(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
[conjunction] Sun and sand, wave noise and palm trees. Norwegian students lie on a beach in Brazil after lecture. It is warmer than in Norway, the money goes longer, the differences are greater. They are here to study culture and journalism.
Suddenly, a bunch of Brazilian young boys come running towards the students.
One of the students has packed the bath bags in a gold bag. The Brazilians tear their purse, and arrows off with an ipod and wallet.
At the same time, on the other side of the globe: Brazil's President Lula da Silva has lunch with the Norwegian government at Akershus Fortress in
Oslo. Lula would like to discuss trade policy: “The large agricultural subsidies are completely unacceptable. They make the rich countries richer
and the poor poor ». But he speaks to deaf ears. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), Norway will defend Norwegian business interests,
thinks Jonas Gahr Støre. Thus, Norway maintains a trade policy that legitimizes EU and US agricultural dumping.
This is how poor countries outperform, despite the fact that they actually produce goods cheaper.
Similar arguments about unfair global structures can be linked to the World Bank, debt, investment and tax havens, the list is
long. But to stick to the agricultural subsidies: "Protectionism prolongs dependence and underdevelopment," says Lula. With others
words: Norway robs Brazil. There are huge differences between metaphorical robberies and actual robberies. You have a bag. Someone steals it. You are innocent, the thief is guilty. Ran through the global structures is noticeably more complicated. You can't expect everyone to know how the WTO works, you can't even expect the people you talk to to have a bad idea of what the WTO is. Others will say that the WTO is fair, but at least we have the debate going on. And the most important thing is to get the debates on global structures up on the agenda.
When many reject the debate as too complicated, journalists have done a poor job. Journalists should ask about what is unfair,
what structures we should focus on. Instead, far too many journalists define politics as happening in the Storting, and cover each one
lose mouse beep from Løvebakken. I was recently in Brazil for a few weeks to teach the students in question journalism. I tried to show the difference between portraying poor countries as recipients of aid, and as trading partners. In practice, poor countries are portrayed almost exclusively as recipients. Perhaps that is precisely an important reason why Støre gets away with the shamelessly selfish
trade policy, almost without protest. But how do you portray the robberies that take place through the global structures as captivating as
to produce a robbery on the beach? The question is not rhetorically meant, submit suggestions.
