The Lima Declaration — the bleeding of the West continues

Article by APP National Chairman, Andrew Phillips

Many readers would have heard the mention of the Lima Declaration which was agreed to by numerous developed nations back in 1975 in Peru.

The purpose of this agreement was presented in a highly altruistic guise and the claimed intention was to facilitate growth in the Third World, in order to alleviate poverty and a plethora of social problems. As time went by, with the exception of many genuine patriots in the West, most forgot about the Lima Declaration and those who have vague recollections of its creation believe it to be historically irrelevant.

However, given the many changes we have witnessed in the world over the last few decades — the increased globalisation, the signing of a myriad of international agreements and the changes to our Western economies, is Lima really an irrelevant dusty foot-note that should be consigned to the pages of history? Or, is it in fact a blueprint for undermining our nations, and a tool to throw away our birth-right for the benefit of a few?

Under the Lima Declaration, developed nations were pressured to reduce all tariffs and perceived impediments to the free flow of resources, capital and industry to the developing nations. Furthermore, developed nations were also urged to change the transfer of wealth in the form of loans to “grants”.

Since 1975, we have seen an increased push for a borderless world. We are told its a form of economic evolution in which everybody wins. It results in increased trade, improvements in infrastructure and industry, and the trickle down effect was to be an increase in the living standards and working conditions of those living in the Third World.

However, what is the reality those of us in the West have seen develop over the decades since the Lima Declaration? I cannot list the effects on workers in other nations of the West, but for those of us in Australia the promised cornucopia never eventuated.

Successive governments of both political hues have continued to pursue the same disastrous internationalist policies — signing a myriad of so called “free trade agreements” in which our nation led the way by example with the heavy reduction and complete elimination of tariffs — just as was demanded by Lima.

The result? Large numbers of manufacturers downsized operations or moved operations completely overseas, to take advantage of lower wages and minimal environmental regulations. The prize for honesty had to go to the head of Fletcher Jones who openly declared that globalisation was to blame for his company closing operations in Mt Gambier and moving off-shore.

For states such as South Australia, which at one time had a third of its workforce employed in manufacturing, the blueprint for the transfer of wealth and productivity to the Third World as we find in the Lima Declaration is in fact nothing more than an economic Death Warrant.

Agricultural representative bodies for some time have continued to be enthusiastic supporters of tariff reductions in other countries in exchange for the elimination of local tariffs on manufactured goods. It didn’t affect them negatively and the sacrifice of Australian factory workers upon their ideological altar meant little. However, in the pursuit of an open world the time comes when the Third World wolf will be found standing at your door — and in recent years that is exactly what many farmers have begun to realise.

There are only so many tariffs and “trade conditions” one can reduce before you find yourself personally disadvantaged.

Primary producers have begun to find local markets flooded with cheap, substandard produce. Retailers have in the past been accused of unscrupulous pressure tactics to force local producers to match the price of imports and farmers have begun to realise that, in the case of some free trade agreements, the devil is indeed in the detail — with quarantine protection measures being deemed a form of “unfair protectionism” and a contravention of the spirit of “free trade”.

Communist China, until recently a major recipient of Australian foreign aid, is now the beneficiary of a revamped Foreign Investment Review Board guideline and has almost unfettered access to Australia. When one couples this development with a quote by a senior trade official Xie Guoli, “Australia and China have a basis for long-term agricultural co-operation, since Australia is rich in land and China rich in labour. But developing such a relationship will depend substantially on Australia’s policy of importing labour”, those of us who have been watching developments have every right to be alarmed at the real ramifications of Lima and all subsequent international agreements.

Furthermore, the recent establishment of the (strangely enough) Chinese-proposed Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank is another example of cash being siphoned from our nation for the benefit of others. At a time when our government is exhorting Australians to be “fiscally responsible” and to refrain from “mortgaging the future of future generations”, our elected representatives launched themselves into this project with undignified haste and a promise to contribute up to $3 Billion.

Still think Lima is irrelevant?

One has to admire the ingenuity of the Global Village Idiots though. With the growing cultural shift and rejection of the much sullied “materialistic society”, our New Age Internationalists have repackaged the aims of the Lima Agreement into a new altruistic endeavour based on collective responsibility for crimes against the planet.

Following the Paris Summit to address the issue of “Climate Change”, the faceless representatives meeting behind closed doors emerged triumphantly to declare an agreement had been reached — along with the promise that the developed world would pay the “poor nations” $100 Billion per year.

Sounds eerily like reparations, the penalty for being successful, industrious and organised.

With such a handsome sum being channelled annually to the developing world, along with lowered border restrictions and unfettered flow of capital out of the West, one can be forgiven for wondering where it will end.

The question those of us in the West must ask ourselves is, how much are we prepared to give — particularly at the cost of the future of our own children?

