The whole question of subsidies needs to be examined. What should the taxpayers of country A be asked to support the production of product P in that country so that consumers in other countries can buy that product at artificially now prices. Generally speaking, the price of a product and the cost of a product should be kept as close as possible to each other. Also, the enormous increases in assistance during the past six years given to Africa comes at the U. S. taxpayers's expense and also disrupts the "local" economies and other conditions in Africa. Given the horrific state of all-pervasive and systemic corruption in Africa, where does this aid really end up? I am truly afraid to learn the answer.

James, Jacksonville , Illinois U. S.

Fairness? The subsidies are required to balance the high cost living costs/land costs, etc in the US and to temper the ability of others to undercut the US ... they are fair and legal (unless you have the view of giving an unfair advantage to a place that can pay workers less, etc...)

As for producing the crop 'more efficiently' than in the US; I would love to see the facts to support that claim... no chance... 'man hours' versus yield, the US is much more efficient.

The US's overall trade imbalance is one of the largest in the world... because we are the world's second-leading producer of cotton (China #1)... and one of the few products we export more than import... we are evil?

I do feel for the humanity side of the situation... but doesn't the 400,000+ US workers in the cotton industry have a right to a fair playing field too?

Keith, Boston, USA

We have a choice. Mainstream high street stores in the UK are now selling Fairtrade clothes made from Fairtrade cotton (places like M&S). Look out for the mark, and buy clothes with the mark, knowing that it will benefit Third World farmers.

If this catches on as a consumer choice, then it could be of massive benefit to the Third world.

HMac, Milton Keynes, UK

William, apparently you don't understand the concept. The issue is not that American farmers should avoid planting cotton so they don't compete with the African farmers. The issue is that they are not competitive and they would be the ones suffering financial losses if not for the government subsidies. Let their be free market and competition, only don't just apply it to the people you call "foreigners", apply it to yourselves. I don't personally know anything about cotton farming, but as you seem to think, there are many other crops that can replace cotton...this would be my suggestion to the American farmers (the ones who aren't competitive).

Jon, Toronto, Canada

To Jesus in Bask Country

The reason the U.S. sends food instead of cash to Africa is because in the past the cash never made it to the people.

besides if the aid were in cash the Africans would buy everything they need from the E.U. which is heavily subsidized.

Bush has nothing to do with agricultural subsidies.

These started during the depression of the 1930's and like most Government projects ;once instituted they are never repealed.

When the rest of the world outlaws subsidies so will the U.S.

Saladin, Greenwich,

The Bush Admin is callous and shortsighted and fairly evil. However, even I can't blame Africa's woes on America. Good ol' US of A has a trade deficit of several BILLION dollars per year, mostly with China, because our people expect to be paid fair wages for their work. (doesnt always happen). Americans give $600 per person, per quarter, to other countries, that we don't get back in equivalent services. If America reciprocated trade amounts (you buy from us the same as we buy from you) then China and many African countries would collapse. So don't shove this "riches" crap in my face. You can't leach off our resources then whine that we don't give enough. American farmers get subsidies because it costs more to produce here, and live here. Farmers here don't get rich either. The subsidies barely cover taxes, fool. Africa has seven or eight times the pop. it can support, and America cannot change that. Want to help Africa, support birth control, would help the whole planet.

Elizabeth, Seattle, WA, USA

Did the 3 previous posters (from the US) miss the part in the article that mentioned the subsidies to the US farmers had been declared illegal by the WTO? The real problem is that the Americans believe in fair trade, as long as they benefit. They will use the WTO, NAFTA, GATT rules ruthlessly to open markets to their producers. But woe to those foreign producers who can undercut an important US voting bloc (such as cotton farms or loggers). Ask Canadian softwood producers. They invested heavily in modern effecient operations. They could outsell their American counterparts still using old plants. The US imposed massive illegal tariffs (under WTO and NAFTA rules) on softwood imports. Despite decades of the US losing at every arbitration and dispute resolution process under the WTO and NAFTA- mantained the tariffs until Canada was forced to sign a new treaty last year to the benefit of the US. Which the US has now decided is not good enough (for them) and want to reopen.

Setti, Vancouver, BC, Canada

I'm not an economist, but I'm smart enough to know that subsidies and tariffs can not be so simplistically summed up in a brief anti American (typical) article.
And to the people who claim Americans' need to take back their Country from Bush/Cheney; things are NOT that black & white and in general terms, Democrats are more "protectionist".

To Moshe Haviv who says America expects the World to open their markets but does not open her own; is that why another record trade deficit was set in 2006 at 763.3 billion?

MCD, Elmhurst, USA

I think it is nice that Europeans publish complaints about US subsidies when most of Europe is run on subsidies. The French are especially famous for this and now most of the other EU contries are fixing prices and undercutting world prices by subsidies. Not to mention China's fixing the valueof their currency to keep a lock on prices. The world trade organization is wothless because it ignores European, Russian and Chinese price fixing while it attacks select items. The Airbus is a prime example of price fixing and who is omplaining about that?? Wake up nationalism always trumps fairness.

doc, pottsville, Pa., USA

It's not the job of American farmers to avoid planting crops that might compete with farmers overseas. It's ridiculous to suggest that American farm subsidies should be modified by the U.S. government for the benefit of foreigners. Also, anyone who knows anything about cotton will tell you that there are many crops that can be substituted for it.

William Worsley, Arlington, Virginia

I believe that the cotton farmers of Africa CAN compete with American cotton farmers, if you read the article (assuming it is correct) the African farmers are more efficient, however couldn't sell their cotton for a profit because the prices have been driven down so far by subsidized cotton from the USA. The American farmers would have suffered even a greater loss than the African farmers if they weren't subsidized. Most other western countries are guilty of this type of crime, including the EU, but the real crime in this situation is that the WTO rules the actions of the American government illegal, and they essentially ignore it! What astonishes me is why any countries even bother signing deals with the USA when the deals are only enforced when they have an outcome that benefits America.

Jon, Toronto, Canada

The view of Murph, Madisonville, Kentucky is sadly typical of an ill-informed American populace that even when presented with an article such as this, refuse to acknowledge America's involvement and responsibility.

It is easy to say 'plant other crops', but if the soil does not accommodate the variety of crops Murph suggests, what then??! Why are American cotton farms being subsidised? Does this not run counter to America's 'laissez faire' economic policies? Moreover, in seeking to 'export' America's brand of democracy, how does this economic policy square with that??!!

And yes Murph, common sense plays an important part. But when market conditions are deliberately stacked against you by the unfair leverage that subsidies can give, what then? Fair trade becomes simply rhetoric as the 'so called Developed world' impovishes the rest!

Ford, Paris, France

If African farmers can't compete with U.S. cotton producers, why don't they just grow something else? Why blame the U.S. for Africa's failures?

William Worsley, Arlington, Virginia

Why is anyone suprised. This is " affirmative " action with food. Please do not blame the US for this folly.. It is world wide. Think of the CAP. If the voters in any country knew about this they would be furious. If the children of the West cannot read nor write, throw in apathy, and there is a politicians dream

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas

I find it ironic to have a newspaper in the EU condemning America for Agricultural subsidies. Let us not pretend that the EU does not have protectionist subsidies, ie Airbus, Wine and various other crops, products and industries. It may be easy for Europe and Africa to blame the big bad monolith that is the US but it will be much more difficult of them to look at their own policies and adjust their own policies and practices. The US agreed to cut agricultural subsidies by 20% if the EU did. What happened there...nothing. The EU would not do it. I notice we have an article about the US cotton industry but nothing about how European subsidies to wineries keep Africans from selling their grapes and wines. Give me a break on the anti-Americanism and write a real article about the global problem.

