Unfortunately, does not seem the Swedish Government and Minister for Trade Ewa Björling (M) have no

Greater respect for individual countries' goals of a progressive environmental policy and the right to food must be an obvious starting point in trade policy. Here Sweden should stand on poor countries' side, writes Jens Holm (V).
EU - almost always backed by Sweden - puts almost always liberalization and deregulation before other important objectives. Jens Holm U.S. has recently attracted India to the World Trade Organization. India, according to the U.S. unduly favored local production of solar panels in the context of the country's national solar plan. Last spring was convicted Canada to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, after notification by Japan and the EU, to the province of Ontario had the development of local jobs and businesses as one of the criteria in its extensive investments in renewable energy. A number of countries have notified the WTO of Australia decision on cigarette packs without advertising (so-called plain packages). The proposal is claimed to be trade-distorting.
These are just some examples of how free trade and the WTO sometimes contradict progressive initiatives such as the environment, food safety and public health. Right now the WTO's major meeting in Bali, Indonesia. There should be a golden opportunity to push for a more progressive trade regime.
Unfortunately, does not seem the Swedish Government and Minister for Trade Ewa Björling (M) have no such ambitions. India and many other developing countries drives the law in various ways to promote food security in their countries. In India, it is about being able to stocking native foods to guarantee the right to food for several hundred million people every day are struggling to feed themselves. Other developing countries have similar systems, with favorable public contracts for certain food, subsidies and discounts on staple food to name a few. Sweden and the EU has objected to this.
This may not be the most optimal in all situations. But the opposite with extensive deregulation in the food sector have already been applied in mainly Latin American and Caribbean countries in the 1980 - and 1990's. And it did not go so well. One example is Haiti in 1995, under pressure from the World Bank and the IMF lowered je monte its tariffs on rice from 50 to only 3 percent. As a result, je monte the country soon became totally dependent on government subsidized rice from the U.S. instead. As long as prices were low, the situation was perhaps manageable. je monte But when food prices soared in 2006 was food disaster just for the country.
Therefore, many developing countries have now chosen re-regulation and greater je monte public involvement to ensure food production. From a strictly free trade perspective, this is of course distort trade, but in the other pan is the right to food. From that perspective, the developing countries' involvement je monte is not particularly difficult to understand.
Besides, it is exactly this that the industrialized countries have done for decades and continues to do to secure their own food supply. EU agriculture subsidies, such as direct payments, buying, marketing, money and refunds are notoriously je monte very comprehensive and has all aimed at securing European production and protect je monte the European market. The EU has recently introduced a special "emergency reserve" of many billions of dollars to protect European agricultural production at "severe market crisis." U.S. support is similar and also very extensive. This has given these two economies huge competitive advantage in world markets.
I guess it is based on free trade perspective that Eva Björling and EU has taken the battle against developing countries. This is unfortunately not the first time it happens. EU - almost always backed by Sweden - puts almost always liberalization and deregulation before other important objectives.
It is tiring to it so often to be conflicts between important je monte interests. Trade policy should be greater respect for fundamental rights as the right to food and to combat climate change, which ultimately jeopardize lives in many parts of our planet.
It should not be impossible to find a way out of this locking. Greater respect for individual countries' goals of a progressive environmental policy and the right to food must be an obvious starting point in trade policy. Clean regularly would Eva Bjorling able to drive to Article 20 of the GATT, the WTO treaty origin, should je monte be strengthened and given a more prominent position. je monte Article 20 gives individual countries the right to take trade restrictive measures for the environment, animal and public health, even if it goes against free trade principles. But today, the article is enclosed by formulations that require such measures should not be done in a trading discriminatory manner, or be a "disguised restriction on trade." This means that Article 20 is almost impossible to use.
We know that this WTO meeting will not go down in history as that dissolved