References and further reading:
Chinese firms eye Aussie farmland”, The Australian, 12 May 2008 (Rowan Callick)
Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Co-Operation”, Selwyn Johnston
What is the Lima Declaration”, Global Web Builders


  1. Williambtm says

    My personal interpretation of the Lima Agreement is that it was set up by countries such as the USA so they could siphon the good bits out for themselves, as for the purpose of the agreement that has been discarded to the foolish countries that were taken in by this kind of USA scam on a world scale.
    Australia’s Politicians are little more than sock puppets continually feeding the peoplew lies and denials, the evidence is there when one compares the Australian economy prior to the scam Agreement, now compare that with the economy of 2019-2020, yep it’s up to schitt bonzer and travelling further into the abyss.
    People like the lying John W Howard (who foolishly trusted George W Bush and called George W………. his best buddy mate pal, have a lot to answer for.
    Howard and his Liberal/National Coalition had conned the ‘my fellow Australians,’ suffice to say he and his priveliged party spivs had committed a number of treasons against the people of Australia. Make no mistake Scott Morrison is just as much a liar and denier of any essence of truth.
    Australia’s mainstream media are culpable to the feedinbg of bullschitt to all the people of Australia.
    Our mainstream media has copied the American fake false propaganda-like absurdities of
    meddling with their Australian electors minds, simply another treason.
    The Australian Federal government are actually covert enemies of the Australian citizens.

  2. I agree that there are Australians that want to work, but the foreigners are taking a number of the jobs. I talked to an Indian taxi driver who was working in the aged care sector during the week, and doing agency work on the weekend in aged care. He would be too tired, to be safe in either industry and now I am reluctant to get in a cab driven by an Indian taxi driver, because this is not the first time I have heard of them doing excessive hours. Scary.

  3. I think the politicians in Australia have not thought things through carefully. Their grandchildren will struggle and so will their great grandchildren to pay for a reasonable standard of living and a roof over their heads more than likely and that is for 2 reasons. The way things are going with immigration from 3rd world countries is just causing more corruption here, and in turn a drop in standards such as in healthcare. Other cultures are not as generous by nature and they will ensure that there is nepotism and cronyism to support the people from their own cultures. Australia is at risk of becoming very, very divided by different nationalities. What most people do not understand is that you can take someone to the anti-discrimination commission if they are hiring foreigners over Australians. That said you need proof, however they may look into the matter if it is a private company. I doubt that they would let the media know if it was a government department doing this though.

    Or the elite who have more money than is required for have a happy life may find themselves targeted by angry crowds.

  4. A great article that traces the genesis of the free trade agreements that we see today.
    Looking back at the original declaration (see the Selwyn Johnston link) it’s clear that the motivation was primarily about assisting developing countries. There’s nothing I could see in there about taking advantage of low labour costs or lax environmental standards for the enrichment of global capital. And yet, by the mid-1980’s, the free traders, Von Mises libertarians and other corporate sock-puppets were pursuing a free trade agenda exactly because of these factors. They rationalised it by looking at slave-labour wages as a ‘natural competitive advantage’ – just like fertile soils or a deep water port. Nothing wrong with making the best of your natural advantages, is there?
    The irony is that many of the least developed parts of the world remain woefully underdeveloped. From this perspective, the intent of Lima remains unfulfilled. China – the world’s new manufacturing centre – has been one big winner, thanks to tight Communist planning and authoritarian management of the labour market (something the Rightard/libertarians don’t want to talk about any more). The other big winners, of course, are the rootless global corporations that can go wherever the latest opportunity lies.
    Some unions in Australia – including the AMWU – started talking about a ‘social tariff’ that would even up the playing field by putting tariffs on imports from countries where labour and environmental standards were appalling. They spoke about how individual companies operating in these countries could seek exemption from the tariff if they showed that they paid fair wages and looked after the environment. They explained how this would still allow healthy competition with other developed nations (like Norway, the UK etc) and support efficiency in the economy. The initiative came to a head in 2000 at the Hobart conference of the ALP, where the internationalist and anti-Australian bias of this once proud party was on display. Party luminaries like Paul Keating poured scorn on the idea, backed up by the social justice warriors nesting in Trot sects around the country. As an example, Green Left Weekly thundered; ‘Fair Trade – a cover for first world protectionism’ (J Parker GLW Nov 8 2000) and most of the assembled Labor delegates agreed. The idea was smashed around for the amusement of the press – without actually being properly debated – and consigned to history’s dustbin. It’s foremost spokesperson went on to become an ALP senator and has never spoken of it again.
    Meanwhile, back on the factory floor, Australia’s manufacturing workers continued to lose their jobs. And aside from China, most of the developing world is still a basket case.
    So who’s the winner in all this? And should the concept of the social tariff be looked at again..?
    Thanks again for an excellent article.

  5. We have gone from a affluent manufacturing nation, wealthy and prosperous riding the sheeps back to a nation of debt ridden welfare beggers, The biggest organization in Australia is Centrelink. We are well down the road of selling just about everything we have and when thats done, guess what sunshine, we will have F A else left to flog.
    The one silver lining is that the politicians will be well provided for by an adoring electorate.

Leave a Reply to Jane Cancel reply