Why We Should Mobilize on the Sacramento Ministerial
By: Doyle Canning, Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project
www.biodev.org / wto@biodev.org
From June 23-25th 2003 the Ministers of Trade, Agriculture and Environment
from 180 nations, including all member states of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), will meet in Sacramento California at a summit hosted
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), USAID, and the US
State Department. An “Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology” will
run concurrently with the Ministerial to host multinational agribusiness
and biotechnology corporations. This summit, hosted by Secretary of
Agriculture Ann Veneman, will attract thousands of media outlets from
around the world, and will be an important stepping stone for enshrining
the primacy of US interests at the September negotiations of the Agreement
on Agriculture (AoA) in Cancun, Mexico. This summit gives social and
environmental justice movements in North America a unique opportunity to
converge, act in solidarity with movements around the world, and to
highlight some of the most pressing issues of our time: the threat of
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to ecosystems and human health; the
ever widening gap between the very rich and very poor; the increasing use
of trade agreements to subvert democratic process; and the unchecked power
of multinational corporations to lay claim to our food, our farms, and our
future.
The Sacramento Ministerial is a strategic moment for social movements
concerned with stopping further trade liberalization, the implementation
of new trade agreements inside the WTO, and the implementation of a new
round of trade agreements including the Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Sacramento
Ministerial is a key preparation time for both the September WTO
Ministerial in Cancun and the Summit of the Americas scheduled for Miami
in November. The Sacramento Ministerial presents itself as a rare
opportunity to for activists to confront a policy making session which
will have enormous repercussions on all trade agreements. Without direct
opposition, trade policy will continue on its present course–pitted for US
corporate interests and against small farmers, ecosystems, and food
security in the South–through the Cancun meeting and into Miami.
The Agreement on Agriculture
Agriculture could well be the WTO’s Achilles’ Heel. A failure to reach
agreement on agriculture before the deadline of March 31 could unravel
negotiations in other areas like industrial tariffs, the new issues,
services, and TRIPs, leading to WTO Director General Supachai
Panitchpakdi’s great fear: lack of any movement toward consensus prior to
the Fifth Ministerial in Cancun, Mexico, in mid-September. A heavily
bracketed text showing lack of agreement on so many points, WTO
bureaucrats know only too well, helped precipitate the Seattle debacle
(Bello, 2003).
By all accounts, it is amply clear that agricultural trade liberalization
(together with trade liberalization and privatization measures
implemented under Structural Adjustment Programs) has indeed harmed small
farmers and impoverished the poor further, making them more food
insecure. Small and subsistence farmers in developing countries have
suffered loss of income and increased bankruptcies, displacement and loss
of land and heavy job losses in agriculture. The greater emphasis on
growing export cash crops in preference to food crops and the new trade
regime has also eroded the food supplies of low-income families in many
countries, and families are now reported to be eating fewer meals every
day (PANAP, 2002, pp. 9-10).
Since its inception at the Uruguay Round, the Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA) has been a disaster for rural communities and food security the
world over. Because of contentions around subsidies, GMOs, and
liberalization’s impact on trade in agriculture, the AoA is understood by
many analysts as the most volatile element of the current WTO
negotiations. The internal discord at the WTO over US and EU subsidies in
agriculture, as well as the inharmonious regulations of GMOs, could be the
lynchpin to derailing the entire WTO process. USTR Zoelleck has called the
EU ban on GMOs “immoral” and Veneman recently proclaimed that “our
(USDA’s) patience is just running out” (Becker, 2003). But recently an
anonymous senior White House official explained that “There is no point in
testing Europeans on food while they are being tested on Iraq” (Becker,
2003). There is inconsistency in the White House about when the most
strategic time to launch the suit is–not about why. Seen by US
corporations as “unfair barriers to trade” under WTO rules, the US plans
on taking the EU to the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO. Sacramento is
essentially a stage to showcase and force the “benefits” of GMOs to
Southern nations, show up the EU and condemn its precautionary stance on
GMOs, and be leveraged as an instrument for the US to assert its dominance
and push for a GMO future in agriculture, aquaculture and forestry.
USAID: Foreign Policy, Trade, and GMOs
Primarily financed by USAID, food aid is becoming the biggest market
mechanism for GM foods from the US which have been rejected elsewhere. The
undue pressure to import GM corn is not just promoting the dumping of
hazardous products that cannot be sold through free markets, the fact that
this corn could be contaminated with the Bt Starlink corn amounts to
feeding our children and nursing mothers a toxic cattle feed.
National Alliance of Women for Food Rights (India) March 7, 2003
USAID, also a co-sponsor of this event, was in the international spotlight
last summer for its aggressive use of “food aid” to southern African
nations to push GMOs. With the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development as a backdrop, this tool of US agribusiness insisted on
dumping whole corn kernels on the famine stricken nations of Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Malawi–nations that were forced to chose between GMO foods
that were unfit for human consumption, and starvation. They were also
being forced to open their markets to GMOs by default, as once these whole
kernels hit the ground, they could cross-pollinate and pollute non-GM
varieties, as has happened in Oaxaca Mexico.
USAID, under the guidance of the Bush Administration, also recently
launched a new regime of aid and development policy under the rubric of
the Millennium Challenge Account. The new policy, “Foreign Aid in the
National Interest: Promoting Freedom, Security and Opportunity,” was
unveiled at the Heritage Foundation in January. This is the “third major
foreign aid policy statement since the second world war” (USAID, 2003, p.
1)–the third major policy change since the historic meetings at Bretton
Woods at the end of WWII. The plan works in concert with the IMF and World
Bank to outline a policy of granting aid based on compliance with free
market reforms.
Levels of foreign assistance must be more clearly tied to development
performance and to demonstrations of political will for reform and good
governance. When leaders demonstrate willingness to undertake and follow
through on difficult political and economic reforms, they should receive
steady increases in aid from the United States and other donors (and) be
rewarded in other tangible ways: with debt relief, with incentives for
foreign investment, and with trade liberalization – such as the bilateral
free trade agreement recently granted to . The United States should use its
voice, vote, and full influence within the World Bank and other
multilateral development banks to terminate development assistance to bad
governments. The principles of U.S. foreign policy should extend into
international development – meaning that international financial
institutions should stop financing grossly corrupt (regimes). The United
States must work closer with other bilateral donors to coordinate pressure
on bad, recalcitrant governments (USAID, 2003, pp. 10-11).
USAID is yet another vehicle for US and corporate interests to further
tighten the noose on Southern nations who would think of straying away
from colonial relations with the North, hesitate to privatize, or embrace
land reform or strong labor and environmental laws. “With private
assistance predominating, U.S. official assistance will have to develop
stronger partner-ships with the full array of private sources” (USAID,
2003, p.2).
The Healthy Forests Initiative:
As debt and hunger continue in the South, structural adjustment and roll
backs at home are accelerating under the Bush Administration, the future
for our nation’s remaining national forests is under siege. Agriculture
Secretary Veneman recently hosted a press conference with Gale Norton and
President Bush on the so-called “healthy forests initiative,” a policy
that environmentalists warn is
similar to the 1995 logging-without-laws Salvage Rider, which suspended
environmental laws and banned pubic participation to allow commercial
logging for ‘forest health’ reasons. However, what we witnessed under the
Salvage Rider was ancient old-growth forests and roadless areas falling to
the chainsaw…In fact, enough trees were cut from our national forests
during the Salvage Rider to fill 800,000 log trucks lined up for over
6,800 miles. Unfortunately, if the Bush Administration gets their way, our
public forests will suffer the same consequences, only this time under the
guise of ‘fuel-reduction’ (Koehler, 2002).
The Threat of New GMOs: BioPharms, Wheat, Fish, Trees
Secretary Veneman is a former lawyer for Monsanto, and a key player in the
battles over introduction of new GMOs–like GMO wheat, fish, and trees.
GMO canola has destroyed the organic and non-GM canola farmers of the
Canadian Prairie. Canola, like wheat, has many close wild cousins, and now
wild plants have become Round-up resistant “super weeds.” Wheat farmers in
the Midwest of north America are fighting tooth and nail to stop the
commercialization of GMO wheat–as it will cross pollinate with thousands
of native grasses, as well as other food grains like barely and oats. And
then there is the push for a boom in so-called BioPharming–the insertion
of genetic drug genes into farm crops like corn. The biotech industry says
it will save the family farm, but this very technology poses massive
risks to the human food supply (the ProdiGene scandal of late 2002 where
pharmacrops were harvested from the field along with human food, is a case
in point.)
The stakes for farmers, and for our ecosystems, have never been higher.
