I grew up in the Czech Republic. Mr. Babes the Czech prime minister. Is essentially the Czech version of Trump. He ran on a populist platform of economic prosperity, promising to run the country as a business. He drained the swamp all right, enriching himself. Ally of both Putin and Trump.
2
It seems like ANY government program ends up subject to corruption
However, the one thing about Europe is that they still HAVE farms not too far outside their cities. If you have a sudden stop in truck transport, they aren't going to starve.
3
While I support the fact finding by the authors, I think the bigger context would have been helpful as others have also pointed out.
The new EU member states in Eastern and Central Europe are a bit of a mess, that's normal at this point. But they have already come a long way, and the same EU investment strategy that has taken Spain and Portugal from developing nation to advanced, fantastic countries in just a few decades is doing its work there too.
Farm subsidies are part of the glue that holds the Union together, even if there's some soft corruption and quid pro quo there.
It seems pretty obvious there's a link between farm subsidies and the acceptance of the European Green Deal, which is deeply unpopular in the Visegrad countries.
On that subject, the first details that were leaked a few days ago show that the proposals look very, very promising: over 50% CO2 reduction by 2030 (and the EU is already lightyears ahead of the US), 1 million EV charging stations by 2025, 2 billion new trees, ... Ursula von der Leyen and Frans Timmermans are clearly making it their biggest priority and hopefully it will inspire Democrats back here too.
I believe these two have their priorities right and I have to admit I don't really care if a few corrupt politicians in Central Europe get rich in the process.
1
How is it even possible that the European Union, so sofisticated, allows crooks in it's midst, fully knowing that we humans, when given a chance and without supervision, tend to become corrupt and self-serving? And then, when it happens, take no sensible measures to change for the better? Could this be called complicity and/or complacency and/or dereliction of duty? If we can do better, we must; it's that simple.
2
Thank you for this article. Such a detailed piece should mention the courage of an NGO, Transparency International, and its director David Ondracka, who investigated this case, found out evidence and filed a complaint at the EU Commission against Czech Prime Minister’s conflict of interest, back in summer 2018. With a tiny team of lawyers and no other funds than a nonprofit can afford, he used legal and rather silent paths to fight against that Goliath who turned the state administration into his service company. Definitely less loud than public protests, yet a very efficient one. I post this comment with ambiguous feelings, as his wife - proud of his perseverance but worried at the same time if our family is totally secure. The more he is seen in media, the more protected I feel. I wish our country, the Czech Republic, could be refered to as a mature democracy, with talented, creative and hard-working people and investment opportunities, 30 years after the collapse of the regime. Disclosing Babis’s colossal conflict of interest is bringing hope we can achieve justice and put public interest again above his own and I see it as huge step towards a better future and a modern leadership worth of the 21st century.
4
It simply shows the American plutocracy has no monopoly on corruption. The game is rigged.
3
I'd like someone to explain how agriculture can only make up 1% of Europe's economy, when everyone except the obscenely wealthy spends far more than that putting food in their stomachs.
And if those obscenely wealthy want to spend more than 1% of their money on food, there are always bottles of wine running into 4 figures, truffles and foie gras, . . .
2
Corruption also known as “discretion without accountability”
I thank NYT for the article and it goes to show that we are all to some extent corrupt - some more than others. Don’t for a second think though that it’s a capitalistic malaise because communism is based on corruption, anarchy is born out of corruption.
At least Liberal Democracy tries to fight it and do not pretend it doesn’t exist.
2
Remarkable that this huge scam that has been going on for decades in the European Union has not received the kind of media attention it deserved till now in the U.S
2
So when farmers and corporations here say need a level playing field, the corrupt and nearly lawless system in the EU must be what they have in mind.
1
Farm subsidies are part of the glue that holds the EU together.
The authors should have mentioned this.
There are larger issues at stake like the European Green Deal for which the Commission requires buy-in by the Visegrad countries too, who are a pain in the proverbial about just about anything the EU proposes. This is a matter of picking the right battles and yes, quid pro quo.
3
There is no corruption is Europe is a novelty concept
1
If ever there was a justification for the decision of Great Britain to vote for Brexit, this article and its revelations of graft and payoffs by the E.U. is proof positive that the Brits got it right. Now if their leaders only had the guts to carry out the will of their own people. The E.U. is starting to dwarf the deep state that is the U.S. government today.
