoms are seen. They act by causing the disintegration of cells throughout the brain and replacing

{p. 110} them with microscopic holes which give a spongelike appearance, hence the name 'spongiform'. The disease is transmitted by infectious agents whose chemical nature is still unknown. They are very small, smaller than all classified viruses, and there is no way of identifying infected animals before they have developed symptoms, except by injecting cells into mice. Even then the results may not be available for up to a year. The infectious agents are extraordinarily tough and heat-resistant. Experiments have shown that they can survive any dose of X-rays or irradiation that is viable in practice; antiseptics or enzymes or formaldehyde; exposure to 360 degrees centigrade for one hour; and autoclaving under conditions that kill all other known infectious agents. They are durable and will persist for many years in the soil. Domestic cooking is not expected to have any effect on them at all. TSEs affect mammals, but not other species (except for the long-lived ostriches). It is interesting to note that when a TSE is transferred from one species to another, the properties of the infectious agents change. For example, it seems that scrapie cannot be transmitted directly from sheep to rhesus monkeys and in light of the genetic relationship between the rhesus monkey and humans this is consistent with the view that scrapie does not directly affect man. But if scrapie is transmitted experimentally from sheep to mink, then the mink TSE develops new properties and can be

{p. 111} experimentally transmitted to rhesus monkeys. Thus it seems that TSEs can be transferred either directly or indirectly across the barriers between species. The first cases of BSE were identified in 1986. Many scientists believe that the infectious agents were transmitted to cows through feed which contained products from rendering plants, i.e., factories that process the remains of slaughtered animals, including cows. The material they produce is added to animal feed and described variously as concentrates, protein supplements or bone meal. Thus, we are feeding cow remains to cows, in other words forcing cows into cannibalism. It is interesting to note that in the first half of this century there was another form of TSE which affected humans - Kuru disease. It occurred in the Fore tribe, a Stone Age civilization which at the time practised cannibalism.

How did the Bntish authorities react when BSE appeared?

The government found itself in an extremely difficult position. Evidence was slim and the risks, although great, were unproven. As there is a considerable period of incubation it would take some years to establish whether the epidemic could spread from cows to humans. A full alert by the government might have caused panic and would have had a potentially disastrous impact on British farming.

{p. 112} So the government reacted by establishing advisory scientific committees and taking some precautionary measures to reassure the public.

As of 1989, 'high-risk' organs were to be removed from slaughtered cattle - a useful decision which might or might not be wholly successful, because it has not been established where in the tissues of cattle the infectious agents settle. For example, all organs and meat contain nerves that are in physical connection with the brain. It is known that several infectious agents pass between an animal's peripheral organs and the brain by moving along the nerves. Therefore, if the brain is infected, the nerves may also be infected.

Furthermore, it was decided that cattle thought to be infected with BSE were to be reported and milk from obviously ill and infected cows was banned from sale. This was also useful but, as I have explained, there is no ready way of identifying infected animals until the disease reaches the final stages, so the effects of these decisions are necessarily limited to those animals in which the disease is already obvious.

The committees also recommended a ban on the feeding of ruminant-based protein to ruminants. In other words, no more cannibalism to be imposed on ruminants. That was an excellent decision but the ban was not extended to pigs and poultry, which continue to be fed on the remains of their own species. In any case, the effects of this recommendation must now be reassessed as a result of the convincing evidence of

{p. 113} maternal transmission of BSE from dams to their calves. Although contested by government scientists, it now seems almost certain that natural transmission of BSE from cow to calf has been taking place and will continue unless preventive action is taken.'3 One of the principal conclusions, in February 1989, of the government-sponsored Southwood~ommittee was: 'From present evidence, it is likely that cattle will prove to be a "dead-end host" for the disease agent and most unlikely that BSE will have any implications for human health. Nevertheless, if our assessment of these likelihoods is incorrect, the implications would be extremely serious'. The phrase 'dead-end host' means that the BSE stops here and will not be transferred from the cow to other species.

Do you believe that this conclusion was right?

More than five years have passed since the Southwood Report was published and the epidemic has spread much more rapidly than predicted. Instead of the total of 20,000 affected animals forecast by the Committee, the figure is already above 130,000 with some 30,000 farms having experienced at least one case of the disease (52 per cent of UK dairy farms). According to Dr Stephen Dealler of the Department of Microbiology at York District Hospital, this figure only represents about 20 per cent of the animals affected, the remainder having been eaten before the diagnosis had

{p. 114} been carried out. In addition, the disease has been transmitted to seventeen out of the eighteen mammal species which are known to have been exposed to BSE. These include the mouse, the antelope, the oryx and the cat, as well as the pig and the marmoset monkey. The appearance of the disease in the pig is significant because pig tissues are similar to those of man (various connective tissue components from the pig have been used for human grafts). Transmission of the disease to monkeys is especially disquieting because of their close relationship to humans. According to Professor Richard Lacey of the Department of Microbiology of the University of Leeds, 'the central tenet of the government's reassurances that BSE cannot be a danger to man because it cannot "spread" is now completely discredited. The implications for cattle farming and probably also for human health are very grave'.

Already two cases are known of beef cattle breeders who have contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human version of TSE. There is also a sixteen-year-old girl dying from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the cause of which doctors have so far been unable to determine.

BSE has now been identified in countries other than the UK, among them Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and Denmark, where the disease is thought to have spread from imported British cattle. It was this, along with increasing concern about interspecies transmission, that led the German government

{p. 115} to question the safety of British beef. The Germans tried to adopt a preventive approach to the issue, with Health Minister Horst Seehofer commenting that 'we cannot live by the slogan "Because there is no scientific knowledge we don't need to act"'. The German government called for a Europe-wide ban on the export of British cattle, which was fiercely resisted by the British government. When the European Commission failed to act, in June 1994 the Germans declared a unilateral six-month ban on imports of British beef, risking prosecution by the European Court of Justice. This finally forced the European Union to act on the matter, and on 18 July it was agreed to amend EU regulations on the export of cattle carcasses. British farmers are now required to certify that any beef carcasses exported to the EU have not come from a herd which has had BSE during the last six years. Previously the time period was two years, but that was not long enough to allow incubation and therefore identification of the disease.

{Q: What different about Britain? It seems that the Anglo-American world has departed furthest from nature, "enclosing" its farmland, sweeping small farmers into cities, masculinizing its women, even endorsing Gay Marriage}

Are these isolated incidents or should we expect other problems resulting from intensive farming?

The new frontier of intensive agriculture is biotechnology, which includes genetic manipulation. No doubt it will bring some remarkable and unexpected results.

The story of the bio-synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone is a good example of the way in which

{p. 116} genetically engineered products destined for agricultural use are tested and presented to farmers and to the public. The chemical industry changed the name of this product to Bovine Somatotropin or BST, presumably so as to eliminate the word 'hormone', which makes the public suspicious.

Originally the industry claimed that BST, while substantially increasing the milk production of a cow, would do so without augmenting the level of hormones in milk and without adverse or toxic effects on the health of cows. Milk produced in this way, it is claimed, is safe for humans. A further attraction of using BST is that it requires little capital investment.

The initial reactions from the US Food and Drug Administration and from the UK government were positive. The British Minister of Agriculture went so far as to say: 'The idea that Britain should stand aside while allowing everyone else to produce milk in the modern way is barmy ... Nobody has any doubts about damage being done to human beings, it is totally safe'.

Nonetheless there were dissenters who questioned the benefits and safety of pushing cows like high-performance machines with the aid of greater amounts of drugs.

The dissenters' case was much reinforced when documents were leaked to Samuel Epstein, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center, detailing the results

{p. 117} of BST tests carried out in the laboratories of the Monsanto chemical group. Here are a few verbatim extracts from the leaked documents:

-'Significant increases in milk Somatotropin were noted at the five times level of treatment. Somatotropin is the synthetic hormone in BST, which was not supposed to carry into milk.

-'From all groups ... adrenal to body weight percentages and adrenal to brain weight percentages of the right adrenal were significantly great~than those of the controls'. In other words, when compared with untreated animals the right adrenal gland of BST-treated animals was inflamed.

-'The left adrenal absolute weight ... for all treated groups was significantly increased'.

-'The absolute kidney weights ... were significantly greater than those of the control group'.

-'The heart to body weight percentages for the three times and five times groups were considerably greater than those of the control group ...'

-'The liver to body weight percentages ... were significantly increased'.

-'Statistically significant weight increases also occurred for lung, pituitary and left ovary'.

The Monsanto files also indicated that BST levels in treated cows appeared in concentrations up to 1200

{p. 118} times higher than that of the natural BST in the blood of untreated cows.

These facts contradict the claims made by the chemical industnes involved.

Yes, they do. The Chairman of the US Congressional Committee on Government Operations wrote to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services as follows:

Specifically, I am seriously distressed with allegations concerning critical research information that has been withheld from public scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration and the Monsanto Agricultural Company, in efforts to approve commercial use of Bovine Growth Hormone, without regard to the adverse health effects on animals and humans. More importantly, and contrary to the public assurances made by both the Food and Drug Administration and Monsanto, the industry files indicate high levels of the hormone are found in the milk of cows treated with synthetic Bovine Growth Hormones ... Further, I am deeply concerned that little actual research exists on the human safety aspects of Bovine Growth Hormone.

But on 5 November 1993, under pressure from the agrochemical lobby, the Food and Drug Administration yielded, notwithstanding the protest of the Gen-

{p. 119} eral Accounting Office, another branch of the US administration, as well as the official in charge of consumer protection in the State of New York, who both stressed the risk to public health. No doubt to protect itself from litigation, Monsanto has now published the following information about BST:

Use of POSILAC may result in reduced pregnancy rates in injected cows and an increase in days open for first calf heifers. Use of POSILAC has also been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus during the treatment period. Cows injected with POSILAC may have small decreases in gestation length and birth weight of calves and they may have increased twinning rates. Also the incidence of retained placenta may be higher following subsequent calving. ...

Cows injected with POSILAC are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). The number of cows with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase. In addition, the risk of subclinical mastitis (milk not visibly abnormal) is increased. In some herds, use of POSILAC has been associated with increases in somatic cell counts. ...

Use of POSILAC may result in an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhoea. ...

Studies indicated that cows injected with POSILAC had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g., lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee

{p. 120} (carpal region), and second lactation or older cows had more disorders of the foot region.

The public reaction to the government approval of BST was immediate. Numerous retail food chains and milk distribution chains refused to sell the polluted product. Monsanto's response was to sue several small dairy concerns which informed consumers that their milk was BST-free and printed this on their label.

Monsanto's decision to sue indicates the lengths to which the company was willing to go to force BST onto the market. It has also come to light that Monsanto has applied considerable political pressure to avoid an official study on the consequences to society of using BST. In August 1994, the US Justice Department was petitioned to launch an investigation.

For their part, the European authorities have focused their attention on whether BST is needed at all during a time of surplus milk production, and whether large supplies of cheap, hormone-induced milk would drive small farmers out of business. In July 1993, the European Commission recommended a seven-year ban on BST, an action which was ratified by the European Parliament. In December the Parliament went further, voting to dissociate the ban on BST from the issue of milk quotas (paving the way for a total ban, irrespective of EU milk production levels) and to extend it to milk and milk products from BST-treated cows imported from other countries. Almost simultaneously, however,

{p. 121} the Council of Ministers decided to ignore both the European Commission and the European Parliament and to reduce the moratorium from seven years to one. BST milk might be on sale in Europe as early as 1995. As David Martin MEP, a vice-president of the European Parliament, commented, 'It is a constitutional outrage that the Council of Ministers should act in this fashion. Meeting in secret, it is probably acting on the advice of top-level government advisers with vested industrial interests'.

Britain and Belgium are thought to have pushed for immediate abandonment of the moratorium. Gillian Shephard, then British Agriculture Minister, claimed that licensing BST would 'avoid international trading problems' - in other words, that under GATT any European ban on BST, however temporary, could be illegal as an impediment to free trade and that for this reason the drug should be marketed in Europe. Here is another example of the doctrine of free trade taking precedence over the most funda 'mental need of society, public health. And it illustrates the complicity that has developed between politicians and business interests.

Further evidence of this complicity is provided by a memo to the House of Commons European Select Committee from the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry cites Dista Products at Speke in Merseyside to make its point: 'Investment of 40 million pounds could be affected, together with 150 jobs. The [European] Commission communication [i.e., the seven-year

{p. 122} moratorium] means that a considerable domestic and EC export market would continue to be unavailable for these products', and a BST ban would 'pose a serious threat to the development and commercialization of biotechnology . . . and deter investment'.29 It seems that at no time do the governing elites concern themselves with the jobs lost in rural communities as a result of intensive agriculture - which are by nature less obviously quantifiable than industrial jobs - nor with the potentially serious effects on public health.

Must one conclude that biotechnology should be rejected entirely?

No. In human medicine, as a means of curing specific diseases, biotechnology will be useful, but we must exercise particularly tight controls over its development so as to avoid serious accidents. In agriculture, I feel that the disadvantages greatly outweigh the advantages. Let's take the case of the most extraordinary form of biotechnology: genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology. The aim of genetic engineering is to transfer genes from one cell to another and thereby to create new forms of life. It is now possible to manipulate and transfer genes from one species to another. For example, researchers at the University of Kentucky have transferred genes from a fish to a soya bean plant. Other researchers have

{p. 123} introduced a gene for the human growth hormone into a pig.

In agriculture genetic engineering is applied to plants, animals, bacteria and viruses. The consequences of genetically altering the plant realm are far-reaching. Supporters of biotechnology claim that genetically engineered seeds will produce crops which are tolerant of herbicides and more resistant to drought, frosts, disease and pests. It is also claimed that they will reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and insecticides.

As a result of lobbying by the biotechnology industry, it is now possible to obtain a patent on living organisms altered by genetic engineering. New life forms will become patented commercial monopolies.

Of course, there are those who consider this new industry to be unacceptably dangerous. Debate must be encouraged, as we are playing with the fundamental elements of all life on earth.

The principal arguments against genetically engineered seeds are:

One: This is a perilous replay of the Green Revolution which attempted to transform agricultural processes by advanced scientific methods during the 1950s and 1960s. At the time there was great enthusiasm for synthetic organic chemicals. Natural raw materials were replaced and yields increased by applying chemicals to genetically selected strains~of seeds which became known as 'miracle strains'. This led to the development of monocultures; in other words, it converted large

{p. 124} areas to be used for growing a single crop of similar genetic origin. It also resulted in greater mechanization and ever-increasing use of chemicals and energy. As Fowler and Mooney, laureates of the Right Livelihood Award (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), put it, 'achieving high yield required fertilizer and irrigation. Fertilizer and irrigation nourished weeds as well as crops, creating the need for herbicides. And pests found the uniformity of new varieties appetizing which necessitated the use of insecticides as well ... The fertilizers made the new varieties possible. The new varieties made the fertilizer necessary'.

Two: Contrary to the industry's claims, the use of herbicide-tolerant seeds is likely to result in a need for more and stronger herbicides. Recent studies at the University of California have demonstrated that pollen can be carried to plants over 1000 metres away and alter their genes. Thus, in the words of Dr David Ehrenfeld of Rutgers University: 'It will only be a few growing seasons before we can expect to see this engineered herbicide resistance transferred naturally, in the field, to the weeds themselves'.

Three: The way of the world is constant change, evolution and adaptation. Insects develop resistance to insecticides just as weeds develop resistance to herbicides. In the US, despite a tenfold increase in the use of insecticides, annual crop losses to insects over the years have nearly doubled.

{p. 125} Similarly, the agents that cause diseases evolve and can adapt to new circumstances. In a relatively short time, mutations will enable them to break through the defences of the genetically engineered plants and as they are genetically homogeneous - in other words, all vulnerable to the same diseases - whole crops could be eliminated.

Scientists cannot predict reliably how the new altered organisms will evolve and behave once released.

Four: It will never be possible to control the releases into the environment of untested and unauthorized organisms. Since 1986, numerous examples of such behaviour have come to light.

Five: The development of genetically engineered monocultures will cause further devastation of the world's genetic resources. Genetic diversity is one of nature's greatest treasures. Many years ago the plant pathologist Martin Wolfe, working with the geneticist John Barrett, confirmed that polycultures are healthier than monocultures. They demonstrated that a blend of three different types of barley was almost entirely resistant to mildew, whereas the three when grown separately were not. Should an infection attack one particular variety, each stem, surrounded by other varieties, is shielded by its resistant neighbours which themselves might not be affected. They concluded that whereas a monoculture might produce higher yields in a given year, the polyculture produces more over the long term.

{p. 126} What would be the dangers resulting from the loss of genetic diversity?

History supplies many well-known warnings. For example, there are still 5000 varieties of potato grown around the world. But in Ireland in the nineteenth century, all potatoes descended from only two varieties. The genetic limitation resulted in a lack of resistance to potato blight, which therefore reached epidemic proportions and caused the great famine.

After the Southern corn leaf blight of the 1960s, the US National Academy of Science confirmed that the principal cause of the epidemic was corn crop uniformity. The corn variety in use was based on a hybrid. The Academy concluded: 'When one genetic component became susceptible to the new blight, the whole American crop became vulnerable'.

The same is true of the Russian wheat epidemic of the 1970s. Forty million hectares had been sown with a single variety of a so-called 'miracle strain'. Unexpectedly and despite scientific experimentation, the strain sometimes proved incapable of surviving the harsh winter. Because of genetic uniformity, the consequence was a general crop failure.

Intensive agriculture destroys genetic diversity not only in seeds, but also, of course, in all forms of animal and vegetable life subjected to cloning, embryo transfer, gene selection, creation of monocultures, tissue culture, genetic engineering and the other processes of intensive

{p. 127} agriculture. The granting of patents for new life forms will accelerate this trend because patent law requires that the new varieties be internally consistent, that is to say uniform. Also, new varieties will have to be genetically uniform to be registered with the appropriate authorities, and it will be illegal to sell unregistered seed.

As farmers must survive in a competitive world, they will farm intensively or be driven out of business. What is more, farmers will become tied to and dependent on the chemical suppliers. As the patented seeds and their plants will be genetically engineered to respond to particular chemicals, the suppliers of those chemicals will control the farmers who use the seeds.

What are the questions that should be asked and answered before we proceed too far with biotechnology?

Can we understand the long-term effects, direct and indirect, of these wholly new and partially explored products? Can we obtain their benefits without terrible consequences? Do we really believe that new regulations will be sufficient to stop uncontrolled releases into the biosphere of these new forms of life? How can we prevent new forms of life, such as genetically engineered microbes, causing unlimited damage? Their very 'newness' means that existing life on earth, both animal and vegetable, has never been exposed to them and therefore has no immunity against them. Do we understand that by creating instantaneous, unexplored

{p. 128} new forms of life we have thrown away the vital protection of being able to learn from our mistakes? With thousands of researchers experimenting throughout the world and using their imaginations to create instantaneous new life forms unknown to nature and therefore untested by the trial and error of millions of years of natural evolution, is it possible to avoid mistakes and accidents which could have unimaginable consequences? We should always remember that there are no reliable shortcuts for testing new chemicals. Their effects may take years to become apparent. But there are deeper questions. Has man the moral right to create new microbes, new animals, new life forms? Are we wise to transform the course of evolution artificially and to do so instantaneously? Do we realize that much of the change is irreversible? Can we convert animals and fields and forests and all things living into unnatural high-performing machines whose only purpose is to serve human beings? Is changing fundamental genetic information in living things, which will remain an inherited characteristic, the ultimate form of pollution? Has the hubris of mankind become dangerously inflamed?

What solutions do you propose?

We need to revise our priorities. The purpose of agriculture is not just to produce the maximum amount of food, at the cheapest direct cost, employing the least

{p. 129} number of people. The true purpose should be to produce a diversity of food, of a quality which respects human health, in a way which cares for the environment and which aims at maintaining employment at a level that ensures social stability in rural communities.

That means transforming the ways in which many developed nations subsidize theirfarmers and their agriculture?

Yes. Most official support, including that traditionally provided by Europe's Common Agricultural Policy, is granted on the basis that the state will buy a farmer's production at a fixed price. If a system is based on quantity, the natural consequence is that farmers will want to produce the maximum amount and intensify their methods of production.

Are you suggesting moving to organic farming and, if so, can it be economic?

I am not suggesting a general move to organic farming. I am suggesting a return to a form of agriculture that substantially reduces the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, pharmaceuticals such as hormones and antibiotics, and the products of biotechnology. Many analyses of farms operated in this manner have been done. David Pimentel of the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University has shown that less intensive methods can produce food economically. The

{p. 130} trouble, of course, is that unsound and destructive agriculture makes a quicker profit in the short term than sound and healthy agriculture. Obviously, the quick profit only appears if indirect costs are not taken into account.

I have already quoted the studies of Herman Daly and John Cobb which indicate that when productivity is measured in terms of production per acre, or of energy consumed or capital invested, smaller farms show greater productivity. The large, mechanized modern monocultures come out best when productivity is measured in terms of numbers of people employed.

Who would be the losers and who would be the winners if we moved from intensive to less intensive methods of agriculture?

Let's start with the winners. The stability of rural communities would be re-established. The cities and their inhabitants would benefit as the exodus from the coun- tryside ceases. Consumers would have healthy food to eat. Pollution of the environment by chemical and bio- technological products would be substantially reduced. Nations throughout the world would be relieved of the cost of welfare which has to be paid to those who are uprooted from the land and find no employment. Nor would they have to invest in further urban infrastructure to receive rural refugees.

The losers are easy to identify: the chemical and the biotechnology industries, along with their paid experts and lobbyists.

{p. 89} Many developed nations are reconsidering the structures of their systems of welfare. What is your view?

The universal welfare state cannot be sustained. Its economic costs and its social consequences are unbearable. The rightful purpose of institutionalized state welfare should be to supply a safety net to those who need it. It should not be to eliminate the natural responsibilities of citizens, families, local communities, religious communities and other structures which, in a healthy society, intervene at different levels between the individual and the state.

Those who wish to destroy the conditions which allow for a strong democratic nation can do little better than to reduce the self-reliance of citizens and of their families by converting them into dependants of the state. Inevitably the result is the strengthening of state bureaucracy and the weakening of civil society.

Earlier, when discussing the construction of Europe, we talked about the word 'subsidiarity' and what it is supposed to represent. It should mean leaving to the family everything that can be done at family level; leaving to local, social or religious communities everything that can be done at the local level; leaving to

{p. 90} the region everything that can be done regionally; and only putting into the hands of the state bureaucracy those responsibilities which cannot be decentralized. The idea that society consists of a multitude of individuals is wrong. In reality a robust society consists of families and local communities. These are the true building blocks, and it is these essential elements of society that the universal welfare state weakens by reducing their responsibilities and their authority. If you remove from a family its duty to provide for the health, education and welfare of its children, you destroy the cohesion of that family and thereby the community to which it belongs. The children effectively become wards of the state.

Far-reaching reforms will need to be proposed so as to alter the fundamental orientation of state intervention. These can only be carried through following a national debate and a referendum. In a free society major changes such as these must have the legitimacy of public endorsement.

Let's start with your proposals for the health service.

A prosperous and civilized society must ensure that all its citizens have access to decent medical services. The question therefore concerns the means rather than the objective.

The way in which medical services are provided should be based on the twin principles of subsidiarity

{p. 91} and diversity. As it is imperative that local communities survive, indeed prosper, without their populations being swept into the major urban concentrations, they must have access to local hospitals, which should be able to treat relatively widespread and predictable illnesses. Centralization is necessary for highly sophisticated and specialized services which, in order to be reasonably economic, need to cover a much wider area. Local hospitals would send to the specialized hospitals those patients who need particular care. Thus the siting of hospitals should follow a double movement: decentralization for standard hospitals and centralization for highly specialized establishments.

The purpose of diversity in medical services is to provide choice and to improve quality by introducing an element of competition while maintaining and improving the national system in those countries in which it already exists. There should be a multitude of hospitals run variously by doctors' cooperatives, religious communities, local communities, charities and private enterprise, as well as the services run by the state where they exist.

The state would retain a major role. There should be legislation requiring that everyone, at birth, be insured for health. That insurance must be for life so as to make it illegal for insurers to exclude anyone as a result of some subsequent deterioration in his or her health. As everyone would be insured for life, medical differences at birth would be in the price. Insurance

{p. 64} What impact do you think the forced immigration of Africans has had on the character of America?

I agree with James Madison's conclusions. You cannot tear away from people their culture, heritage and identity without provoking a terrible reaction. Prior to the arrival of African Americans, America's immigrant population seemed likely to develop into a nation. They had come to America of their own free will and they were inspired by the ideal of a free and classless society, the shining city on the hill. They had freely decided to discard much of their original heritage and to sever their ancestral roots. They commingled with ease. Of course, there were exceptions. Some communities tended to marry among themselves. But the typical southern white American shares German, Anglo-Saxon, Scottish and Irish ancestors. Between 1820 and 1860 nine out of ten European immigrants came from England, Ireland or Germany. Obviously, for all the reasons foreseen by Madison, the relationship between African and European Americans was very much more difficult.

The year 1965 was another turning point. It was then that the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments were passed. They abolished the policy which, previously, had organized immigration in a manner that reflected the pattern of cultural origin already established in America. The law was symbolic because,

{p. 65} instead of continuing to favour European immigration, America had decided to become its own free world. During the 1950s there were nine times as many European immigrants as there were Asians. Following the passage of the new Immigration Act, the proportions were sharply reversed. By 1990 the absolute number of immigrants from Europe had halved, whereas immigration from other continents and cultures had soared. By opening itself to all those seeking freedom whatever their origins, America had decided to initiate a vast and welcoming new form of society. President Reagan, in his famous New Year's speech of 1982, described America in these terms: 'We're a nation composed of people who have come here from every corner of the world, people of all races and creeds ..'.

Great enthusiasm was expressed for such a grand vision. Not only was it immensely generous in spirit, but it seemed to promise a vigorous, innovative and industrious new generation which would bring tremendous vitality to America. And so it has turned out. These immigrants now often lead the pack in school results, in research, in science and in mathematics. But, inevitably, there have been other consequences. As Time magazine wrote: 'by 2020 ... the number of US residents who are Hispanic or non-white will have more than doubled to nearly 115 million'. Only a short time later, the population of European descent will be a minority; 'the average US resident, as defined by

{p. 66} census statistics, will trace his or her descent to Africa, Asia, the Hispanic world, the Pacific islands, Arabia - almost anywhere but white Europe'.

What will be the consequences of these changes?

This radical transformation of the population of America has taken place with incredible speed. There has been large-scale legal as well as illegal immigration (the latter estimated at between 2 and 3 million each year). What is more, the immigrant peoples, once installed, have a higher birth-rate. The twentieth-century writers Oakeshott and Santayana believed that one of the disasters which can befall any community is that its shared understandings, in other words its common culture, be dissipated in too rapid or too sweeping change.

Whatever the outcome of this extraordinary and grand experiment, it will be impossible to avoid social torment. The destabilization and in some cases social breakdown of the cities, the multi-ethnic, multi-tongued population, the rapid geographic mobility which has resulted in uprooted nuclear or broken families, have all contributed to widespread disorientation. As must be expected, reactions to these fast-changing conditions have been diverse. Some have sought their historic roots in Africa, Ireland, Israel, Italy, China or wherever, forming somewhat separate communities and choosing to live among themselves. They strive

{p. 67} to preserve or to recover their cultures, religions and language. In other words, their reaction has been to respect and to protect their differences. Others have gone in an entirely opposite direction. They have sought to eliminate diversity and to build a homogenized society by denying the existence of cultural, ethnic and even gender differences. Homogenization has brought into question the differences between men and women. It is the fact that men and women are different, that the weaknesses of one are compensated by the strengths of the other, that allows a family to live in harmony. Replacing the natural complementarity of men and women by competition between them will change society - particularly in a culture in which it is fashionable to emphasize the individual. Modern individualism regards all social structures and obligations, even those created by the family, as impediments to self-realization, and therefore as forms of oppression.

These social phenomena, homogenization of the genders and modern individualism, will further threaten the stability of the family.

What do you conclude from all this?

From a geopolitical point of view, America will find it more difficult to achieve internal agreement on its policies. Asian, Hispanic and African Americans will not respond to the special relationship with Europe as do European Americans. Similarly, European Americans

{p. 68} will have a different attitude towards problems in other parts of the world. So American governments may attempt to create a consensus by justifying their foreign policy on humanitarian grounds, sometimes known as 'gunboat compassion', and that can rapidly degenerate 1nto a form of neo-colonialism.

Let's now turn to the construction of Europe. You believe in a European Community, but you reject the Europe that would result from the Treaty of Maastricht. Why?

Maastricht seeks to create a supranational, centralized, bureaucratic state - a homogenized union. It would destroy the pillars on which Europe was built - its nations. It would convert Europe into one multicultural space, in which national identities would be fused and sovereignty abandoned. It would coerce ancient European nations to merge into the ultimate artificial state. As George Orwell remarked, it is characteristic of intellectuals to pass over in incomprehension the dominant political passion of the age. Today, that passion is the search for national identity. And this is the moment when European ruling elites are seeking to destroy the identity of every European nation.

How is it that the peoples of twelve European nations have agreed to this?

The European Union was built in secret: not through carelessness or casualness, but in a deliberately planned

{p. 69} and skilfully executed manner. Claude Cheysson, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Commission from 1985 to 1989, described the mechanism in an interview in Le Figaro on 7 May 1994. He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy, and he went on to suggest that the present problems were the result of having mistakenly allowed a public debate on the merits of the Treaty of Maastricht.

The British newspaper the Guardian lodged a case before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg complaining of the secrecy in which European decisions are taken. Lawyers for the European Council of Ministers responded by stating to the judges that 'there is no principle of community law which gives citizens the right to EU documents'. They went on to make the astounding claim that although heads of government had repeatedly called for more openness in EU affairs, their declarations 'were of an eminently political nature and not binding on the community institutions'. So they asked the judges to ignore the repeated declarations at EU summit meetings in the past two years in favour of greater openness. Statements by the twelve heads of government were no more than 'policy orientations' and had no binding effect.

This belief that the nomenklatura knows best and that the public is no more than a hindrance explains

{p. 70} why there now exists a profound and dangerous divorce between European societies and their governing elites.

What was done in secret?

Quietly and progressively, power was transferred to the seventeen unelected technocrats who were the members of the European Commission. Originally, power had been entrusted to the Council of Ministers, which consists of the elected national heads of state or their representatives. As they were more interested in national policies than in the creation of Europe, bit by bit the technocrats of the Commission were allowed to take over executive power. They have been granted the monopoly right to propose new initiatives for the development of the European Union. Their ambition is not modest. Jacques Delors, the outgoing president of the Commission, declared that in future 80 per cent of all laws governing economic, social and fiscal affairs of each European nation would originate in Brussels and therefore from proposals initiated by the Commission.

As was certain to be the case, this rush towards technocratic hypercentralization has created a Europe which is hopelessly weak externally and unable to influence the course of world events. Internally, the power of the technocracy is employed to destroy sovereignty, freedom and self-reliance.

{p. 71} How do you define a technocrat?

Usually a technocrat is an ex-politician or a civil servant. He is unelected, virtually impossible to dislodge during his term of employment, and has been granted extensive executive and even legislative power without popular mandate and without being directly answerable to the people whose interests, theoretically, he is supposed to represent.

What kind of Europe do you believe in?

It would be built on the strengths, cultures and heritage of its constituent nations. The fundamental principle which would guide its institutions would be that everything that can be done at family level would be entrusted to the family, everything that can be done at the local or regional or national level would be decentralized accordingly.

I believe that democracy functions properly when it is local and participatory. In a healthy democracy it is the people who decide which powers should be entrusted to their leaders. In a false democracy, it is the leaders who decide which freedoms are to be lent to the people.

When constituencies are small, their elected representatives must concern themselves with the local interests of their constituents. When political representatives are distant and faceless and represent vast

{p. 74} the unelected technocrats of the Commission fill the void.

What about the European Commission?

It should be the administrative secretariat of the Council. It should be stripped of executive and legislative power and expected to work in the efficient and disciplined manner which a democracy expects from its functionaries.

What structures would be needed for defence and diplomacy?

They should be entrusted to a European Security Council not too dissimilar to the UN Security Council. The large European nations, which would provide the bulk of military capacity, would be the principal members of the Security Council. All European nations would be free to opt out of military initiatives decided on by the European Security Council. The Council would be able to draw on the armed forces of those nations which agree to participate, without seeking to create a homogenized Euro-corps. The development and production of military equipment could be carried out in a coordinated manner through joint ventures between European corporations.

The principal purpose of Europe's defence must be to protect Europe's vital interests and, more particularly,

{p. 75} to defend its territory against military or uncontrolled invasion. It should not pursue neo-colonial expeditions under the guise of humanitarian aid, when its real purpose is often to help some western politician's career at home.

What do you mean by uncontrolled invasion?

I mean immigration on a scale which cannot be integrated.

And what should be the relationship between the European Security Council, the USA and NATO?

Now that the Cold War is over, Europe must grow up. It is absurd that 250 million Americans should be asked to defend 350 million Europeans against an unknown enemy. Europe and the USA should work as independent allies and NATO could be the structure used for ad hoc cooperation.

And the environment?

Environmental problems do not respect frontiers, therefore standards should be established at the European level and applied throughout Europe. European diplomacy should seek to obtain international acceptance of these standards. ...

{p. 13} You are clearly troubled by the dilemmas facing modern society.

Every society in the modern world is confronting serious problems which have no simple, universal solutions. But many of the problems have a common root. Science, technology and the economy have been treated by modern societies as ends in themselves, rather than as important tools to enhance well-being. The increase in scientific knowledge, the development of new technologies and economic growth are pursued as if they - and not well-being - should be the objectives of human effort. Social stability and sometimes entire cultures are sacrificed in the pursuit of these goals. I believe that this inversion of values is the cause of many of our ills.

You agree that economic growth and prospenty are useful, although you question their impact on society?

Of course industrial societies, such as our own, need economic prosperity. But I do not accept that economic growth is the principal measure of the success of nations. Look at the US and Great Britain. Modern America has created the greatest economic growth and

{p. 14} the greatest material prosperity known to history. During the past fifty years its Gross National Product (GNP) has more than quadrupled, adjusted for inflation. Yet American society is in serious social crisis.

In Great Britain there has also been a surge of material prosperity during the past fifty years. Its GNP has more than trebled in real terms. So according to modern criteria, both these nations have succeeded beyond their grandest dreams. Nonetheless, both nations are profoundly troubled.

What do you believe to be the causes?

One of the defects of modern culture is that we are taught to believe that every problem can be measured in economic terms. But when society's principal tool is measurement rather than understanding, great mistakes follow.

Gross National Product is the official index used to assess prosperity. But GNP measures only activity. It measures neither prosperity nor well-being. For example, if a calamity occurs, such as a hurricane or an earthquake, the immediate consequence is a growth in GNP because activity is increased so as to repair the damage. If a great epidemic hits a community, GNP grows as a result of the construction of new hospitals and the employment of public health workers. If the crime rate increases, GNP grows as more police join the force and new prisons are built. We can take this

{p. 15} even further. The cost of cancer in America is estimated at 110 billion dollars per annum, equal to 1.7 per cent of the GNP; the cost of drug abuse is Z00 billion dollars, or 3.1 per cent of the GNP; the cost of crime is 163 billion dollars, or 2.6 per cent of the GNP. These three areas alone contribute 473 billion dollars, 7.4 per cent, to the nation's GNP, and they are all growing. These are extreme examples, certainly, but they demonstrate that GNP is not a qualitative measurement but only a measure of activity, good and bad. Nevertheless, all our official statistics are based on the one objective: growth of GNP. And our plans for social development are subservient to it.

What other kinds of false conclusions result from relying on the arithmetic of GNP?

The number is infinite. Take the example of two neighbouring families. In both cases, the mother of the family has decided to spend her days looking after her children and her home. Suddenly, one changes her mind and goes out to get a job. To look after her children, she employs her neighbour. Prior to this change neither of the women contributed to GNP because only activity resulting in monetary exchange is taken into account. While these two mothers looked after their own families without pay they did not contribute to the official economy and therefore, to the GNP. As soon as they changed their lifestyles and started to

{p. 16} receive salaries they immediately contributed to the GNP.

Let's take another example. If a farmer cultivates a variety of crops so as to feed his family, his work is not taken into account in the GNP because the food that he produces is not sold. No monetary transaction has taken place. But if he stops growing a variety of crops and decides to concentrate on only one, a monoculture, then everything changes. He starts to sell his product in the marketplace and in order to feed his family he buys food grown by other farmers. By buying and selling he has become part of the official economy. Indeed, the value of the food he has grown might be counted more than once in GNP depending on how many middlemen have bought and sold it before it reaches the consumer.

GNP only measures activities in the formal economy which give rise to a monetary transaction. Therefore, economic growth can be increased by simply monetizing the informal economy and absorbing it into the official economy. That means destroying the informal economy because it removes it from the traditional framework in which it is embedded, thereby disrupting and destabilizing family relationships and local communities.

We measure the success of nations on the basis of their GNP. That is why we reach false conclusions and make mistakes with tragic consequences. We believe that it is our moral duty to spread to other communities

{p. 17} throughout the world the model of society which provides the fastest GNP growth. The fact that growth is achieved at the cost of social stability is ignored. That is how the West has destabilized the world. We have convinced ourselves that there exists only one valid economic and social model: our own. By attempting to impose it universally, we have exported to almost every corner of the world our diseases: crime, drugs, alcoholism, family breakdown, civil disorder in urban slums, accelerated abuse of the environment and all the other problems that we experience daily. We have become so accustomed to these diseases that we explain them away by suggesting that they are no more than the normal phenomena inevitably associated with healthy economic development and progress.

What is more, as we fail to understand the causes of our problems, we are incapable of solving them. We deal exclusively with the symptoms.

But nonetheless, you agree that economic growth is necessary?

Of course, but it is important to remember that economic growth is only beneficial insofar as it serves the needs of society, consolidating stability and increasing contentment. The economy is a tool to serve us. It is not a demi-god to be served by society. During our conversations, I plan to describe three specific examples

{p. 18} of how we have profoundly destroyed our social stability by using ill-conceived modern economic tools.

What are they?

Global free trade, intensive agriculture and nuclear energy. All are pure products of the Enlightenment, and as such are venerated by modern conventional wisdom.

Do you know of any national leaders who understand these problems?

They are rare. Almost every national government has fallen into the trap of counting and measuring without attempting to understand the consequences. In France over the past twenty years GNP has grown by 80 per cent, a spectacular performance. And yet during this same period unemployment has grown from 420,000 people to 5.1 million (the official figure is 3.3 million, but the government's own statistics show that various categories consisting of 1.8 million people have been omitted). The fact that such growth can be achieved while at the same time excluding over 5 million people from active participation in society - a proportion equivalent to over 22 million people in the USA - should incite a government to reconsider its policies. Alas, that does not happen. All we hear is that if we could only achieve one-half a per cent or 1 per cent

{p. 19} faster growth in GNP all would be saved. In the United Kingdom, despite growth in GNP of 97 per cent, between 1961 and 1991 the number of those living in poverty grew from 5.3 million to 11.4 million.

However, every now and then in some unlikely place, one does come across different thinking. I once visited the small island of Anguilla in the West Indies, which at the time had a population of about 9,000 people. I lunched with the then Prime Minister. The island is very beautiful. It has long white beaches and hospitable people. I asked him about his plans for developing the island. This is more or less what he answered:

'This island is our island, and we are very happy living here. We have two alternatives. Either we can develop at a reasonable pace and in a way which supplies good jobs and well-being to our people, or we can choose the policy which has been applied in practically all our neighbouring islands. We can aim at rapid and maximum development. After a great deal of thought, we chose the former of these two policies. If we had decided to develop tourism as fast as possible and build great hotels and apartment complexes one next to the other, then we would need to move to a policy of massive immigration so as to be able to operate such an economy. We realized that the inevitable result would be that we would become a minority in our own country. And we would not be spared the growth in crime and drugs and other social tragedies ...

{p. 25} You are opposed to global free trade and therefore to GATT. Why?

Global free trade has become a sacred principle of modern economic theory, a sort of generally accepted moral dogma. That is why it is so difficult to persuade politicians and economists to reassess its effects on a world economy which is changing radically.

The ultimate objective of global free trade is to create a worldwide market in products, services, capital and labour. Its instrument to achieve this is GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

I believe that GATT and the theories on which it is based are flawed. If it is implemented, it will impoverish and destabilize the industrialized world while at the same time cruelly ravaging the third world.

Remind us of the economic theory on which GATT is based.

The principal theoretician of free trade was David Ricardo, a British economist of the early nineteenth century. He believed in two interrelated concepts: specialization and comparative advantage. According to Ricardo, each nation should specialize in those

{p. 26} activities in which it excels, so that it can have the greatest advantage relative to other countries. Thus, a nation should narrow its focus of activity, abandoning certain industries and developing those in which it has the largest comparative advantage. As a result, international trade would grow as nations export their surpluses and import the products that they no longer manufacture, efficiency and productivity would increase in line with economies of scale and prosperity would be enhanced. But these ideas are not valid in today's world.


During the past few years, 4 billion people have suddenly entered the world economy. They include the populations of China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the countries that were part of the Soviet empire, among others. These populations are growing fast; in thirty-five years, that 4 billion is forecast to expand to over 6.5 billion. These nations have very high levels of unemployment and those people who do find jobs offer their labour for a tiny fraction of the pay earned by workers in the developed world. For example, forty-seven Vietnamese or forty-seven Filipinos can be employed for the cost of one person in a developed country, such as France.

Until recently, these 4 billion people were separated from our economy by their political systems, primarily

{p. 27} communist or socialist, and because of a lack of technology and of capital. Today all that has changed. Their political systems have been transformed, technology can be transferred instantaneously anywhere in the world on a microchip, and capital is free to be invested wherever the anticipated yields are highest.

The principle of global free trade is that anything can be manufactured anywhere in the world to be sold anywhere else. That means that these new entrants into the world economy are in direct competition with the workforces of developed countries. They have become part of the same global labour market. Our economies, therefore, will be subjected to a completely new type of competition. For example, take two enterprises, one in the developed world and one in Vietnam. Both make an identical product destined to be sold in the same market, say the USA, Great Britain or France; both can use identical technology; both have access to the same pool of international capital. The only difference is that the Vietnamese enterprise can employ forty-seven people where the French enterprise can employ only one. You don't have to be a genius to understand who will be the winner in such a contest.

In most developed nations, the cost to an average manufacturing company of paying its workforce is an amount equal to between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of sales. If such a company decides to maintain in its home country only its head office and sales force, while

{p. 28} transferring its production to a low-cost area, it will save about 20 per cent of sales volume. Thus, a company with sales of 500 million dollars will increase its pre-tax profits by up to 100 million dollars every year. If, on the other hand, it decides to maintain its production at home, the enterprise will be unable to compete with low-cost imports and will perish.

It must surely be a mistake to adopt an economic policy which makes you rich if you eliminate your national workforce and transfer production abroad, and which bankrupts you if you continue to employ your own people.

But the companies that move offshore are those which employ large labour forces. Surely the new jobs that will be created by the high-tech industries of the future will compensate.

High-tech industries can, indeed, survive and prosper under these circumstances, for the very reason that they are highly automated and therefore employ few people. Labour is no more than a minor item in the overall cost of the products they make. But obviously they cannot compensate for the lost manufacturing jobs: the fact that they employ few people means that they are incapable of employing very many. As soon as they need to employ a reasonable number, they will be forced to move offshore. For example, IBM is moving its disk-drive business from America and Western

{p. 29} Europe to low labour-cost countries. According to the Wall Street Journal: 'IBM plans to establish this new site as a joint venture with an undetermined Asian partner and use non-IBM employees so that it will be easier ... to move to an even lower-cost region when warranted ... Moving from higher-cost regions to Asia cuts in half the cost of assembling a disk drive'. Mr Zschau of IBM 'admitted that the moves will put IBM on only even footing with its competitors'. The aircraft manufacturer Boeing has announced that it will transfer some of its production to China. The sort of companies that created Silicon Valley, like Hewlett-Packard and Advanced Micro Devices, are also shifting employment to low-wage countries.

Proponents of global free trade constantly say that exporting such high-tech products as very fast trains, airplanes and satellites will create jobs on a large scale. Alas, this is not true. The recent 2.1 billion dollar contract selling very fast French trains to South Korea has resulted in the maintenance, for four years, of only 800 jobs in France: 525 for the main supplier and 275 for the subcontractors. Much of the work is carried out in Korea by Asian companies using Asian labour. What is more, following the transfer of technology to South Korea, in a few years' time Asia will be able to buy very fast trains directly from South Korea and bypass France. As for planes and satellites, the numbers employed in these industries in France have fallen steadily. Over the five

{p. 30} years from 1987 to 1992, they have declined from 123,000 to lll,000 and are forecast to fall to 102,000 in the short term.

One of the big mistakes that we make is that when we talk about balancing trade we think exclusively in monetary terms. If we export one billion dollars' worth of goods and import products of the same value, we conclude that our overseas trade is in balance. The value of our exports is equal to that of our imports. But this is a superficial analysis and leads to wrong conclusions. The products that we export must necessarily be those which use only a small amount of labour. If not, they would be unable to compete with products manufactured in low labour-cost countries and so would be unexportable. The number of people employed annually to produce one billion dollars' worth of high-tech products in the developed nations could be under a thousand. But the number of people employed in the low-cost areas to manufacture the goods that we import would be in the tens of thousands, because these are not high-tech products but ones produced with traditional levels of employment. So, our trade might be in balance in monetary terms, but if we look beyond the monetary figures we find that there is a terrible imbalance in terms of employment. That is how we export jobs and import unemployment.

{p. 31} But many economists believe that the growth in service industries will compensate for lost jobs in manufacturing.

Even service industries will be subjected to substantial transfers of employment to low-cost areas. Today, through satellites, you can remain in constant contact with offices in distant lands. This means that companies employing large back offices can close them and shift employment to any other part of the world. Swissair has recently transferred a significant part of its accounts department to India.

Still, certain services cannot be transferred overseas, such as health and education.

Indeed, but let's think that through to its practical conclusion. A nation's economy is split into two broad segments, one which produces wealth and the other which dispenses it. That in no way means that the latter is inferior; it includes such vital activities as health and education. Despite the fact that both kinds of activities are measured by GNP, one cannot reduce that part of our economy which produces wealth and expect to be able to maintain the other part which dispenses it. You must earn what you spend.

{p. 32} Presumably, the exchange ratcs between various currencies also have a substantial impact on the power to compete.

Of course. When Ricardo calculated comparative advantage, he did so in money terms. If a product costs X French francs in France and Y US dollars in America, all you need to do is to convert dollars into francs at the going rate of exchange and it will be clear where the advantage lies. In other words, the nation in which the product is cheaper is the nation that has the comparative advantage.

But this calculation can be brutally and suddenly transformed by a devaluation or a revaluation of one of the currencies. In 1981, one dollar was worth 4.25 French francs; by 1985, the dollar had risen sharply and was worth 10 French francs; by 1992, it had fallen again and was worth only 4.80 French francs. So take a product which in 1981 had the same cost whether manufactured in America or in France. Four years later, in 1985, it became more than twice as expensive in America as in France. This was no more than a reflection of the increased value of the dollar relative to the franc. Yet, according to Ricardo, each nation is supposed to specialize in those products in which it has a comparative advantage. If you followed this reasoning, industries on which you might have concentrated in America in 1981 would have had to be abandoned in 1985. And the reason would have been that the comparative advantage would have disap-

{p. 33} peared purely for monetary reasons. Then as the dollar fell again in 1992, the theory would have required that you recreate the industry in the United States. This is obvious nonsense. No one should sacrifice and recreate industries merely to be in rhythm with fluctuations in exchange rates.

Of course, those who believe in global free trade reject your arguments. Firstly, they cite the joint study published by the OECD and the World Bank which states that the application of the GATT proposals would increase world income by 213 billion dollars a year. How can we turn down such growth?

If you study the reports, you will find that the increase is forecast to come about in ten years' time. Yes, 213 billion dollars is a large sum of money, but to assess its significance you must compare it to the world's GNP as it is forecast to be in ten years' time. Two-hundred thirteen billion dollars represents no more than 0.7 per cent. What is more, the General Secretary of the OECD described the report as being 'highly theoretical'.

It is also claimed that global free trade means that consumers will benefit from being able to buy cheaper imported products manufactured with low-cost labour.

Consumers are not just people who buy products, they are the same people who earn a living by working, and

{p. 34} who pay taxes. As consumers they may be able to buy certain products more cheaply, although when Nike moved its manufacturing from the US to Asia, shoe prices did not drop. Instead profit margins rose. But the real cost to consumers of cheaper goods will be that they will lose their jobs, get paid less for their work and have to face higher taxes to cover the social cost of increased unemployment. Consumers are also citizens, many of whom live in towns. As unemployment rises and poverty increases, towns and cities will grow even more unstable. So the benefits of cheap imported products will be heavily outweighed by the social and economic costs they bring with them.

I understand your argument about increased unemployment, but why should earnings be reduced?

According to figures published by the US Department of Labor, since 1973 real hourly and weekly earnings, in inflation-adjusted dollars, have already dropped respectively by 13.4 per cent and 19.2 per cent, and that was before the most recent GATT negotiations known as the Uruguay Round. If 4 billion people enter the same world market for labour and offer their work at a fraction of the price paid to people in the developed world, it is obvious that such a massive increase in supply will reduce the value of labour. Also, organized labour will lose practically all its negotiating power. When trade unions ask for concessions, the answer will

{p. 35} be: If you put too much pressure on us, we will move offshore where we can get much cheaper labour, which does not seek job protection, long holidays, and all the other items that you want to negotiate.

Global free trade will shatter the way in which value-added is shared between capital and labour. Value-added is the increase of value obtained when you convert raw materials into a manufactured product. In mature societies, we have been able to develop a general agreement as to how it should be shared. That agreement has been reached through generations of political debate, elections, strikes, lockouts and other conflicts. Overnight that agreement will be destroyed by the arrival of huge populations willing to undercut radically the salaries earned by our workforces. The social divisions that this will cause will be deeper than anything ever envisaged by Marx.

It is interesting to note that many US economists believe that the inflationary forces which normally follow a period of lax monetary policy will not occur in the same way on this occasion. They believe that the continued lowering of earnings resulting from global free trade, including the first effects of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement, which created an open market between Mexico, the US and Canada), will restrain inflation despite the fact that the Federal Reserve has maintained a loose monetary policy for one of the longest periods on record. In other words, the workforce will bear the brunt of the consequences

{p. 36} of a prolonged policy of easy money by accepting reduced earnings to compensate for its inevitable inflationary effects.

Who will be the losers and who will be the winners under a system of global free trade?

The losers will, of course, be those people who become unemployed as a result of production being moved to low-cost areas. There will also be those who lose their jobs because their employers do not move offshore and are not able to compete with cheap imported products. Finally, there will be those whose earning capacity is reduced following the shift in the sharing of value-added away from labour.

The winners will be those who can benefit from an almost inexhaustible supply of very cheap labour. They will be the companies who move their production offshore to low-cost areas; the companies who can pay lower salaries at home; and those who have capital to invest where labour is cheapest, and who as a result will receive larger dividends. But they will be like the winners of a poker game on the Titanic. The wounds inflicted on their societies will be too deep, and brutal consequences could follow.

The new phenomenon of our age is the emergence of transnational corporations, with the ability to move production at will anywhere in the world, in order to systematically benefit from lower wages wherever they

{p. 37} are to be found. Transnational corporations now account for one-third of global output; their global annual sales have reached 4.8 trillion dollars, which is greater than total international trade. The largest 100 multinational corporations control about one-third of all foreign direct investment. The globalization of the market is vital to them, both to produce cheaply and to sell universally. Because they do not necessarily owe allegiance to the countries where they operate, there is a divorce between the interests of the transnational corporations and those of society.

You must remember that one of the characteristics of developing countries is that a small handful of people controls the overwhelming majority of the nation's resources. It is these people who own most of their nation's industrial, commercial and financial enterprises and who assemble the cheap labour which is used to manufacture products for the developed world. Thus, it is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries. This will have a serious impact on the social cohesion of nations.

What are your thoughts about the World Trade Organization?

That is the organization which is supposed to replace GATT, regulate international trade, and lead us to global economic integration. It is yet another international bureaucracy whose functionaries will be largely

{p. 38} autonomous. They report to over 120 nations and therefore, in practice, to nobody. Each nation will have one vote out of 120. Thus, America and every European economy will be handing over ultimate control of its economy to an unelected, uncontrolled, group of international bureaucrats.

{end of text}

(2) Sir James Goldsmith, The Response, MacMillan, London 1995.

{p. 11} The English version of my book The Trap was published in November 1994 ... The second chapter, 'The New Utopia: GATT and Global Freee Trade', attracted considerable adverse comment, including a European Commission document handed for information to the British press ...

I have regrouped the principal criticisms into eight chapters, quoted the most significant and answered them. ...


John Kay, Daily Telegraph, 28 December 1994:

'But [Goldsmith's argument] is an old story. It has been told for a hundred years or more and it has always proved wrong. It is contradicted empirically by the inescapable fact that the world has grown steadily richer over the period in which world trade has been liberalized. The nations that have grown richer most quickly have been the ones - like the newly industrialized countries of South-East Asia - that have participated in that growth of world trade.

The only countries that have actually become poorer are those, like some African and South American regimes, which have set their face against free trade.'

Tim Congdon, The Times, 18 November 1994:

'It was because the US and Continental European countries did not support free trade that the 1930s witnessed a global trading catastrophe.'

The European Commission, document of 19 October 1994:

'For all economies, therefore, access to the global market is an essential precondition for sustained economic growth.'

{p. 28} Professor Murray Weidenbaum, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs of the US, in the San Diego Union, 30 April 1985:

'In the 1930s, protectionist measures contributed substantially to worldwide depression.'

Paul Goodman, Sunday Telegraph, 6 November 1994:

'But the cost [of protection] - inflation, uncompetitiveness, state intervention - ensures defeat in the long run.'

Norman Macrae, Sunday Times, 12 December 1994:

'Still, as a practical man, Goldsmith might ponder that his proposed system ... was that which operated in the Communist bloc from 1945 to 1990.'


Professor Kay is wrong when he repeats the conventional view that, unlike some African and South American nations, the newly industrialized countries (NICs) embraced the liberalization of world trade. Rather, the two largest, Taiwan and South Korea, took advantage of open markets while carefully protecting their own home markets. (Taiwan and South Korea are countries with a combined population of 66 million people; the other two NICs, Singapore and Hong Kong, are city-states with a combined population of 8.7 million people.)

During the Cold War, the US was willing to grant major privileges to nations which it saw as useful allies against communism. The NICs, strategically placed to help contain China, North Korea and Vietnam, were granted liberal access to the world's richest markets without being required to liberalize their own. They exploited this opportunity to the full by using their cheap labour, importing technology, encouraging export-oriented industry and regulating their currencies. Massive exports and controlled imports resulted in a historic transfer of wealth from the West to the NlCs which represents one of the greatest subsidies granted to allied nations during any war. (See Appendix A to this chapter for further information.)

At a time when the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and GATT were all condemning

{p. 30} restrictions on the free flow of goods, the NICs were able to use their protected local markets as a springboard to conquer market share in the world economy. As a result, Taiwan, a nation of 21 million people, has accumulated currency reserves of 98.7 billion dollars, the second largest in the world after Japan. South Korea, also, was creative in its use of both tariff and non-tariff barriers in its strategy for industrialization. To avoid domestic prices getting too far out of line, the government from time to time authorized certain imports. This prevented windfall profits and maintained pressure on local industry, encouraging it to continue to seek export markets.

As Cheryl Payer explains in Lent and Lost: Foreign Credit and Third World Development, the first point to remember, when the Western institutions explain their version of the reasons for Asia's economic miracle, is that its fundamental lesson is not to allow foreign sellers to invade your domestic market.

Professor Kay is wrong again when he suggests that, historically, the nations which have grown richer most quickly are those which opened their markets to liberalized trade. During the nineteenth century, when its growth surpassed that of Great Britain and it became the world's dominant economic force, the United States was systematically protectionist. Profoundly influenced

{p. 31} by Alexander Hamilton, its first Secretary of the Treasury ( 1789-95), and his book Report on Manufactures (1791), the US pursued a policy of strict protectionism from 1816 to 1846. In that year restrictions were relaxed to a more moderate level, until in 1861 the government reverted to a firmer policy.

Between 1870 and 1892, the US increased the protection of its home market at a time of very rapid economic growth. Continental Europe, on the other hand, which had adopted a policy of relatively free trade between 1860 and 1879, was gripped by a great depression. In the years following 1875, the US applied a tariff on manufactured goods in the range of 40 per cent to 50 per cent. In Continental Europe, tariffs were between 9 per cent and 12 per cent. American industry, protected from competing European products, was able to focus on imports of products necessary in establishing its industrial infrastructure and, therefore, its future manufacturing might.

More recently, the economic miracle that took place in Japan during the 1950s and 1960s was nourished by a system of formal and indirect protectionism. The GATT agreement of 1994 is intended to remove much of this protection, and the impact on Japan could be substantial.

In Continental Europe, the period from 1945 to 1974 is generally described as 'the thirty

{p. 32} glorious years' of economic growth. Here again, protectionism was in place. The European Economic Community's internal market encouraged free trade, but a common tariff was applied on imports from countries outside the Community. General de Gaulle never accepted the concept of global free trade and believed in Community preference. At his press conference on 14 January 1963, he stated: 'The question is whether Great Britain can now, along with the Continent, accept a truly common tariff ...'

Britain, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, was the exception. By the mid- nineteenth century, power in the country had shifted from the landowners and farming communities to the new industrial barons. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the further liberalization of international trade provided British industry with everything it wanted: a flow of cheap labour driven from the land to the towns by the effects of imported agricultural products, cheap imported food to feed them, a flow of funds to the colonies in payment for their exports of commodities, and a return of those funds to Britain to buy manufactured goods. Britain's dominant industrial position ensured that the exported funds returned home. That, of course, has changed dramatically. All that now remains is the unchallenged, outdated, conventional wisdom that emerged from circumstances which prevailed

{p. 33} uniquely in Britain during the nineteenth century.

There is a widely-held belief that the 1929 crash and the Great Depression were triggered by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which increased tariffs on imports into the US. Professor Murray Weidenbaum's statement quoted at the beginning of this chapter is typical. Vice-President Al Gore used Smoot-Hawley as a reference point on two occasions during the Gore-Perot debate on NAFTA in November 1993:

{quote} This is a picture of Mr Smoot and Mr Hawley. They look like pretty good fellas. They sounded reasonable at the time. A lot of people believed them . . . They raised taril'fs, and it was one of the principal causes - many economists say the principal cause - of the Great Depression in this country and around the world. {endquote}

In fact, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was not passed into law until 17 June 1930, whereas the stock market crashed in October 1929. In 1929, the unemployment rate was estimated to be 3.2 per cent. It rose sharply throughout 1930 to reach 8.7 per cent by the end of that year, before the effect of the tariffs could reasonably have been felt by industry.

In 1929, imports represented about 4.2 per cent of the GNP of the US, amounting to about 4.3 billion dollars. Smoot-Hawley raised the average tariff on all goods from 14.5 to 15.9 per cent. The Act altered

{p. 35} tariffs on only one-third of US imports, i.e. on imports to a value of about 1.4 billion dollars in 1929. During 1930 the gross amount of imports of dutiable products declined by 462 million dollars. As Smoot-Hawley was enacted in June 1930, it is estimated that the total impact of the Tariff Act in 1930 was limited to the amount of increased duty on only 231 million dollars of imports, a negligible figure.

It is important to note that the volume of duty-free imports dropped by similar proportions to that of products on which duty had been raised by Smoot-Hawley. For example, in 1930 and 1931, duty-free imports dropped by 29 per cent and 52 per cent respectively, whereas imports of products affected by Smoot-Hawley dropped by 27 per cent and 51 per cent. This very small amount of protection, we are asked to believe, caused a 46 per cent drop in the GNP of the US, from 103.4 billion dollars in 1929 to 55.4 billion dollars in 1933 (see chart on opposite page).

The true cause of the 1929 crash and subsequent depression was the breakdown of a grotesquely overheated financial system. In fact, the economy was still growing strongly when the crash occurred. Industrial production in November 1929 was 7 per cent higher than in November 1928, and started to fall in January 1930, months before Smoot-Hawley became law.

