When I was a child, my father, who had witnessed the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, told me how common ground was sought around shared principles in a world fractured by the Cold War. The declaration, adopted in 1948, upheld a series of basic rights, including to adequate food. States have the duty to protect, respect and fulfill such rights and can be called to account if they fail to do so.
UN membership grew rapidly in the 1960s, when many former colonies gained independence and subsequently pushed for greater equity in global governance. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, called on signatories to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
The oil-supply shocks and stagflation of the mid-1970s shifted the momentum away from state-led, rights-based governance to neoliberalism as the dominant policymaking paradigm. This approach was based on the misguided beliefs that unfettered markets allocate resources most efficiently, economic globalization benefits all countries, and the private sector provides goods and services more effectively than the public sector.
From the 1980s, the neoliberal structural-adjustment programs imposed by the World Bank and the IMF on cash-strapped countries, coupled with the advent of the WTO, restricted the policy space of governments in the Global South. The adjustment programs called for governments to roll back regulations — including labor and environmental protections — that were deemed a hindrance to free trade and to open their markets to imports of subsidized food products.
The resulting globalized, corporate-led industrial food system, which promised to improve food security worldwide, has been a dismal failure. Citizens have been left to pay the price for neoliberal policies: fragile supply chains, workers without rights, a worsening climate crisis, severely diminished biodiversity, reduced access to healthy food, unsustainable diets and extreme economic inequality. With hunger and malnutrition on the rise, it is time for a radical course correction.
Reforming the global industrial food system would be difficult, in part because it is characterized by an extremely high concentration of power in the hands of a few multinational agribusiness companies. Only a handful of firms dominate the global grain and fertilizer markets, a position that has enabled profiteering when supply chains break down, as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Backed by powerful commodity-exporting countries, neoliberal policies have promoted industrial production of export crops at the expense of domestic food production by smallholders, transforming Global South countries into food importers vulnerable to price spikes. Financial power also buys narrative power, which can be used to praise the latest food tech. No one should care that pesticides are devastating bee populations if corporations can turn tiny drones into artificial pollinators (all for a price, of course).
The latest manifestation of this concentrated corporate power is multinationals’ attempts to gain control of global food governance from the rights-based intergovernmental system. In 2010, the World Economic Forum launched what has come to be called a multi-stakeholder approach to governance in which everyone has a seat at the table. This framework is far less inclusive than it sounds. When the roles, responsibilities and interests of different actors are ignored, and power imbalances are disregarded, corporations inevitably prevail over the less powerful, and government accountability and human rights are set aside.
Inviting corporations to join the decisionmaking process tips the scales in favor of industrial, chemical-heavy monoculture — a move justified by the neoliberal narrative that we desperately need to harness corporate investment and innovation to increase food production. In reality, the world produces more than enough to feed everyone. The problem is unequal access, which requires political, not technical, solutions.
Supporting small family farmers, who produce a significant proportion of the world’s food and reach consumers through local markets rather than global supply chains, requires an entirely different policy framework.
However, why would multinational corporations advocate an approach that goes against their interests?
The UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021 was the apotheosis of “multi-stakeholderism.” Organized without a mandate from governments, and with strong participation by agrifood corporations and the Gates Foundation, the summit did not address the right to food and — in the words of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Michael Fakhri — was disconnected from “people’s real needs.” The summit’s “Stocktaking Moment,” which started yesterday, is the first global follow-up to this nonevent.
Many civil-society organizations that fight for people’s right to choose the structure of their food systems have contested the events. These groups prefer platforms such as the UN Committee on World Food Security, which includes constituencies most affected by food insecurity, focuses on the structural causes of hunger and inequality, and promotes accountability by reserving voting for governments. The People’s Autonomous Response to the UN Food Systems Summit — a coalition of such groups — held public events earlier this month to highlight power imbalances that challenge democratic food governance and to consider the future of multilateralism.
Determining how to achieve adequate food for all is the right of citizens and the duty of governments. Those concerned with making profits should have no place at the table.
Nora McKeon, a former chief of civil society relations at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, teaches at Roma Tre University and the International University College of Turin. She is the author, most recently, of Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.