US: US to Host Fake Ministerial in Sacramento to Push Biotech
Between June 23-25, 2003, the USDA, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department will host a conference on Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento. For developing countries, this means biotechnology. Three ministers from every developing country (except Cuba, and those countries astride the so-called 'axis of evil') will be invited. Add on a press corps in the hundreds, and it's clear that, internationally at least, this is something of a big deal. Here are some reasons to mobilize against it.
It's Illegitimate:
The U.S. is trying to hijack a UN-sponsored multilateral process. The summit itself is a result of power politics at the last World Food Summit, held in 2002 in Rome. In exchange for references to GM in the final declaration, references which were opposed by every other country, the US said that it would sponsor a debate on the merits of biotechnology. Given that the Ministerial is also an Expo, it seems as if the State Department and its friends have already made up their mind not only that biotech is worth having, but worth selling aggressively. This isn't what they promised at all, and other states have every right to feel aggrieved.
It's Corporate Welfare:
Last year, Monsanto made in excess of $2.5bn profit, and the recent wave of mergers with big pharmaceutical companies puts vast resources at the fingertips of the biotechnology corporations. The biotech market hasn't been doing so well recently, and the U.S. government has opened its purse strings to them, through aggressive promotions schemes. The U.S. Agency for International Development recently sent a communiqu to its country branches instructing officers immediately to inform them, and the USDA, if countries were refusing to accept U.S.genetically modified food aid. The Sacramento ministerial is just another part of this strategy, and it amounts to this: U.S. taxpayers are shelling out millions to sponsor some of the richest companies on earth in a trade fair.
It Comes From the People Who Brought You 'Free Trade':
The EU has amoratorium on GM food at the moment, which costs U.S. agribusiness dear. They would very much like for the moratorium to go away. If the rest of the world were to become GM-friendly, the EU would have much less international support for its position than it now does. Agriculture is rapidly emerging as a key stumbling block in the WTO. The more difficult we can make it for the U.S. to have its way, and the bolder third world governments are in resisting U.S. coercion, the less likely that the WTO Ministerial in Cancun will succeed. We don't yet know whether the U.S. will take the GM issue to the WTO. For them, the best outcome would be a de facto victory for GM. If third world countries accept GM, the EU might be coerced without recourse to the WTO. This is important for the FTAA too. The U.S. is keen to push stringent intellectual property rights in the FTAA, to double-bind states that have already signed up to the WTO TRIPS agreement. And the agricultural negotiations for the FTAA look like they're going to be bumped into the WTO, since agreement can't be reached within the FTAA process over the vast U.S. subsidies. Sacramento, Cancun and Miami are steps on the road to corporate domination of agriculture, food systems, and science, in opposition to sustainable communities anddemocratic choice over what we eat, and who grows it. This cannot be allowed to pass.
It's Unnecessary:
GM food doesn't feed the hungry, and independent U.S. farmers don't want it. Take the U.S. for example. The U.S. has the most well developed GM food production and distribution system in the world. Yet the number of people in the U.S. going to bed at night hungry has never been higher. (They were not doing so well before either). In other words, there's plenty of food in the U.S. It's just that in the U.S., 36 million people (USDA's figures) are just too poor to afford it. And if that's the case in the U.S., it's unlikely to be any different in the third world. The issue here isn't whether we are able to produce enough food. It's about which corporations get to make the profits. What supports that US farmers don't want itrefer to that as well.
It's Part of the U.S. Government's Shell Game on Social Issues:
There's some sleight of hand going on here. The U.S. government, and its corporations, are keen to shift debates around hunger away from issues of distribution towards issues of production. The fact is that there's more than enough food in the third world to feed the hungry. (See Food First's classic, World Hunger: 12 Myths, 2nd Edition) Leaving it to the market to apportion it, however, is a recipe for starvation.
- 110 Trade Justice