{p. 36} Senator John Heinz (R-Pa), speaking in the Senate on 9 May 1983, said:

{quote} Every time someone in the administration or the Congress gives a speech about a more aggressive trade policy ..., others, often in the academic community or in the Congress, immediately react with speeches on the return of Smoot-Hawley, and the dark days of blatant protectionism.

A return to Smoot-Hawley, of course, is intended to mean a return to depression, unemployment, poverty, misery and even war ... Now, however, someone has dared to explode this myth publicly through an economic analysis of the actual tariff increases in the Act and their effects in the early years of the depression . . . Mr President, I ask that the study, by Don Bedell of Bedell Associates, be printed into the Record. {endquote}

The conclusion of the Bedell Associates report is that 'No basis exists for any claim that Smoot-Hawley had a distinctively devastating effect on imports beyond and separate from the impact of the economic collapse in 1929.' During the early 1930s, twenty-five countries increased their import duties. But by then the world was in a global crisis, and these protectionist measures were the consequence of the financial collapse and not a cause of it.

{p. 37} I have already reminded readers that the economic emergence of America, post-war Germany, the nations that formed the European Economic Community, Japan and the newly industrialized countries took place within systems of protectionism. However, protectionism could have a cost, as Paul Goodman writes, in the case of a small industrialized market which cuts itself off from the world and protects its industry while also allowing corporatism or socialism to dominate its economy.

My proposal is wholly ditferent. It is merely that Europe should respect the principle of Community preference. This means that the internal European market would be based on the free movement of goods and capital and would be subject to the general rules that are a prerequisite of free enterprise. Europe and NAFTA are the largest marketplaces that have ever come about. To suggest that the European Union is not, already, large enough to allow effective competition within its borders is equivalent to suggesting that competition could never have existed at any time anywhere in the world. The European Union consists of fifteen nations with a population of 370 million people and a combined GDP in 1994 of 7,313 billion dollars, compared with NAFTA's 7,571 billion dollars.

Bilateral trading agreements could be entered into with other regions of the world as long as they are beneficial to the fundamental interests of the

{p. 38} national economy and not just the corporate economy.


The European Commission, document of 19 October 1994:

'There is no evidence that foreign competition is a major cause of either [unemployment or reduced wages in the industrialized economies] ... In the case of France, there is no evidence that openness to trade has generated substantial unemployment ... To summarize: trade with low wage economies does not cause major reductions in total employment or real earnings ... '

'Competition from low-wage countries does not cause generally lower wages in industrialized countries. The development is rather the other way around, with wages increasing in rapidly developing countries in line with productivity.'

'The main causes of unemployment are to be found in technological developments.'

Brian Findley, 'The Goldsmith Fallacy':

'Nor does a glance at the statistics of trade suggest that trade with developing countries has caused, or could have caused, significant unemployment in the European Union.'

{p. 60} {RESPONSE} ... capital can be transferred instantaneously anywhere in the world, factories can be located anywhere. With vast numbers of able and trainable people seeking employment at any price, the level of wages will be determined not by productivity but by the old-fashioned measure of supply and demand.

Newsweek describes the phenomenon graphically. Typically a multinational corporation now is a:

{quote} down-sized, out-sourced and largely stateless web of cross-border corporate alliances ... In the last decade the world's 37,000 multinational or transnational companies ... have been responsible for more in sales than all the world's trade exports put together: 5.8 trillion dollars in 1992, the most recent year of reliable data. In the United States, which has by far the most multinationals, 80 per cent of the dollar goods sold abroad are not exported but sold under governance of multinationals, either sales by affiliates, intrafirm trade, or through licensing or franchising agreements. {endquote}

This means that despite the commercial success in world markets of US-based transnationals, a large part of the products they sell is manufactured not in the US but, increasingly, in low-cost regions. The effect of selling these products at home and internationally under US labels has, of course, been to increase imports and decrease exports. Chart 13

{p. 61} on page 147 illustrates the rise in the US trade deficit following the implementation of GATT.

There is a difference between today's transnational companies and the old multinationals. Multinationals built factories in Brazil or India in order to conquer the Brazilian or Indian markets, not in order to acquire cheap labour to replace jobs at home. They participated productively in the economies of the countries in which they invested and did so without damaging their own national economies. Transnationals, on the other hand, buy labour in low-wage countries and import their products for sale in the residual high-wage, high-income markets. Today many of the larger groups have become hybrids. When Sony manufactures televisions in France for sale in the European Union, it is acting as a multinational. When it imports, for sale in Europe, televisions produced in low-wage areas, it is acting as a transnational.

Thus, a transnational company, behaving in this way, creates unemployment in its home base and increases its nation's trade deficit.

Hindley's most remarkable statement, also quoted at the beginning of this chapter, is:

{quote} Sir James seems concerned ... that all goods can be produced more cheaply in low-wage countries than in high-wage countries ... But if prices and exchange rates are such that all potential

{p. 62} purchases are in one direction, a massive maladjustment in the macro-economic relations between economies is implied: local currency, wage and price levels are wrong ... But if the European Union or its member states were to find themselves in such a situation, the sensible solution would be to adjust the macro-economic relationships, not to block trade. {endquote}

By adjusting the 'macro-economic relationships' Hindley means adjusting 'local currency, wage and price levels'. He is suggesting that if too many goods from low-wage countries are purchased we must reduce total earnings, either directly or through devaluing our currency, to a level which would allow us to compete with low-wage countries. A glance at Chart 8 on page 137 will indicate the potential pain of pursuing such a policy.

Hindley would prefer to reduce earnings substantially rather than ' block trade' . In other words, he would prefer to sacrifice the well-being of the nation rather than his free-trade ideology.

He has forgotten that the purpose of the economy is to serve society, not the other way round. A successful economy increases wages, employment and social stability. Reducing wages is a sign of failure. There is no glory in competing in a worldwide race to lower the standard of living of one's own nation.


The European Commission, document of 19 October 1994:

'Outflows will over time match inflows. If the countries of Asia export more than they import, the excess cash will be invested abroad and ultimately the inflow will equal the outflow suffered by those with a trade deficit.'

Norman Macrae, Sunday Times, 6 November 1994:

'Suppose (in fun, not realism) that ... all present world-tradable manufactures and services fled to [low-wage countries] ... [They] could then do three things with their export surplus ... Either (a) hoard it in foreign exchange; or (b) use it to buy everybody's ICIs and other principal industries; or (c) buy new goods and services from the West.

Course (a) ... would be loveliest for us. [The low-wage countries] would put all their hugely expanded export earnings in American and British and other foreign bonds ... We could then import their nice cheap goods (much reducing our cost of living) at near-nil net foreign exchange drain, and expand our budget deficits ... to create internal jobs and live the life of Riley.'


Paul Goodman, Sunday Telegraph, 6 November 1994:

'So, if the developing nations develop vast trade surpluses, they will have to invest the proceeds somewhere - and, in due course, these will flow back to cover the trade deficits of Western nations.'


The idea that accounts must balance, and that inflows must ultimately match outflows, is an accountant's idea.

But there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. If you make a loss, perhaps because you own a business that is trading unprofitably or because you have made a bad investment, you will not get rid of the loss by borrowing the amount needed to pay for it. You will have avoided or postponed a personal liquidity crisis, but you will still be poorer by the amount of the loss. You will also have to pay interest on the loan.

Alternatively, you might sell your house and rent somewhere else to live. You will have used the proceeds of the sale to pay your debts, but you will remain poorer by the value of the house. And in future, you will have to pay rent.

When the Asian countries, as mentioned by the European Commission, invest their 'excess cash' abroad, normally they do so by buying into businesses or by lending money. The latter normally takes the form either of buying government debt or of deposits, say in sterling or dollars, in the banking system. Now consider the position of the nations which, unlike the Asian countries, import more than they export and which, as a result, have a deficit as opposed to an excess of cash.

To finance their deficit, businesses or other assets are sold and debt is issued. This puts them in exactly

{p. 78} the same position as an individual who sells his house or borrows money to cover his debts. Such a haemorrhage can last only a limited time before ending in bankruptcy.

America is just beginning to understand this. In its issue of 5 November 1994, the Economist stated: 'Since 1981, America has shifted from being the world's biggest creditor to its biggest debtor, thanks to its persistent current account deficits." An editorial in the Washington Post dated 3 November 1994 stated:

{quote} Note that the American economy is now borrowing abroad to pay interest on its earlier foreign borrowings. That is no healthier for a country than it is for a business or a household. And how long can it go on? As long as foreigners are willing to lend. If and when their willingness diminishes, you will see it in higher interest rates. Should that happen, Americans would, as the economists say, have to adjust. That, as the Latin American debtor countries can testify, means a lower standard of living. The longer the foreign deficits pile up, the harder that adjustment will be. {endquote}

A nation's ability to borrow will depend on its creditworthiness, as it does for an individual. And the credit-worthiness of the West is extremely doubtful. The table opposite shows the amounts already owed

{p. 80} by European nations relative to their GDP. These figures are alarming, and they continue to rise as governments spend more than they receive. Most of these deficits are due to government expenditure aimed at softening the effects and even masking the existence of rapidly growing unemployment. In the Wall Street Journal Europe, Jean-Michel Paul points out that the average of the combined financial and pension debt of the G7 nations as a percentage of GDP is above 260 per cent. Belgium and Italy are above 300 per cent.

The case of Belgium is particularly illuminating. Its critical financial position has cast doubts on its future political stability. Belgium's political and business leaders see salvation in merging their country into a European suprastate, which would bail it out by effectively endorsing its debts. To achieve this, they desperately try to improve the appearance of the country's current financial situation.

So as to halt the rise in the national debt, they raise money by accelerating the programme of privatization. This produces non-recurring inflows of funds. They point to their balance-of-trade surplus, without mentioning that this is principally the result of a fall in consumption in the domestic market which itself reflects the very high real level of unemployment. As Mr Paul writes in the Wall Street Journal Europe:

{p. 81} {quote} It is increasingly clear that the policy response to the European debt crisis will include options that will significantly affect the contract between the borrower-state and the lenders. These options might take the form of policies such as default on debt and forced debt restructuring. Governments might also turn to monetary instruments with inflationary consequences. {endquote}

To put it simply, they might not repay you at all, or they might pay you in practically worthless devalued currency. This is not very good for future credit nor, therefore, for future borrowing.

