This morning, thanks to Max, we had a terrific guest speaker, Professor Maria Elena Martinez Torres of CIESAS (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social) University. We met in the pro-campesino Tierra Adentro complex of restaurant and shops, which was quite comfortable. Professor Martinez Torres’ topic was “Global Social Movements and Food Sovereignty.” Her presentation was a positive summation of recent responses to the crisis of food caused by neoliberalism, and an exhortation for each of us to do our part in reversing this criminal economic policy. Here follows a summary from my brief notes. Keep in mind that the presentation was more subtle and complex, as well as being extremely clear and well-organized. Also, I sent these notes to Professor Martinez, who approved them and added a few statistics and other information that I had missed.
Professor Martinez began with some of the characteristics of the neo-liberal assault on national sovereignty and humanity, including enormous cuts to social welfare known as “structural adjustment,” privatization of land and other resources, free trade agreements, and growing monopolization. Concerning food specifically, she noted: the use of credits and packages linked to harmful agricultural technologies (chemical fertilizers and pesticides, GMO crops); the pressure to direct production toward export, the dumping of harvests both internationally and regionally; and militarization in response to social movements resisting these practices. Military repression of the Zapatista movement through low intensity warfare is one example of the latter.
To provide historical background, Professor Torres discussed statistics from US agriculture. She noted that the spike in agricultural production in the US in the 1940s could be related to the application of military technology to agriculture, including increasing reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides and on farm machinery. But this technology is expensive to acquire, so that while production went sharply up, the income of farmers stayed the same or dropped. Often 80% a farm income went to pay off loans and credits engendered by this investment in technology. But while farmers did not benefit from these practices, monopolies supplying the chemicals and machinery benefited greatly. Another result was the dramatic decrease in the farming population in the US from 6 million farms in 1945 to less than 2 million now. A similar story was noted for Mexico, where the price of tortillas has steadily risen while the price paid to maize producers has dropped.
Professor Martinez then spoke about forms of resistance to neoliberal food strategies. She spoke of the Via Campesina (http://www.viacampesina.org/), the international network of peasant, rural women, Indigenous and fisher folk organzations, founded in 1992. Summarizing their alternative model, she noted that the issue is food sovereignty more than food security, because it matters by whom, from where and under what conditions food is produced. Food sovereignty includes the right to produce and sell at a fair market price, access to local and national markets, the right to healthy and accessible food that is culturally appropriate, and the right of the people and countries to define agrarian policies.
Professor Martinez noted that the World Trade Organization (WTO, or Spanish OMC) has been a particular target of resistance for Via Campesina and Indigenous organizations. She noted that campesino and Indigenous concerns can be different, as Indigenous people express an attachment not to any land but to the particular land worked by their ancestors.
Professor Martinez went into detail on the Via Campesina-organized protest launched against WTO talks in Cancun in 2003. She noted that the Zapatista movement sent three communiqués in resistance to the WTO and globalization. Subcomandante Marcos spoke of neoliberalism as the globalization of death and destruction. Comandante Esther argued that globalization tries to destroy Indigenous peoples and especially women. Comandante David wrote that autonomy and resistance are the Zapatistas’ weapons and shields.
Concerning the protest, Profesor Martinez noted that the turning point came when Mr. Lee, a leader of Korean farmers and editor of a journal, gave his own life on the fence that defended the WTO meeting place. After Indigenous Oaxacans performed the funeral for Mr. Lee, a decision was made for a joint march, with women in front. Their banners pointed out that the WTO kills farmers, development, Indigenous peoples, and the environment. The Mexican military had multiplied the fences, so the protestors worked at cutting through, link by link. Cancun fishermen supplied the ropes and Korean delegates directed the effort to pull down the fences. At this point African delegates to the WTO walked out of the meetings, refusing to take bullying of the northern industrialized nations, and with this the talks were suspended, to resume later in Doha. However, Professor Martinez noted that as a result of this increasingly organized protest, the network on food sovereignty is getting stronger.