Field trials of Genetically Engineered Trees are in hundreds of locations
in the United States, and the industry is developing trees which are
“Round-up Ready” or have reduced lignin content (the trait that makes
trees strong and stiff). While GMO corn pollen can travel by winds or
direct seed movement for a few miles, the pollen of trees travels hundreds
of miles. And as if that weren’t enough, the Bush Administration is
seeking approval for the commercialization of GE fish–salmon with super
growth hormones. Commercialization of GE insects and mammals aren’t far
behind.
The State Department, USAID, USDA
The trio sponsoring this biotech bash in California are also actors in the
so-called War on Terror. As Colin Powell brandishes teaspoons of
make-believe anthrax at the United Nations, USAID’s new policy proclaims
that the axis-of-good will be rewarded with bilateral trade agreements,
and those governments that stray from free market reforms will have US aid
cut off. The USDA integrated into the Department of Homeland Security, and
Veneman proclaimed her support for the DHS by calling it “bold and
visionary.” The new Department of Homeland Security will enhance the
already strong protections we have in place throughout the federal
government. It will also ensure a stronger line of defense against
potential threats to agriculture and our homeland” (USDA, 2002). The food
safety budget of the USDA has increased $42 million dollars, although this
is not an appropriation to adequately test GMO foods! USDA has initiated
47 criminal investigations related to counter terrorism and homeland
security activities (USDA, 2002).
WTO: The Road to Cancun:
Who, then, are the beneficiaries of the new trade regime? Those who hold
large resources of land and capital, (including water for agriculture),
control supplies of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides, and manipulate food supplies and prices in the international
market. These are mainly Transnational Corporations (PANAP, 2002, p. 12).
The WTO meeting in Cancun is a very important target for movements who are
fighting for a democratic future. Cancun will see the negotiation of
agreements on services (water, health care, and education); agriculture,
intellectual property, and the gamut of liberalization that puts corporate
profit before all else. While the discord over the war in Iraq steals the
headlines, the trade war over GM, agriculture, and market access between
the EU and the US is brewing and will unfold in Sacramento and Cancun. And
then there’s the looming FTAA, and the fast track to CAFTA, where
The Bush Administration will press for broad liberalization in market
access for goods and services, including e-commerce; the elimination of
non-tariff barriers; science-based food inspection systems; strong
protections for intellectual property and for investors; increased
transparency in government regulation and procurement; strengthened
capacity to protect workers and the environment; and meaningful dispute
settlement mechanisms(USTR, 2003).
Sacramento gives us an opportunity that we can’t afford not to embrace. It
is a moment to claim political space and to tell the world that the hungry
must have food, that we will build democracy and economic justice, and we
will reclaim an ecological future. It is a moment to indict neoliberalism
and to struggle for humanity. It is a moment we can not ignore.
No GMOs! No more hunger! Real Security is Food Security! No WTO!
Sources:
Official Site: http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/stconf/conf_main.htm
Corporate Exhibitor Site: http://www.exhibitpro.com/ministerial/
USDA press release on Sacramento: http://www.biodev.org/archives/000027.php
Works Cited:
AgAnswers (March 4, 2003)”HORSEWEED HIGHTAILING IT FROM HERBICIDE CONTROL”
Becker, E. (Feb 5, 2003) “U.S. Delays Suing Europe Over Ban on Modified
Food” The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/international/europe/05TRAD.html
Bello (2003) http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=5569 Is
Agriculture the WTO’s Achilles’ Heel? The Road to Cancun: Report from the
Tokyo Mini-Ministerial
Koehler, M (2002) Native Forest Network Statements Regarding President
Bush’s “Healthy Forest Initiative”
http://www.nativeforest.org/press_room/release_8_22_02.htm
Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (2002) Empty Promises: Empty
Stomachs: Impact of the Agreement on Agriculture and Trade Liberalization
on Food Security. PANAP: Penang, Malaysia.
US Embassy India (20 December 2002) Senators Urge WTO Dispute Case Against
EU Biotech Policy, http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_12/alia/a2122004.htm
USDA (2002) Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman Regarding the Creation of
a Department of Homeland Security www.usda.gov/biosecurity. Release No.
0006.02
USDA press release on Sacramento: http://www.biodev.org/archives/000027.php
USTR (January 8, 2003) United States and Central American Nations Launch
Free Trade Negotiations” http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2003/01/03-01.htm