The music stops when we are no longer considered credit-worthy. What would happen to Norman Macrae's scenario if the recycling of export surpluses were to cease, and those nations with trade surpluses and reserves only lent money to and invested in each other, as we in the developed world used to do? Macrae, at one time, almost recognized this risk. In 1993, he wrote of the 'emergence of some sort of Sino-Indian-Japanese currency bloc' and he warned Asian countries that the 'worst market errors' were made by governments which 'poured their official exchange reserves into dollars'.

Furthermore, what particular goods and services would others seek to buy from the West? As America did in the nineteenth century, the newly emerging markets are increasingly buying

{p. 82} equipment and technology with which to make their own industry and infrastructure even more competitive ... Far from the 'life of Riley', it is increasing unemployment and impoverishment that the West has to look forward to - unless it changes course, and in time.

{p. 107} THE CRITICS

The European Commission. document of 19 October 1994:

'The Green Revolution does not create the slums. The migration which swelled urban populations was the result of higher wages in the cities than the countryside. The Green Revolution has, contrary to Sir James's views, helped to reduce these flows by raising rural productivity and, therefore, wages.'


The idea that higher wages in the cities caused the mass migration of farmers away from the land is grotesque. If there were real jobs available in the cities, huge slums consisting of vast quantities of unemployed people would not have grown up all over the world.

NAFTA is an example of the development model which those in the power structures of North America and the European Union seek to impose on societies throughout the world. This model rejects as uneconomic the fact that 26 per cent of the Mexican workforce produces less than 7 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. The answer, for the supporters of NAFTA and GATT, is surgery - just cut the rural population back to 10 per cent of the workforce. The Mexican Undersecretary of Agriculture has predicted that some 10 million farmers and workers will be chased from the countryside over the next decade.

Where will these people go? The greater Mexico City and Guadalajara areas are already dramatically overpopulated and suffering badly from pollution. How will these NAFTA refugees find employment? Unemployment, which is difficult to measure in Mexico, is already estimated at about 30 per cent. What is more, according to a recent survey conducted in the three largest metropolitan areas, during the first half of 1995 employment fell by 37 per cent in small companies, by 23 per cent in

{p. 109} medium-sized companies and by 17 per cent in larger firms. Between 800,000 and one million new people enter the workforce each year. How will they be able to live? There is no money for welfare. Who will supply homes, schools, hospitals, etc.? Contrary to the views of the European Commission, they will, of course, end up in urban slums with all the usual social consequences.

The NAFTA agreement eliminates Mexico's right to national food self-sufficiency and imposes a doctrine according to which Mexico's agricultural system would be complementary to that of the United States. In the process, millions of families will be uprooted and destroyed.

Insofar as 'raising rural productivity and, therefore, wages' is concerned, I have invited Dr Jose Lutzenberger, former Brazilian Minister of the Environment, and Dr Vandana Shiva, member of the National Environment Council of India and laureate of the Right Livelihood Award (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), to comment. They are directly in touch on a day-to-day basis with the problems.

Dr Lutzenberger writes:

{quote} Modern intensive agriculture, along with the economic policies that reinforce it, are responsible for mass uprooting of small farmers and migrations from the land to the cities.

To suggest that the 'Green Revolution' helped to

{p. 110} reduce these migrations by raising productivity and therefore wages is total nonsense. It fails to take into account that the uprooted peasants were not wage-earners but self-sufficient people.

Let me give you a concrete example. Our foundation has helped peasants move from intensive to organic farming. Today, many of them have incomes, in monetary terms, of less than two hundred dollars a month. In the towns the man who makes two hundred dollars a month is poor. The farmer who is no longer enslaved to the debts incurred to buy big machines, tractors combines, chemical fertilizers and pesticides would not dream of moving to town, even for a higher salary. They pay no rent, no transportation produce most of their food, have healthy food don't have to pay for recreation, etc.

The whole economic and technocratic system is geared towards taking away from the farmer all that is really profitable and safe. Instead, the farmer is left with the job of driving tractors, spraying poison, risking his limited capital, facing increased costs for his inputs and falling prices for his products. During the past fifty years, the whole political and economic constellation has been organized to favour the agricultural industrialist at the expense of the farmer. That caused the uprooting. It had the added advantage for industry

{p. 111} of supplying cheap labour.

In the Philippines, only the big industrial farms had access to the new methods with their expensive inputs, which in the short term, with the heavy application of chemical fertilizers, produced higher yields. Most small farmers landed in the slums. That is why Manila became the hell it now is.

For the technocrat, a subsistence peasant, even though he might produce enough surplus to feed the cities, is outside the global market economy and therefore does not deserve to survive. The technocrats see those farmers who do manage to survive as being no more than appendages of the large transnational corporations which have become more powerful than governments. {endquote}

Dr Shiva writes:

{quote} The European Commission claim that the Green Revolution raised rural productivity and rural incomes is totally false when the impact of the Green Revolution is viewed from the perspective of the poorer peasants ...

The Green Revolution did not increase overall biological productivity - it merely increased the yield of globally traded agricultural commodities such as wheat and rice by increasing the

{p. 112} dependence of farmers on ... pesticides and fertilizers. ... for the poorer families the shift from internal inputs available on the farm (e.g. organic manure) to purchased imports has led to indebtedness, depeasantization and displacement. {endquote}

{p. 117} THE CRITICS

The European Commission, document of 19 October 1994:

'All economic activity, by definition, is productive.'


This belief that all economic activity is productive is at the heart of the problems that society faces.

Economic activity is measured officially by the index of Gross National Product. Let me quote from the opening chapter of my book, The Trap:

{quote} But GNP measures only activity. It measures neither prosperity nor well-being. For example, if a calamity occurs, such as a hurricane or an earthquake, the immediate consequence is a growth in GNP because activity is increased so as to repair the damage. If a great epidemic hits a community, GNP grows as the result of the construction of new hospitals and the employment of public health workers. If the crime rate increases, GNP grows as more police join the force and new prisons are built. We can take this even further. The cost of cancer in America is estimated at 110 billion dollars per annum, equal to 1.7 per cent of GNP; the cost of drug abuse is 200 billion dollars, or 3.1 per cent of GNP; the cost of crime is 163 billion dollars, or 2.6 per cent of GNP. These three areas alone contribute 473 billion dollars, 7.4 per cent, to the nation's GNP and they are all growing. {endquote}

The politicians and technocrats who govern us are unable to understand why the enormous growth in economic activity during the past decades has led to

{p. 119} rising unemployment, increasing poverty and spreading urban slums. They cannot accept that the growth that they are promoting is tumescent and malignant. They believe that the sicknesses which afflict our society - growth in crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, family breakdown, civil disorder, environmental degradation - are no more than the normal phenomena which inevitably accompany economic development and progress. So they concentrate their political, economic and social programmes on initiatives whose principal purpose is to make GNP grow quantitatively, without regard to its impact on society. They find it difficult to distinguish between a nation and a commercial enterprise. Often, they describe their own country as though it were a company, for example, UK plc.

David de Pury, Switzerland's former chief negotiator in the Uruguay Round of GATT, and now chairman of the transnational company Asea Brown Boveri, even suggests that transnational companies should have 'direct access' to the workings of the World Trade Organization, the body set up following the recent Uruguay Round to regulate world trade. 'Would it make sense,' de Pury asks, 'to start thinking of a system more adapted to the fact that multinational companies have become the main constituency of the trading system?'

{p. 152} Conclusions

1. As conventional economists confuse the profitability of corporations with the health of the nation's economy, they proclaim that the economy is in sound shape.

2. Those who live and work within the national economy can see that jobs are disappearing and that salaries, in real terms, are contracting. And they feel bad about it. The politicians complain about this because they have been told that the economy is growing. So they think people should feel good about it.

3. Some can still remember the old adage: 'What is good for General Motors is good for America.' They can also remember that Henry Ford once said that he wanted to pay his people well so that they would be prosperous enough to be his customers.

4. But that was in the days when the corporate economy and the national economy had the same purpose. Now there are two distinct economies - the corporate and the national. Not only do they have different interests, but those interests are conflicting.

{p. 153} 5. As corporations switch production to the areas with the cheapest labour and then import the products made abroad, they destroy jobs at home and increase the nation's trade deficit.

6. Conventional economists try to soothe us by saying things like: 'Nor does a glance at the statistics of trade suggest that trade with the developing countries has caused, or could have caused, significant unemployment in the European Union' (Brian Hindley). Or they say, 'To summarize, trade with low-wage ecomomies does not cause major reductions in total employment or real earnings' (the European Commission).

7. They even say that it does not matter if our trade deficits bankrupts us as we will borrow the money to pay (the European Commission, et al). That is the way to national suicide - unless the resulting social disorder forces change onto those who would impose on society their conventional wisdom.


Leo Szilard and H.G. Wells, founders of the Green Left. Leo Szilard helped create the first nuclear chain reaction, and initiated the letter to Roosevelt that got the Manhattan Project under way. Later, he warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and joined Wells' crusade for World Government: szilard.html.

Marxist policy on farming: Small private farms cf communal farms and state farms: marx-vs-the-peasant.html.

Under Communism, Poland's farms remained small, privately owned, and used organic methods. The EU, driven, it seems, by British rationalists, is trying to clear Poland's small farmers off the land, amalgamating the farms into bigger ones using "modern" methods. The German Greens are fighting such changes.

Why does Lyndon Larouche rubbish people who campaign for recognition of environmental and resource limits?

Surprisingly, Larouche material NEVER mentions Carroll Quigley's book The Anglo-American Establishment: quigley.html. Nor does it mention Cecil Rhodes' secret society, the Round Table, of which the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American branch: rhodes-will.html.

He never attacks the CFR per se. Why? Larouche is opposed to the British Empire, but not to the United States' own empire (in Cuba, the Philippines etc).

Rhodes' conspiracy joined up with the Zionist conspiracy by the Balfour Declaration of 1917: balfour.html. Before that, the two were at loggerheads. These two conspiracies maintain an uneasy alliance, yet Larouche material never identifies them as TWO conspiracies joined. Instead, it depicts them as a single entity, "the British".

To buy a second-hand copy of Sir James Goldsmith's books via Abebooks:

Bo the "One World" index: oneworld.html.

Write to me at contact.html.