How was independence in agriculture lost?

The independence of a country is primarily possible through the feeding of its individuals. Individuals who are left hungry first lose their self-confidence, and then their hope. As a result, national consciousness disappears, and the masses fall under the sovereignty of whoever feeds them.

In the last two world wars, or more accurately, the two wars of partition, this situation was experienced in Europe and Russia.

In the aforementioned wars, the number of people who died of hunger was almost higher than the number of those who died fighting. The consumption of exotic foods such as frog legs and snails, which are now considered luxury consumption by some in Europe, emerged during the wars. In these countries, there were no cats or dogs left on the streets. This was the reality behind the extraordinary support for agriculture in EU countries that experienced the devastation of hunger.

On the other hand, with neoliberal policies called globalization, the movements of goods, services, and capital began to be implemented without any oversight, according to the interests of wealthy countries, but to the detriment of third-world countries.

These policies were adopted by third-world countries by convincing them that they had no other choice.

In this context, foreign markets gained vital importance for the US/EU in terms of agriculture as well. Because they had accumulated extraordinary agricultural stocks. In order to melt these stocks, protect their own producers, and maintain their wealth, they pressured the markets of developing countries in particular, through many organizations, primarily the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

While they were trying to seize the world market, they brought World Exchange Prices to the forefront. However, there was a hidden truth. This truth was that the difference between the prices received by the producer in developed countries like the US/EU and the exchange prices was covered by the state, and the producer always evaluated their product above this price formed on the exchange.

Neoliberal policies in Turkish agriculture were mainly put into effect after September 12, 1980. For this purpose, a four-stage view, which was conveyed to the public and adopted with the explanations of "televole" professors under the control of dominant circles, was put into practice. What were these views;

• Public-supported policies applied in Turkish agriculture have been a great burden on the economy. One of the important reasons for the economic difficulties experienced is agricultural subsidies. These are black holes.

• The only way to modernize Turkish agriculture is to eliminate all subsidies over time. The remedy for everything is the free market economy.

• The Turkish peasant works for a very limited time of the year and lies idle for the rest. They are not creative.

• A market economy is valid in European Union (EU) and United States (US) agriculture.”

With the externally dependent agricultural policies implemented in the light of these views, Turkey has been rendered unable to produce enough and unable to feed both its rural and urban populations. With the 2000s, Turkey became an importer of agricultural products. Turkey continues to increase its agricultural product imports, which exceed ten billion dollars every year.

All governments that served after September 12, 1980, have a responsibility in making Turkey a country that imports agricultural products. The Ecevit governments, which put the Derviş laws into effect, should not be forgotten, especially Özal, Demirel, Çiller, Erbakan, and Yılmaz.

In addition to these governments, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) governments, which came to power after 2002, especially to overcome poverty and corruption, also pushed neoliberal policies in agriculture to the highest levels.

Farmers became impoverished and began to abandon agriculture. Since the per capita agricultural production is not increasing, we have become a country dependent on the outside for food sovereignty.

Consumers also cannot access healthy food. In short, 'Independence in Agriculture has been Lost'.

THE SORRY STATE OF AGRICULTURE

Turkish farmers and agriculture are going through difficult days. The farmer has become impoverished, some have reached a state where they cannot pay their debts, and they have begun to sell their lands to foreign banks.

City dwellers have also started to consume the products of farmers, which are bought up cheaply, at high prices. Turkey has lost its food sovereignty and has become an importer of agricultural products.

Instead of the organization of free individuals in society based on labor, organizations based on ethnic and religious culture have become dominant. Unemployment did not only create poverty and hunger, but it also created a moral collapse in individuals and society. Parents have reached the point of selling their daughters.

One of the leading issues that caused the situation to emerge in this way is the great collapse experienced in Turkish agriculture. Today, Turkey is dependent on the outside in terms of absolute amounts and per capita amounts for products that meet energy (cereals, oilseeds, etc.), protein (red meat, milk, etc.), and clothing (industrial plants, cotton, leather, wool, etc.) needs.

In short, agriculture has become a problem not only for the rural sector but for all of Turkey.

IS CORPORATE FARMING BEING INTRODUCED IN TURKEY WITH NEOLIBERAL POLICIES?

With neoliberal policies, in recent years, instead of small and medium-sized peasant/farmer enterprises based on family labor, the establishment of giant enterprises, in other words, 'Corporate Farming', is being encouraged and extraordinarily supported.

For example, in Turkey, initiatives are being brought to the forefront towards the establishment of giant enterprises with thousands of heads to close the red meat and milk deficit.

While this is the case, why is the giant enterprise model imposed on Turkey? Behind this lies the demand to melt the agricultural input (seeds, animals, medicine, fertilizer, etc.) stocks that have become a problem in the hands of the West, as mentioned above.

On the other hand, Agricultural State Economic Enterprises (such as SEK, Yemsan, Meat and Fish Institution, Agricultural Equipment Institution, Türkşeker, Tigem) have been privatized, are being privatized, or are being rendered dysfunctional.

Among these, TİGEMs have vital importance in terms of certified cereal and forage crop seed production and largely met the farmer's breeding animal needs. TİGEMs also provided training grounds and materials and facilities for researchers. Their privatization means "leaving our farmers to the mercy of foreign companies and those who are in a union of interests with them."

WHAT IS THE RIGHT MODEL FOR AGRICULTURE IN TURKEY?

If the option preferred in agriculture with externally dependent neo-liberal policies, 'Corporate Farming', were the right model, Turkey would not have lost its food sovereignty, as mentioned above.

The right model passes through 'Supporting Peasant Enterprises Based on Family Labor in Agriculture and Increasing Subsidies', 'Supporting Cooperativization in Agriculture and Ensuring They Become Industrialists', 'Planning Agricultural Production', 'Re-establishing Agricultural State Economic Enterprises', 'Implementing Land Reform', 'Protecting Agricultural Lands', 'Re-regulating Agricultural Laws', 'Re-organizing Agricultural R&D and Education', 'Developing a Stance Against International Financial Organizations', and 'Making Regional Agreements'.

In my subsequent articles, I will try to express my views on the right model in order.

Yes, our job in Turkish agriculture is difficult. However, there are also solutions. The solution primarily passes through our belief in our power to succeed.