No. I wasn't imagining it - I have checked the text. George Bush has said in stronger language than I have ever heard that the US will give up agriculture subsidies if Europe does the same.
In a pre-recorded interview to be shown on Britain's ITV1 channel tonight he told Trevor McDonald: "Let's get rid of ALL (my capitalisation) subsidies together. Let's join hands as wealthy industrialised nations and say to the world, we're going to get rid of all our subsidies together".
When the interviewer said: "So you would if they would, because at the moment, for example...", the president interrupted to say "Absolutely" and when Mr McDonald asked him further whether that included subsidies of $230 (£130.7bn) per acre of cotton grown, the president repeated "Absolutely".
The EU often issues similar challenges. So what is holding things up? Why can't the G8 meeting at Gleneagles in Scotland this week agree that they agree and set out a timetable for the removal of all agriculture subsidies?
While debt relief - a big focus of the G8 summit - will help, it will not create wealth in developing countries. Removing trade subsidies can. Seventy per cent of the population of Africa work in agriculture but only a few per cent do so in rich countries.
Yet rich countries support their agriculture by $279bn a year - more than 10 times current aid to Africa - and a sum comparable to the income of all sub-Saharan Africa. Through the common agricultural policy (CAP), two fifths of the EU budget goes on subsidies and support to Europe's farmers, who represent 5% of Europe's population and produce less than 2% of its output.
In the US, support to cotton farmers of around $3.9bn a year undermines employment in west Africa, where cotton is produced three times more efficiently than in the US. If the US and Europe really want to help Africa, they should move to end farm subsidies.
-- Victor Keegan edits the KickAAS (Kick All Agricultural Subsidies) weblog
