Hmm, I'm agreeing with the NYT again. HARVESTING POVERTY: The Case Against King Cotton

American cotton costs a great deal to produce by international standards. Yet even though global cotton prices were crashing from 1999 to 2002, our share of global exports grew to 40 percent, from 25 percent. That was because Washington propped up King Cotton with $12.9 billion in subsidies. We were, in effect, paying the rest of the world to buy American product rather than the cheaper cotton grown in Africa and South America...

Antiglobalization protesters who claim to act on behalf of the world's poor are fond of taking aim at the World Trade Organization, but the cotton case shows that what the developing world needs is not a weaker trade referee, but a stronger one capable of standing up to rich nations.

Poor African farmers and American taxpayers stand to gain if the W.T.O. does what Congress should have done long ago, and kills our cotton subsidies. Brazil should prevail, and with the peace clause's retirement, more such cases should be brought against indefensible agricultural protectionism.