(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
It's towards the end of the interview, when I ask
the development minister if he believes Brazil
President Lula da Silva will prefer
to negotiate with Solheim (SV), either
than Minister of Agriculture Terje Riis-Johansen (Sp),
that the mood starts to get worse. In the beginning
of the interview, when we talked about the progressive
the potential of stronger global institutions was
the atmosphere good. Erik Solheim cracked and chirped.
But now he is turning more and more in the chair.
- Must declare sovereignty
In the last three weeks, Ny Tid has run a series on
the political dividing line between global and national
oriented policy. One of the most important power men
in this context, environmental and
Minister of Development Erik Solheim. Or wait a minute,
is really Solheim as relevant as one should
believe?
Let's start with the big questions.
If we imagine a globally oriented policy
which is about strengthening global institutions
one side and a nationally oriented policy
which is more concerned with safeguarding national sovereignty
on the other hand: Can be nationally oriented
policies prevent us from seeing new solutions for the world
poor?
-Everything that can be solved locally should be solved locally. But
after all, more and more decisions are global in nature.
This applies to the environment, safety, diseases
etc. The United States has suffered a number of defeats in relations
to the idea that they can change the world alone. We
need better global mechanisms to deal with
environmental crises, security and poverty issues.
To strengthen the global level, everyone must give a little
sovereignty, says Solheim.
In New Time March 7, Professor Walden Bello wrote
that globalization should be phased out. He represents
hence the opponents of globalization, as often
claims that the World Trade Organization (WTO)
should be shut down. But between opponents of globalization
and liberals there is a group we can
call globalization critics, who will not wind up
globalization, but rather democratize
globalization. Opponents of globalization
and critics do not lie
necessarily so far apart
on the political right-left axis,
but on the axis between nationally and globally oriented
Politics is there for miles between them. Central
critics of globalization are David Held, (New Time 29.
February), and Joseph Stiglitz, (February 22). Also
Atle Sommerfeldt, Secretary General of the Church
Emergency aid, belongs to this category. In New Time
last week he stated that the WTO is the most democratic
of the international institutions, however
that Norway has ended up in bed with the EU and the USA in
the issue of agricultural subsidies.
These globalization critics are more positive
set to the WTO than the opponents of globalization,
because they think the WTO has the muscles to
punish violations with trade sanctions such as
really stings. They also believe that through
The WTO can bind the little ones
gulliver to the ground, that is, to the poor
countries are stronger when they negotiate
together. The critics of globalization
also talks about the WTO being that organization
which is best equipped to enforce global
labor rights.
What does Solheim think about the WTO?
-As a small country, Norway is particularly dependent on
to have a functioning international regulatory framework. We must
work to strengthen the UN, but in the area of trade
is the WTO we must deal with and try to
improve.
Divide in government
-There are examples of conflicts of interest between
business interests in the south and business interests in Norway,
for example on agriculture?
- There will always be some conflicts of interest
between business interests in the south and Norwegian business interests,
including in the field of agriculture. But
Foreign investment is important for development.
Just look at the successful countries in East Asia. But they
the poorest countries do not sell anything to us, to
despite the fact that there are no customs walls. They have little to
export and unable to meet Norwegian standards
on quality, such as environmental requirements.
-But what about the countries that are a little over
the bottom?
-There have been real conflicts of interest in the agricultural field
between Norway and countries such as India and
Brazil. Although these countries can be defined as
middle-income countries, there are about the same number
poor in India as in all of Africa, says Solheim.
Ny Tid received the opposite answer from State Secretary Ola
T. Heggem in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
(Q) when we on October 19, 2007 he asked if it is
contradictions between Norwegian business interests and
business interests in developing countries. “There is no one
such a conflict of interest ", said Heggem to Ny Tid.
Trade is the key
Erik Solheim is very excited about Paul Colliers
book The Bottom Billion.
-You have said that this book shows a third and
smarter way. What do you mean?
-The international discussion on development policy
has long been dominated by two
ways to think. On one side are the thoughts
to Jeffrey Sachs that more assistance can solve the whole
the problem of poverty. On the other hand, we have
William Easterly's book White Man's Burden, som
claims that today's aid does not work and maybe
also helps to hurt worse.
Paul Collier is much more nuanced. He believes that
aid can never solve world poverty alone,
but is one of many important tools to
remove it. Development policy is about achieving
international regulations, change framework conditions
and turn around large cash flows. Then assistance can be used
a little smart to get to this, and maybe too
as a reward when real changes are made.
Small money from aid will be used to influence
large cash flows in oil, war, trade or
corruption. To fight poverty we can
not just charity, we must dare to challenge
existing power structures, says Solheim.
-Collier believes trade is very important for development.
You have said about the book that you share Collier's analysis
of the world trade regime, but that you are skeptical of
protectionism. Does that mean you are not a fan of
the principle of food sovereignty? The principle implies
the right to decide for oneself to what extent a country will
supply their own population with self-produced food, that is
that every country should have total sovereignty in its design
of own agricultural policy?
-Total sovereignty has no land in our modern,
tightly integrated world. But everyone must have security
that you have access to food for your own
population, for example in times of crisis. It is difficult
to imagine that all countries would produce everything
for themselves. At the same time, it is important that poor countries
receive special schemes so that they can protect their domestic markets
in a start-up phase, Solheim believes
Disagree with the party program
-But in the party program it says that SV supports the principle
about food sovereignty?
-No one is totally superb. But poor countries must
have the opportunity to protect themselves against subsidized goods
from the rich, says Solheim.
The exact wording of SV's party program is
the following: «Trade in food cannot be equated
with trade in other goods. SV supports the principle
on food sovereignty, that is, a country's right to itself
determine the extent to which it will supply its own population
with food. Norway must therefore work for everyone
countries should be able to protect their ability to produce
food and to fight hunger and malnutrition. "
-Collier further believes that Fairtrade works against its
purpose. Do you agree?
-The most important function of Fairtrade is to
put pressure on the rest of the system. Fairtrade is not
the solution, but can be one of several tools
to improve conditions for workers and the environment as well
in the production of goods that are not Fairtrade certified.
-Many claim that short-haul food is the same as
environmentally friendly food. What do you think about it?
-It is often difficult to calculate. Local food
is not necessarily environmentally friendly food. Short trip
food, for example, can have large emissions of chemicals
in the production process or high energy consumption.
If I had told the Prime Minister of India that
short-haul food is the same as environmentally friendly food,
he would immediately stamp such a claim
as protection of us rich, says Solheim.
Does not trade
-You often point out that you are not Minister for Development Aid,
but Minister of Development. African Union (AU)
says that trade is more important than aid. But you are not
helps to shape Norwegian trade policy through
WTO negotiations. Why not?
-WTO is not under my political responsibility.
But that does not mean I do not work
to strengthen the trading conditions of developing countries.
Increased participation in international trade is important for
to create economic growth and fight poverty.
But market access is not enough. Many developing countries
has insufficient production capacity,
weak institutions, poorly developed infrastructure
and little experience and competence to be able to act
effectively across national borders. The government
has presented a separate action plan for trade-oriented
development cooperation. In the increased Norwegian effort
in the area, emphasis shall be placed on creating
open and predictable framework for economic growth
and trade, through the fight against corruption and
contribute to good governance in developing countries. We shall
emphasize women's participation in economic
business, says Solheim.
-But based on the statement from AU: there is a
paradox that it is the Minister of Agriculture who follows
with the Foreign Minister to the WTO negotiations,
and not you?
-WTO is outside my area of responsibility, I want
do not go further into this.
- «The large agricultural subsidies are completely unacceptable,
because they make the rich countries richer, at the same time
as the poor get poorer, "said Brazilian President Lula
da Silva when he visited Oslo this autumn. What is your comment?
-When it comes to subsidies, the main problem is that
they lead to agricultural dumping from countries like the United States
and the EU, and I think Norway's opportunity to influence
these countries are very limited.
-But it is really a valid argument that although
Norwegian politics is bad, so are others
worse, why do we not need to do something?
-WTO is outside my area of responsibility, I want
do not go further into this.
-Norway runs completely different tariffs on further processed
goods than raw materials, at the same time as developing countries should only get
allowed to sell us goods that do not conflict with Norwegian
interests, this means that we help to keep
poor countries down in a commodity trap? Is this a neocolonial
trade policy?
-WTO is outside my area of responsibility, I want
do not go further into this
-But based on your thoughts that everyone should give a little
of its national sovereignty to strengthen the global
arena, I think Lula da Silva would rather you beat
accompany the Foreign Minister to the WTO negotiations
than that the Minister of Agriculture travels. My impression
is that you would like to pursue a different trade policy
than the one Norway leads today, but that the Minister of Agriculture
here get through for a different mindset?
-WTO is outside my area of responsibility, me
do not want to go further into this, concludes
Solheim.