6
cost benefit, I am a EU tax payer and I do not like this especially rewarding hardliner illiberal leaders like Babis and Orban.
but the EU does very good things as well, in safeguarding food security, their food alert system is second to none, their pesticides residue monitoring system is world class and collectively the 27 countries of the EU can punch above their individual weight as collectively the EU is a frictionless internal market of 500m consumers.
so just becuase u do not like something your USA federal government does, does not mean you want your state to leave the union, there are always good and bad things with any union, good and bad guys etc
3
Nobody can corrupt Mr Babis because he is already rotten to his core. Farm subsidies should go directly to farmers who should be scrutinized every year before receiving any new subsidies.
5
This (and similar in US) is a major factor in why Brexit and Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric have appeal.
Not that either will fix this. But the idea that things are rigged and corrupt is all too easy to make. If the political establishment will accept these sorts of things, they bear some blame when the populous looks, even irrationally, for alternatives.
4
Bloat? For sure. Political imperative? No doubt. But besides the waste and inefficiency, the EU's agriculture support program has turned into a kind of slush fund that is helping to prop up eastern Europe's small fascist states. Not a good idea. Cut them loose and let Russia subsidize them. That's especially true of Hungary. If that's not to their liking they can always go back to being actual democracies where fair elections and the rule of law prevail. What a concept.
2
@Innocent Bystander Spain and Portugal were literally fascist states until the 80s. Look at what they have become. The EU is following the same investment strategy with the new eastern and central European members. Trust the process.
3
@Anne … Both Spain and Portugal transitioned to democracy in the mid-1970s after 30 years or so of fascist/reactionary autocracy. The nascent fascism we're seeing in eastern Europe now is in fact a retreat from the democracy that sprang up after the demise of the Soviet Union. That's a cat of an entirely different stripe.
3
One can just change the title from EU to USA - our farm subsidy program is a similar crony capitalism boondoggle that should be abolished.
6
When reading the following:
„The European Union can and does claw back misspent money. But veteran investigators ruefully joke that often the only penalty for stealing is having to return the money.“
i felt almost relieved thinking „at least that“ but of course standards should be higher.
5
So then Brexit?
4
@jkenb I don't know that anyone in the UK wants to leave the EU over farm subsidies. In fact one of the biggest concerns has been, "We're still going to get paid, right?" But your larger point is a good one and touches on the fundamental question facing many democracies: What do you do when things don't work? Do you commit to fixing them? Do you accept it? Or do you walk away?
13
Farm subsidies worldwide have a basic three step.
1. Buy the votes with a little handout and kind words. Oh we love the salt of the earth you little farmers!
2. Skim 90% of the money to agribusiness.
3. Kick back 10% to the politicians and 10% to the banks.
Simple folks, just a SNAP of the fingers!
6
This article neatly encapsulates the sickness at the heart of so-called “neo-liberalism,” which just turns out to be a thin veneer for the same patronage/cartelist maneuverings that the “free market” was supposed to prevent. These people are behaving like parasites who refuse to stop feeding as the health of the host declines. It is no wonder that the citizens of Europe - and the other places where the oligarchs have transparently enriched themselves while they’ve imposed austerity on the ordinary people who generate actual value.
5
Many liberals complain that the US should follow the example of European countries in so many ways. Their ideas are supposedly progressive and well, just “better”. I wonder if they are also in favor of this European policy and if not, why not?
4
I’m not sure that our own system of Ag subsidies is much better. Large agribusiness benefits at the expense of small farmers; they keep alive a massively inefficient sugar industry and ethanol industry. Subsidies also favor monocultures at the expense of diversity that would be better for the environment. Perhaps the EU learned from us?
8
@John Bowman
The vast majority of “liberals” complain that ‘conservatives’ refuse to force the wealthy to pay their fair share of “provide for the general Welfare” portion of the Constitution. Liberals are also very concerned that Individual-1 is a criminal and ‘conservatives’ pretend they don’t care.
Good Ole Europe - Nothing really ever changes does it - sounds like modern feudalism to me. U.S. famers benefit enormously from subsidies but at least it is not as direct and blatantly as that
Apparently no conflict of interest statutes there.
3
Ironic, to say the least, that with the largest agricultural subsidies program in the world--and that's a good trick, given the size of US subsidies--most of Europe's rural areas are in steep decline, with the Italian countryside becoming deserted and the French rural population not far behind, and up in arms about it.
26
The underlying truth of "farm policy" everywhere is that actual farmers get the shaft.
Farm policy must be done to keep the food growing. Yet the policy seeks to keep it cheap too, which tends to mean getting as much food as possible for as little as possible to farmers.
Other people get the money. Old Britain's Corn Laws were to "protect farmers" but actually protected shipping and big landowners, both defining their aristocracy. It has always been this way.
It need not be done this way. There are other ways. Some are even done in the US, on a very few crops.
Canada shows the way to support farmers, not just food supply. They still get good food prices and plenty of it. They just don't have a Big Ag nor anybody making that sort of big money.
Australia does it too, with its beef supply and sheep, on the huge ranches they call "Stations." There the land is on long term lease from the government, and their is no bank hand in it, and no speculation in that land either.
The US did the same in the Midwest under the old Grange Laws. It now does it for tobacco, ensuring farmers a profitable crop without overproduction or damaging their land.
The problem is that the big middle men and the banks holding the loans on land and seed and such all benefit more from squeezing the farmers. So they push for that, and they get that.
Europe's problems highlight the politics behind exploiting farmers. We do it too.
28
@Concerned Citizen
Absolutely false. At least 5 commodities grown in the earth are among the top 30 Exports from Canada and none of the top 30 Imports to Canada are grown in the dirt. For example, Canada is the largest supplier of wood products to the USA.
Why do you lie?
1
Wow! Who knew the EU could be so competitive with US farm policies that enrich the few at great cost to the many. Does the EU plan on taking food subsidies from 700,000 poor and working class people to redirect the money saved to Ag-industry friends and family farmers like Devin Nunes? US corn, sugar and soy subsidies, if redirected to feed and provide healthcare to children and the poor retirees, could do much good in the country.
Last question, the US Congress declared pizza served as part of a school lunch to be a vegetable, can the EU top that food industry subsidy?
51
@old soldier Also I have not seen in the article any reference to hundreds of farmer suicides as in Minnesota. Maybe because the cause was not subsidies but the "market".
5
@Concerned Citizen
the amount of vegetables found on a typical slice of pizza wouldn't amount to a single medium sized broccoli floret or tomato.
As usual, you might be concerned, but you have no idea what you're blabbing about.
Would you like some cheese and flour with your tiny salad?
1
Babis sounds like Trump. The EU legislature sounds like our own. Leaders and legislatures around the world all seem corrupt. How do the common men and women of the world survive and react to such corruption? They turn blind eyes to it, vote for or support it, and pray they are not run over by the corrupt machines. What a pit humanity has dug for itself.
4
Sorry to say you are wrong. The EU Parlament is elected.
9
Look around .... the pitchforks are coming. Unless the monied and connected class change their ways and share the wealth they will be swept out in the chaos that pitchforks through history have wrought.
Very scary times.
5
Another industry ripe for technological disruption, in 50 years most farms will be run by autonomous drones.
1
EU farm subsidy corruption is an example of political hijacking of governments so special interests can manipulate economies for their own profit. Poor government governance allows socio-economic manipulation through political parties. #gangpolitics
4
Appuzo, Appuzo,
Let down your hair!
And let me climb up,
to that rarefied air,
With no Hungary,
No Czechia,
No Bulgaria there!
Give me Mississipi,
Say, New Jersey?
Give me Louisiana,
Say, Alabama?
Surely and for shame,
Where libel is King,
No dirt and no stain,
And no oligarch treads,
No need to name names!
...
While I admire the angle Appuzzo has exposed, as another poster has noted it isn't really a question of faulty EU policy as national corruption in immature democracies , is it not (Czechia, for example)? He might not like the fact that the EU was founded on industrial and ag policy, but nobody's asking his opinion, and he's not really giving one, either, beyond "squirrel"!
EU spending has larger goals of political integration that Apuzzo appears to entirely ignore, even dismiss. But as his own piece makes clear, that integration is as yet incomplete.
As with his previous article, I'm waiting for Apuzzo to bring his considerable capacity to see trees while ignoring the forest to bear upon US ag policy, the subsidies and distortions he has claimed are smaller, in comparison.
Yet an examination in the bent light of his prism his might show things differently. I won't hold my breath, as I think it's literally just too dangerous for him to take on his own country's corruption.
3
@Andy This isn't a matter of whether I agree or disagree that the EU was built on farm subsidies. I'm not in the business to telling people how to form their democracies. I'll leave that to the opinion writers. But it is entirely appropriate for a journalist to investigate what kind of democracy you get for $65 billion a year. If you get one that favors the wealthy and powerful, ignores corruption and is full of conflicts of interest, well, the Times is going to tell people. That's what we do.
It's also what I do, and for the moment, my writ is overseas. I don't think it is fair to say that reporters won't take on American corruption. Look to my smart colleagues writing about corruption at all levels of government and industry in the US. (But thank you very much for the poem.)
19
@Matt Apuzzo
1st, thanks for taking the time to reply and you're welcome for the poem.
2nd fair enough on your writ, you don't get to choose what the NYT publishes (also kind of my point here).
3rd, good job on taking on Czech republic (and other nations') serious issues with corruption etc.
But "I don't think it is fair to say that reporters won't take on American corruption" Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that includes the NYT itself. I find the NYT, despite the partisan bent it is often accused of having, rather timid in the face of the US and state administrations in comparison to the latitude (read: slant) it allows international investigative reporters. To be fair, the NYT does cover domestic subjects, just with less alacrity and slant it does international topics, for reasons the poem suggests. What is not published shapes opinions as much as what is, but you've established that's not your remit.
When i say "squirrel" and "can't see the forest for the trees" I mean you - not the NYT - decided to highlight what amounts to national sovereignty issues and frame them as EU governance issues. I see that as a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of EU itself that plays into the hands of demagogues from the UK to the Czech republic. In advance of budget negotations and in the presence of permanent disinformation on the EU on all sides.In so doing your reporting amounts to agit prop whose only beneficiairies are demagogues from the UK to Russia
Too short 4 more...
2
@Matt Apuzzo
This is a fascinating article. Could you, would you please recommend articles about the USA Farm Bill subsidies? I have only just learned about , and was staggered by, the fossil fuel subsidies. This relatively prosperous and peaceful chapter for the USA is an opportune time to review and retire many programs, and redirect the savings. Thank you!
Interesting article Times.
Could we have a follow up about other absurd subsidies?
Perhaps we could follow up with some analysis on the $650 billion per year the US taxpayer spends subsidizing the fossil fuel industry? (Source IMF).
12
@Edward Of the many good stories my colleagues have written on that topic, my favorite might be this one
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html
13
Next perhaps an equally-researched report of US subsidies to corn and soy corporate agribusiness.
5
Thank you for shining the light on the farming lobby, the Council and the Members of the European Parliament and the whole sorry system of European agricultural subsidies. Please keep reporting on the issue.
The magnitude of hypocrisy is breathtaking: The European Parliament rejected candidates for European Commissioner posts due to conflict of interests while it has no problem in letting members who receive subsidies vote for the same subsidies. How does this not erode trust in the Parliament?
We have a Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 15 of that treaty recognises civil society's role in the EU's good governance.
Article 11 of the treaty stresses the need for the EU to have an open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society organisations, e.g. when preparing proposals for EU laws.
Examples of such organisations include: social partners (trades unions & employers' groups); non-governmental organisations (e.g. for environmental & consumer protection); grassroots organisations (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/civil_society_organisation.html)
That shows just the same breathtaking magnitude of hypocrisy as the Parliament. How does this not erode trust in the Council?
6
It would be more informative to compare and contrast EU farm subsidies with USA farm subsidies. I have a hunch that there’s plenty of corruption on both sides of the pond.
6
Anytime government hands out a benefit, it is inevitable that someone somewhere finds a way to position himself at the trough. If it is not the politicians themselves, it will be those who contribute to their campaigns. As long as pols depend on monetary donations for their careers, it is unavoidable that many will figure it cheaper and easier to simply buy influence with such donations than to build their business otherwise.
7
@Kurt Spears
Of course, this is the fatal flaw in Socialism - or even classic Democratic Party policies. It's why even in the states we have so many "limousine liberal". They have limousines because they are skimming money from the programs presented as helping the people.
5
With 40% of the EU's budget going on subsidy for a sector representing 1% of its economy, via an opaque and suspect process, does that not call into question the legitimacy of the whole institution of the EU?
And yet, in other articles and comments, the general tenor of the NYT approach is critical of those favouring the UK's exit from the institution. Is there not a contradiction here?
We seem to hear the message that we should hope to reform the processes of the EU from within, but surely - after forty years with precious little progress, and seeing the many structural problems cited in this article, that is a forlorn hope.
11
Agree with you, however; what we’ve learned is that regardless of who governs, subsidies will always be exploited by the wealthy. Exiting from the EU will not stop the corruption. The UK conservative government will in fact go after the poor even harder, not because they dislike the poor, but because the poor have no representation in government.
4
@Londoner It's hugely inefficient, but it is effective. The food chain in the EU is safe and largely self-sufficient.
By the way 80% of the environment protection laws in the UK are EU legislation. If you think the EU is corrupt, watch what will happen when those disappear.
1
Thank you for this outstanding investigative journalism.
Loved both of the E.U. framing subsidies pieces.
Central and Eastern Europe was fertile ground for former nomenklatura technocrats and oligarchs. The legacy of centralized agriculture under communism and subsequent fragmentation of agricultural land via privatization created perfect conditions for graft.
The main aim of entrepreneurs as A.Babis was to control as much land as possible (ownership or rent) to target E.U. and domestic subsidies in agriculture and environmental protection.
It would have also been interesting to mention that small farmers in the Czech Republic joined the mass protests 'Million Moments for Democracy' recently. The demonstrations are for (liberal democracy) and the rule of law. They aim to prevent PM Babis' attempts to turn 'State to a Firm.'
10
Food production is national security. Farmers must be in good financial shape to produce food in their land. And farm subsidies are part of a necessary step to keep production going.
Of course EU can do a better job in dealing with money. Considering the total EU budget of 165 billions Euro a year in 2019, farm bill of $65 billion dollars is a lot of money. No one will open a business of losing money. But every business will take a risk of making money even if the penalty merely means to pay back the subsidies.
One simple solution is to increase several folds of the subsidies if found guilty of corruption. No business will take a big risk if the consequence is unbearable.
4
@Usok Food security is national security, you're right. I think one of the challenge facing the EU now is: They built their system on the back of farm subsidies at a time when famine gripped the continent. A half-century later, society's goals have changed but the political system is built to resist change, to keep the money coming. How do you change the subsidies without tearing at the fabric of the EU?
8
The EU agricultural policy is wrong in every way.
It´s highly regeressive, as it strongly subsidizes large land owners, rather than small farmers. For the same reason it does not favor local food production or helps preserve the traditional rural lifestyle.
It´s economically inefficient: it subsidizes EU agriculture, to the prejudice of more efiicient foreign producers. It represents unfair competition versus producers in less developed countries. Why is the EU so concerned with defending free trade, free competition and fighting government subsidies in all economic areas, except agriculture?
And it costs us EU residents lots of money.
9
@NIK The argument goes something like this: We can have free trade on things like cell phones because, even if the global market shifts and the EU doesn't end up making any cell phones, people there will be fine. The cost may rise and the EU may have to import its phones, but that's not the end of the world.
Food is different. No country wants to be wholly reliant on food imports. Nobody wants to be vulnerable to foreign-created shortages or spikes in food prices. And farmland, once lost, is not easily recovered. So you can't entirely open your food supply to the whims of the market.
Our intention was not to argue the merits or disadvantages of farm subsidies as a policy. We wanted to take a look at this massive pool of money, show people where it goes, who benefits, and why.
10
I am from the Czech republic and approve every single word in this superb article about our prime minister Babiš. He is an impersonation of corruption. The irony is that his then new party gained votes by promising a wipeout of corruption. There were huge protests held against him in the recent months with hundreds of thousands people attending. Yet his party still shows 30% in polls. Don´t want to bore you with details, I just wanted to stress that this article is no exaggaration and clearly depicts situation in our country. Respect to the author!
55
@Jarek Thanks Jarek. I thoroughly enjoyed my time reporting in Prague and the beautiful countryside.
6
$65 billion/yr is one of the largest subsidies in the world? Then the American exclusion of premiums paid for employer-sponsored health insurance is the granddaddy of all subsidies approaching $400 billion annually. Ever wonder why people with great insurance want to keep it? And why employers aren’t terribly excited about losing that subsidy under Warren’s Medicare for All plan? Ah, change, we love it...except when it costs us anything.
23
@William McLaughlin
You're forgetting fossil fuels William, by far the greatest recipient of global subsidy largesse.
The US piece of which is $650 billion per year!
Step forward Kochs, Marathon oil etc. Mike Pompeo's people. T Rex's people.
3
Tip of the iceberg. Most Americans favour the EU because it makes life easy for the US. But it is a bit of an abomination, and the above is just the tip of a massive iceberg of corruption and unaccountability.
7
@Jonathan Westphal, this is nothing compared with the open corruption and backhanding going on in Britain.
No-one said the EU is perfect but it's better to address problems from within than as a powerless bystander.
6
Nonsense I’m afraid Jonathan. I note you don’t provide any evidence for your sweeping allegation EU farm policy is largely dictated by the individual countries at local level. This is called the principle of subsidiarity whereby things that ought to be done at local level are done at local level. Unfortunately like anything it is open to abuse. You should be criticising Eastern European corruption not the EU. To counteract this problem the EU could be given more power. But you’d oppose that too wouldn’t you? It is interesting to note that it was EU auditors who called the PM to account. The EU works. There just isn’t enough of it. This is both a Czech and an EU problem and like anything where money is involved and State competencies it won’t be easily solved.
1
How does this revelation (or so it is to me) play out in the U.K.? -> 1) how have these corrupt subsidies impacted UK agriculture? 2) were these facts widely known during the many Parliamentary votes since the Brexit referendum? 3) Is agricultural corruption just a tip of the iceberg (were the Leaver's correct that the whole EU is corrupt)? 4) And if so, is the UK - notwithstanding - still better off inside than outside the EU?
@Rethinking, Britain has tremendously benefited from said subsidies, without which many farms would have to close.
Farming support is a difficult topic, as consumers are used to cheap food for which they often pay less than what it would cost a local farmer to produce it. Which makes many farms not economically viable, but since farmers are voters, too, they have to be cared for.
Not much different than in the U.S.
8
@Rethinking The EU has failed to have it's account s signed off by the auditors for years. The UK was (and still is untill we leave) a net contributor to the EU pot. We pay far more in than we get back. The sooner we have left this disgusting empire which pretends to be deomcratic whilst patently not being so the better.
7
@Jason
The EU has been a convenient scapegoat for the tabloid crowd for decades. UK politicians like to blame EU for every evil they impose on you. Austerity? Home grown. NHS crisis? Homegrown.
If you only understood how much UK politicians demonised the EU while benefiting the proceeds, you might have a different view. And now that EU laws threaten tax havens the same oligarchs that brought you austerity and the NHS crisis have decided they can do without oversight and Brexit is the solution. So it's not much different in the UK, is it? "Just get it done" - a slogan for self harm if I ever saw one.
8
Everyday more and more corruption is uncovered. It must end at once. People are fed up. Enough is enough.
14
Actually your statement is untrue. More and more corruption is not being uncovered. And this alleged corruption is at the level of the sovereign country not the EU. The issue here is not corruption of the traditional kind where the funds have been abused or misapplied or diverted. It is about whether the policy set by some individual sovereign counties within the EU is set transparently or “fixed” to benefit powerful insiders.
This issue is coming up over and over again especially within some of the new Eastern European democracies where cronyism is rife. But fundamentally it is not a problem of the EU. It is an issue of corruption and democracy which then makes it a problem for the EU. More general issues of this nature are arising in Poland and Bulgaria. These are sovereign states.
In some senses this is similar to the old clash between state powers in the US and the federal Government. If some EU states don’t grasp the nettle here then the EU will have to try to set tougher rules. And that isn’t easy either because these states have a democratic say in those rules. Ah, if only life were more simple.
But it is important to point the finger of blame where it belongs and it isn’t largely at the EU.
5