Ryan Green, Boston, USA

To Marcella Smith. I see your good intention, but I would like you to consider other facts: The aid from US to the African countries is not offered in dollars, but in goods. Yes, the overproduction of the subsidized american farms is sent to those countries and accounted as 'aid'. Imagine the effect on the economies of the local farmers. Then they are said that they should invest for better productivity, and are subsidized IF they buy american seeds. And for the medical aid, all of the laboratories and the drugs are american, too. I wonder how much arms deals are accounted as 'aid' too.
At the end, all the dollars publicited as 'aid' stay in US, but as side effect empoverishing the countries. If US really want to help, SEND DOLLARS.

Jesus, Bask Country, Spain

Free markets? Don't make me laugh. Al-Qaida, or, Stalin, rotting in his grave, are more committed to the free market, than is The White House.

Herschel Michaels, Washington, Columbia, US

Now we know why so many "asylum seekers" come from West Africa.

Ray Frowd, Cambridge,

It's disgusting but you do not mention that the EC is at least as bad and the it has been going on for many years. Subsidising internal markets is bad enough as it prevents poor countires exporting to us and earning foreign currency but to subsidise exports to them and destroy their lives in their own villages just to buy votes and influence at home is the pits. The US and the EU have lot to answer for.

R Mason, LONDON, UK

America is a strange country. They seem to go
balistic when a group of companies engage in
price fixing for which they have the most draconian
criminal penalties. But when the government
conspires with cotton growers to engage in cost
fixing (subsidies) they seem to be totally relaxed.

John, LONDON, ENGLAND

The subsidies to cotton farmers in the U.S.A had a sense when they were poor guys with a crop down to even one or two bales each, all hand picked, and they could not make a living otherwise. But now situation is quite different, the whole crop is in the hands of relatively few big growers who should do something else rather than grow cotton which is anti-economic with the costs in the States. Giving a subsidy to growers, and then a subsidy to exporters otherwise price would not be competitive is somethig which has nothing to do with free markets and free competition which should be the flag of free western countries.

Roberto Castellano, Salsomaggiore, Italy

The issue is of American cotton subsidies must be seen in a wider context, namely as a consequence of the Bush Whitehouse and the last Congress subverting American democracy.

American cotton subsidies benefit rich procucers in the US, and the politicians whom they have made their friends. In no way do this wasting of monetary resources benefit the American people. African cotton produced at 20 percent of the cost of american cotton does not sell, and the result is structural poverty. The resulting suffering in Africa is similar to that of US troops in Iraq, of Iraqi warridden civilians and of everyone living in the science fiction nightmare created by Bush environmental policy, in that it is a result of the Bush regime not considering the interests of others.

As African cotton farmers do not form part of the American electorate, it is the duty of all Americans to take back America from Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

Knut Aursnes, Oslo, Norway

Over here...or at least in Kentucky....farmers plant a variety of crops to offset market trends. The farm nearest me is typical. Planting corn, soybean, and yes...some tobbaco God forbid. Now I'm not a farmer but it seems to me its just common sense when you depend on market conditions for your liveliehood. So where is the guidance from the Agricultural department of this African country? Subsidies didn't happen overnight. Or is it just easier to blame Americans for their own governments incompetence?

Murph, Madisonville, USA/Kentucky

What is wrong with the subsidies in USA is that USA keeps telling the world "free trade", globalization etc. but does not abide to her own saying.
On the one side the Americans are expecting the world to open their markets but does not open her own.
The Airbus share in Israeli Airline indistry is minimal as a result of USA direct and indirect pressure.

Moshe Haviv, Tel Aviv, Israel

I have read some comments above. Some of their authors should really be ashamed of themselves.They seem to ignore that we are talking about life and death.Subsidies are killing poor African farmers and some still think it is just. The west has lost the meaning of morality. This is what pushes people to extremism. When your interlocutor does not want to understand or fails to do so the what else remains ? Besides The US have international commitments they should stand up to. But It seems that there are many Bushes in the US. God help us.
Malek MAlki Algeria.

Malki MAlek, BBArreridj, Algeria

so basically, americans should stop subsidising their cotton industry, so that africans can grow more cotton... hmm. sounds a bit ironic to me.
anyhow, i dont think europeans are in much of a position to criticize american agricultural policy until they make the CAP less wieldy... and besides, all those acres of subsidized american cotton just look pretty.
if the french can subsidize crops to keep farmers in jobs and the countryside tilled, why cant americans do the same with our traditional crops?

jason lancaster, Lake Jackson, TEXAS

Why does The Times focus on the U.S. for its subsidies. Why not look closer at home to the subsidies and other protectionism practiced by both the U.K. and the European Union.

Why has The Times informed both the U.K. and the E.U. of America's vast aid to African nations. This aid is not simply from the U.S. Government, but from typical Americans through their church organizations as well as private, non-government charities.

Why has The Times not reported on how American aid has had to be re-labeled as coming from the U.N. so people cannot know that it is in fact coming from Americans?

Finally, why does The Times not report the massive amount of aid given by all levels of America, instead of perpetuating the PC myth?

Finally, why does The Times maintain the fable that America was the Satan of slavery when it was the Dutch who began it, and the Africans themselves who sold their countrymen to the Bristol traders?

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

Ezra Taft Benson, who was U. S. Secretary of Agriculture (during the 8 year Republican Eisenhower administration) was saddled with a Democrat Congress and all the FDR New Deal garbage through the 1950's. He kept a sign prominently on his desk which read "NO REAL AMERICAN WANTS TO BE SUBSIDIZED"!
Read his biography by Sheri Dew--fascinating life!
The trouble now is that we have too few real Americans in America. Our Farm Bill is iniquitous and those here who knowingly understand what it means and still knowingly take the spoils from it will stand accountable when it matters. The misery our subsidies cause around the world leave Americans who vote for pork barrel politicians in a bad position in the final analysis as well as cause hatred towards the rest of us around the world.
I live in rural Missouri now and much of the rich land around me is idle and people take large subsidies to keep it that way--my family's tax dollars confiscated every paycheck for the CRP program.....

Terri Dance, Salisbury, Missouri, USA

Part of the war on equilibrium. The first step is to end all aid in the world. Aid is the war on the middle class in the 3rd world. The bureaucrats want to displace the middle class, and aid destroys middle class values and props up dictators. If the aid foundations had been around in the Middle Ages, there would have been no Magna Carta and no Shakespeare and no Newton.

Old Atlantic, Atlantic City, NJ

As a South Carolina resident, I feel obligated to take a stance contrary to that of Mr. Traore. Our state is still a (fairly) large producer of cotton and it is key to the survival of agriculture in SC (what is left of it, anyway). Doing away with the farm subsidies would, likely, have a terrible impact upon our farmers.

Thus, in the interests of domestic agriculture (and the protection of American ag. jobs) it makes sense to continue the farm subsidies. This will, certainly, have negative consequences for third world farmers, but should the focus of the US government not be to look after the interests of domestic rather than foreign agriculture.

Boykin Lucas, Clemson, South Carolina

I'm no expert on trade or subsidies, I can only offer a few facts to ponder re Africa/US: 1) Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year; four African nations, Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States. 2) Bush launched his $1.2 billion malaria initiative for Africa in June 2005. 3) Then there is the $15 billion, five-year plan known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief . Under the program, about 800,000 Africans are receiving drugs that enable them to live longer with the disease and help to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus.4) And finally, Mr Traoré said:'I do not like to go back over history,(oh, yes, you do) but I cannot help but remember that bad relations began with America when they came to Africa to take slaves for their own cotton plantations.' Fact: Africans sold other Africans. (No doubt Traore gladly accepts US $$,though.)

Marcella Smith, Galena, Ohio, USA

Mr Francois Traore had better re-read history..It was the sub-sahara tribes who sold the slaves that they captured to the Europeans to bring to the 'new world'....

tim, san marcos, ca usa

I would have to say that paying farming subsidies is one of the most destructive things any government can do to both its domestic, and the world economy. The market is making it very plain that it makes more sense to grow cotton outside of the USA, but our politicians happily spend my tax dollars to keep american farmers in business for nothing but emotional justifications. No one has a right to a particular line of work, if the market won't support them.

John C. Randolph, Cupertino, California, USA