The governments of wealthy countries met at the G8 summit to discuss their plans for assistance to poor countries. In this context, they decided to mobilize 15 billion dollars to fight against hunger in the world. Yet at the same time and for decades, they finance systems to protect their own agriculture that are likely to distort the rules of international trade in this vital sector for many developing countries that do not an industry or service sector sophisticated enough to trigger a significant development and diversified. However, poor countries can not afford to establish and maintain such protection systems, which shows that protectionism is the weapon of the rich countries. In a duel, if both fighters can only have one shield, the nobility imposed for not taking the shield for a level playing field. Alas, the picture is unfortunate, suggesting that trade is a war then he is the substitute. But international trade can degenerate into economic war if we forget the rules underpinning the international exchange and which have been established at Bretton Woods on the occasion of the creation of the GATT (now WTO).
This case is precisely a deadlock in the negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Today it is emerging that require dismantling of the protective systems in force in major industrialized countries (USA, Europe, Japan).
The best help that can make rich countries is to stop this double game No amount too big or it will never be enough if we do not touch the system that profoundly disrupts international trade. It's like the famous hole in Social Security, no money ever fill hole if it does not change the system whose mode of operation is at the very origin of abyssal deficit.
In 1944, the countries gathered at Bretton Woods knew that free trade is a prerequisite for fairer trade and win for all participants, hence the signing of an international free trade (GATT ). At that time, nobody had forgotten that during the inter-war years, the world had sunk into a deep depression on a background of economic warfare nurtured by the withdrawal of all countries. No one had forgotten to prepare for war, Hitler's Germany had taken care out of international trade to ensure autonomy (self-sufficiency) may make it independent of those it intends to attack. The confrontation of national protectionism leads to economic warfare which is the opposite of the exchange, which is often a precursor to war at all. And in the economic war, only emerge victorious countries who can afford to raise an army (tariff barriers, standards).
But ultimately no one wins a war economy. The economy is not a war but a competition. Companies are racing to compete for customers not kill them. No country has interests to impoverish its partners who are likely to be new markets.
From this point of view, even if they are essential to ensure food safety and hygiene or to protect the environment, abuse of standards and regulations is a disguised form of protectionism whose first victims are developing countries.
0 comments:
Post a Comment