In a recent meeting between German
Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabrial, and Indian Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad,
the two discussed German and Indian financial investment relations along with
India’s concern over food security within the coming years. Gabrial allegedly
brought WTO concerns to the conversation in hopes that solutions could be
sought between the countries. Prasad expressed India’s concerns on food
security’s impact on WTO negotiations, and fears of how these issues may be
construed by the developed world. In short, India decided not to ratify WTO’s
Trade Facilitation Agreement, but instead asked for the organization to amend
the norms for calculating agriculture subsidies in order for the country to
continue feeding its lower class population on crops from its farmers. Gabrial
“respected the concerns of India with respect to food security.” Throughout the
meeting, the two continued to discuss trade negotiations and how each country
could improve various investments in order to help the other out.
In ways,
developing nations facing a food crisis can be viewed as an immense opportunity
for global change. These areas, while having food systems in place, also have
the potential to alter these systems before anything becomes too rooted within
developed institution. We now have the opportunity to build sustainable food
systems from the ground up, as opposed to working within or completely tearing
down faulty systems already in place (such as the case in the US). This
potential brings with it immense challenges, but also offers a hope that may
not yet be entirely explored. The optimism within this article, however, was
not necessarily focused on such radical, romantic ideas.
The article at first offers a glimmer
of light in a world where it seems as if we are all only attempting to oppose
and out-play one another, but it also leaves the reader with a sense of suspicion
due to the ambiguity of trade subsidy regulation. Nations reaching out to one
another in order to band together and fight the food security crisis is
certainly ideal, but when it is done in terms of investments and trade, an
amount of idealism feels lost. Upon reading, it is also hard to ignore that key components of India's food security issues, such as corruption and sustainability, were not addressed. India has nearly doubled its food supply in the last two decades, yet 21 percent of the population remains undernourished. Pouring more money into subsidizing the world's second largest grain stockpile (behind China) seems to sidestep the issue of the corrupt government that refuses to find ways to actually get the food to its starving people. Within this meeting it does not appear as if the men discussed sustainable practices either, so much as ways to continue building business and industry in order to increase funds. At this point in our knowledge on sustainable food systems, it is fairly certain that a more long-lasting prosperity will come from better treatment of soils and diversified crops, rather than continuing to mono-crop wheat and rice.
At this point, we are left with numerous questions that we must not only ask, but beg answers for as well. Should India have to convince Germany of their
imminent economic growth due to industry booms (an inherent institutional
opposition to sustainable agricultural practices) in order to receive further
investments to continue the mass subsidization of crops to feed starving people? Is it a pro or con that
the food crisis has moved beyond a humanitarian issue and onto hard economics?
Is this a sign of real, tangible progress, or a step backward in human morals
and values? It is clear that sustainable development requires such funds, but how can we determine that incoming money will be allocated in this manner? And upon negotiations such as these, when
did the food itself fall into the background?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/business/global/a-failed-food-system-in-india-prompts-an-intense-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment