The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (MOGAHA) is causing a controversy for taking a Seoul city ordinance requiring that only Korean farming and fish products be used in school meals to the Supreme Court for being in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations. The Supreme Court is already set to issue decisions in similar cases against education ordinances in North Jeolla and South Gyeongnam.
It should be all too obvious that at a time when all schools have school meals, the young and upcoming generation should be given meals that are environmentally friendly and made of quality ingredients. To that end each locale has a campaign headquarters for the movement to have the desired ordinances enacted, and more than 1 million signatures have been collected. That can be considered a good case study for the civic movement.
The government, however, is opposing the ordinances, waving an "equal treatment clause" as it does so, saying you cannot discriminate between foreign and domestic agricultural products because it violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
What would first be worth thinking about is the fact that commerce and legal experts are not in agreement as to whether the school lunch ordinances really violate the GATT. One argument holds that domestic ingredients purchased with public funds is "government procurement," being that the idea is to provide a basis of support for local governments' school meal funds. "Government procurement" is a recognized exception in the "equal treatment clause." Indeed, the United States and many other nations are using their home-grown farm products.
Another problem is that a judgment from the Supreme Court is only valid within the context of domestic law. If a trading partner takes issue with the ordinances the issue will have to go to be resolved within the framework of the WTO, and the general view is that realistically speaking it would be hard to find a country that would really take issue with these ordinances.
Korea lives mainly off of its exports of manufacturing products, and so it has little authority to speak up with in the area of farm products and it will be definition be defensive. So one can understand the government's painful position about not a trade issue erupt over farming products. That being the case, what reason is there to make the change without being required to?
The Hankyoreh, 24 March 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Think Differently About School Lunches |