Professor Martinez went on to counter the claim that the principles of food sovereignty are not sustainable. She cited Cuba’s recent policies as an example of a successfully sustainable agricultural program capable of feeding a nation. She noted that under Soviet economic influence, the government promoted large scale, high tech agriculture with chemicals and machinery, but the supplies of these deteriorated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the US economic embargo. The Cuban government responded with a green revolution designed to make the nation self sufficient in agriculture. For example, available green space within the cities was used for growing crops. Prices on food were high enough to make farming a viable means of income. While the government was initially heavy-handed in its policies, it had to learn to listen to the agriculturalists, and thereby to promote production which is small scale and localized, and which is ultimately more efficient. Agriculture is linked to vocational training, and the state provided access to local and national markets.
Professor Martinez drew several lessons from the Cuban experience. The principles of Cuban food sovereignty include fair price for producers, ensured market access, and institutional support. Cuban agriculture renders chemicals unnecessary, demonstrates the feasibility of sustainable agro-ecology, and shows that smaller production units are more adaptable and efficient. Professor Martinez suggested the components of a Cuban model that could be applied elsewhere, including: protection from dumping, fair prices, state support including research, strong organizations of producers and consumers, access to land, and an ecological technology.
A second example presented by Professor Martinez is the Landless Workers Movement of Brazil. Groups of landless poor are organized into encampments, lasting months or years, poised to appropriate unused land. While occupying these camps, community institutions and identities are developed. When the land is available, they become farmers. The success of this movement is seen not only in the allied public schools, agricultural training schools and universities, but also in the placement by 2002 of 350,000 families onto 3000 farming establishments totaling 8 million hectares. At this time there were still nearly 500 waiting camps comprising 61,000 families.
The third example presented by Professor Martinez is the Zapatista movement, in the process of developing an ecological and sustainable agriculture. They argue that food sovereignty is a new model of development rather than a system of welfare. They require fair prices, agricultural reform, access to markets, and agro-ecological techniques, as well as the use of subsidies to support small producers rather than giant ones.
Professor Martinez also praised the Zapatista political model of horizontality (as opposed to the hierarchy of typical guerrilla groups). Discussion is used to solve problems in part by understanding the systemic causes of divisions between people and means of overcoming them. Gender equality has also been a basic component of Zapatista political philosophy, as it is of the Via Campesina movement. Other aspects of Zapatista politics and policy include the recovery of history and its symbolism, encounters for humanity and against neoliberalism, use of communications technology, the mobilization of civil society, and patience. As examples of the recovery of symbolism, she argues that the Zapatista mask is a means of identifying the wearer as represent a situation rather than an individual. She notes that grandiose statements, whether mass marches or the mural paintings in Zapatista communities, serve to connect people. As examples of the mobilization of civil society, she mentioned the 2001 March of the Colours of the Earth when the Zapatista comandantes address the Mexican congress to argue for passage of the San Andrés accords. She also discussed the 2003 creation of the Juntas de Buen Gobierno (Councils of Good Government) in the Caracol stetlements in which authority is quickly rotated so that it will not be entrenched and many people will learn the skills. Finally, she discussed the 2006 Other Campaign (La Otra Campaña) first phase, led by Subcomandante Marcos, to be followed by a second phase which will be led by the comandantes. Professor Martinez noted that the Other Campaign relies on the enormous moral authority of the Zapatistas to open a space for other groups (campesinos, labourers) to come together.
In the afternoon, Max, Rita and several students went to Tuxtla Gutierrez for events at the Tec de Monterrey campus there. Max gave a talk on the turn to the left in Latin America and its response to neoliberalism. His talk was conveyed by video to several other campuses of this university system, so that it was seen and heard by thousands! See Rivkah's picture above. While waiting for the setup, LASOM students got to see Tec students do a kind of talent show. Rita also made contact with professors of literature and is arranged a return visit from them to San Cristobal. I've heard lots of positive responses about the experience of exchanging ideas with Mexican students that should encourage us to build on it for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment