2018**DESTABILIZING THROUGH SANCTIONS
DESTABILIZING VENEZUELA- RAMIFICATIONS ON LATIN AMERICA, AND
TIME LINE
Synthesis/Regeneration home page | S/R 19 Contents
Is the 2030 goal for hunger eradication realistic?
UNITED NATIONS, 13 June 2013 – With less than three years before a 2015 deadline, the developing world is largely expected to miss one of the U.N.’s key Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): halving the number of people living in extreme poverty and hunger.
Despite limited progress, there are still more than 1.4 billion people – out of a total global population of over seven billion – who live below the poverty line of 1.25 dollars and on the razor edge of starvation.
“On the quicksand of development, predictions are dangerous.” — Ambassador Ernest Corea
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has, however, identified at least 16 countries that have already reached the 1996 World Food Summit’s goal of halving the total number of undernourished people.
“This was made possible by the priority the government has set on ensuring the right to food and polices it has implemented,” says FAO Director-General Jose Graziano da Silva.
The 16 countries – namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chile, Cuba, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and VietNam – will be honoured at an FAO ceremony in Rome on Jun. 16.
Meanwhile, in a report released last month, a high-level panel of eminent persons has projected a 2030 deadline to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger from the face of the earth.
But how realistic is this new deadline?
Ambassador Ernest Corea, who served for nearly 19 years on the staff of the World Bank’s secretariat for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), told IPS: “On the quicksand of development, predictions are dangerous.”
Two missed monsoons could upend whatever progress has been made towards reaching this goal, he noted.
“Still, it is better to reach out towards a worthwhile objective than to do nothing at all.”
Hunger is a cruel and debilitating scourge. Malnutrition, often the by-product of hunger, causes the deaths of three million children per year, he added.
“Reversing this tragic situation is a goal worth striving for,” said Corea, a former Sri Lankan ambassador to the United States.
Dr. Joan Russow of the Canada-based Global Compliance Research Project told IPS one of the reasons for the failure of the MDG1 might have been because the urgency was not effectively communicated by using the word “halving”.
The goal should have been “eradicating extreme hunger and poverty and then delineating the drastic means to do so,” she said.
“It will only be possible to do so in 2030 if the global community drastically alters current global practices,” said Russow, a longtime peace and environmental activist.
These include, at a minimum, prohibiting land grabs for biofuel production around the world; establishing a global ban on genetically engineered food and crops, promoting organic agriculture and instituting a fair and just transition for farmers and communities affected by the ban.
Additionally, she said, there should be a ban on the production and use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids, which have been destroying the world’s honeybee population.
Frederic Mousseau, policy director at the San Francisco-based Oakland Institute, an independent policy think tank, told IPS the 2007-2008 food price crisis has mostly resulted in wishful thinking at international conferences that food security can be accomplished.
“However, silver bullet policy solutions, for instance suggesting foreign investment in agriculture will result in food security, ignore the unprecedented land rush over the last five years to grab the natural resources – land, water, forests – that the poorest depend on for their livelihoods.”
He said: “We know there are enough resources to feed everyone; it is therefore possible to eradicate hunger by 2030.”
However, this would require a major overhaul of current food security and development policies, which would have to focus on supporting the livelihoods of the rural poor in developing countries, protecting their rights to land and access and control over natural resources and promoting sustainable production methods.
Corea pointed out it would be a worthwhile exercise for a small working group convened by the FAO to review the record of the 16 countries and determine what common policies and practices among them contributed to their success.
Was it good governance? A crackdown on corruption? The development through research of enhanced sustainable productivity? Something else?
The findings of such a review would be invaluable to other countries.
Russow told IPS there are also other urgent issues that have to be resolved in order to eradicate hunger by 2030, including climate change.
She said there should be a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – primarily by conserving carbon sinks, ending subsidies to fossil fuel industries and by seriously phasing out the production and use of fossil fuels and abandoning an animal-based diet in favour of a vegetarian diet.
She also called for a substantial reduction in global military budgets, and investments in socially equitable and environmentally sound transportation, and energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power.
Russow said there should be a revoking of the charters of transnational corporations, which, in pursuing unsustainable exploitative development, have destroyed food security around the world.
And the world should abide by the legally binding International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, reaffirming that everyone has the right to be free from hunger and enshrining the right to food and drinking water.
She said it is necessary to move away from the over-consumptive model of consumption and towards an effective programme of conservation, coupled with a serious reduction of the ecological footprint.
Additionally, Russow said, there should be a cancellation of the “devastating debt of developing states”, and the abandoning of structural adjustment programmes by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the elimination of the World Bank’s ill-conceived projects.
By Thalif Deen
This article was provided by Inter Press Service News Agency.
To access the original article click here.
Occupy the Wall!
PRINCIPLES REFLECTED IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: OBLIGATIONS INCURRED AND
EXPECTATIONS CREATED 1999
Canada is both victim and villain at the WTO” printed in the Times Colonist
Declaration of Ilha Bela
1998 PRINCIPLES OF COMPLIANCE DERIVED FROM INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS: BASIS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF MANDATORY INTERNATIONAL NORMATIVE STANDARDS (MINS)
IS CANADA ALSO A ROGUE NATION?
1998 REDEFINITION OF “DEVELOPMENT” IN EQUITABLE AND
ECOLOGICAL TERMS
DEREGULATION ,VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE,AND THE DELUSIONS OF THE CLEAN-UP INDUSTRIES GLOBE 1998
1998 CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TREATY (TREATY OF ETHICS, EQUITY AND
ECOLOGY
1998 Circulated proposed resolutions for Jean Chretien’s on New Years
1998 PRINCIPLES OF COMPLIANCE
Government/Industry Collusion Must End: Ban Genetically Engineered Foods And Crops
November 5 1997 letter to Kofi Annan and response from Nitun Desai
Synthesis/Regeneration 19 (Spring 1999)
by Joan Russow (Ph.D) National Leader of the Green Party of Canada
For too long the dialogue around genetically engineered foods and crops has been around the issue of labelling. Given the unattended consequences of this technology, and the emerging science related to its hazards, coupled with the global commitment to the precautionary principle, it becomes imperative to institute a complete ban on genetically engineered foods and crops. The essence of the precautionary principle is that where there is a threat to the environment and to human health the lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent the threat. Too often governments wait for harm to occur before acting and consequently we are living in the wake of years of negligence related to practices and substances introduced into the ecosystem.
Government/Corporate Collusion
Government and industry are again being negligent with the introduction of genetically engineered foods (euphemistically called “novel foods” ). These genetically engineered foods have been approved in Canada at least since 1994: insect-resistant corn, high oleic acid canola, Glufosinate tolerant corn, Glyphosate Tolerant canola, Colorado Potato Beetle resistant potato etc. Once approved using Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods (Health Canada, 1994), growers can buy seeds from anywhere. In addition to the foods and crops already registered for use throughout Canada, there are field trials of genetically engineered foods and crops. The whereabouts of these trial fields is withheld because of fear of vandalism.
The federal government and all provincial governments have been promoting and facilitating the registration of genetically engineered food and crops euphemistically called “novel foods” in Canada.
Agriculture Canada along with other government departments has prepared an open-for-business brochure, Investing in Canada’s Dynamic Agricultural Biotechnology Sector, including a map of Canada with Promo from each province. In this brochure the governments boast that “Thousands of field trials of Ag-biotech products are already in process, more than in the entire European Union.”
In this brochure the governments are offering the following enticements:
- “the access to a NAFTA market worth 8.5 trillion dollars (US) in GDP ….”many international companies are locating operations in Canada because it offers secure access to the richest marked in the world, North America.
- “successful partnerships with universities, industry and governments; …the agriculture sector benefits from more than 10,000 new post-secondary graduates in agricultural and biological sciences each year…and that investors in Canada’s Ag-biotech sector will find: a staff of approximately 30,000 including 10,000 specializing in Ag-biotech”;
- “comprehensive financial incentives” such as “best R& D tax credits among leading industrialized countries” “large companies can qualify for a federal tax credit of 20% on eligible R&S spending. That credit can be enough to eliminate federal income tax for some companies. It cuts taxes significantly for many others”. Small Canadian-controlled companies can qualify for a federal tax credit of 35 % on their first $2 million in R&D. That tax credit is also fully refundable”.
A job creation program: but at what cost!.
Citizens’ Action
Citizens must Call For Banning Of Genetically Engineered Foods And Crops: The First Grassroots Gathering on Biodevastation: Genetic Engineering took place in St Louis, USA on July 17-19 1998. This international conference brought together over 200 scientists, NGO representatives, political parties and other citizens. I attended the conference for the purpose of encouraging the groups and individuals opposed to genetically engineered food and crops to unite in calling for the banning of genetically engineered food and crops.
In my session I presented the Bio-devastation Declaration calling for the Banning of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops which I had drafted prior to the conference and then had expanded during the conference by adding the strong statements made by other participants such as Vandana Shiva. The Declaration was approved in principle by the plenary and resolutions were passed related to measures against genetically engineered foods and crops and related issues. Text of the revised final St. Louis Biodevastation Declaration.
At a press conference on Tuesday September 29 in the Parliamentary press Gallery, in Ottawa, I presented a formal petition calling for the Banning of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops to the media. This petition calls upon the Federal government to do the following:
- To ban all genetically engineered foods and crops;
- To require a formal survey of Canadians in which the proven and potential health and environmental hazards are disclosed and that unless there is a consensus in Canada to retain the existing foods and crops all existing genetically engineered foods to be taken off the market;
- To require growers, food wholesalers and retailers to immediately and fully disclose the proven and potential health and environmentally hazards of genetically engineered foods and crops currently in production and for sale, and only thereafter to obtain a formal and written consensus from their consumers as to the future presence within the main stream Canadian food supply of existing genetically engineered foods and crops;
- To require a formal across Canada survey in which the proven and potential health and environmental hazards are disclosed and that unless there is a consensus in Canada to retain the existing foods and crops all existing genetically engineered foods must be taken off the market;
- To disband the human genome diversity project and put an end to the colonization of the genes of indigenous people;
- To cease all involvement with “bio-piracy” and misappropriation of the knowledge of indigenous peoples;
- To ban “terminator” seed technology and to cease all “terminator” tests and ban its application.;
- To lobby internationally for the banning of all genetically engineered foods and crops;
- To discontinue all funding to universities for research into the development of genetically engineered foods and crops;
- To prohibit all corporate funding for genetically engineered food and crops of universities;
- To keep forests, farms and food safe, and opposing the genetic engineering of all plants and animals;
- To abolish patents of genetic sequences and living organisms in the form of “intellectual property rights”;
- To encourage smaller-scaled organic farming, local food systems, home-scale gardening, and ecosystem restoration, and oppose the consolidation of corporate and mono-crop farming and their reliance on genetic engineering and toxic herbicides and insecticides.
One of the opposition health critics in Parliament has undertaken to put this petition on the floor of the House of Commons. The Green Party of Canada has set up a “Banning Genetically engineered foods and crops” fund where citizens can contribute money and receive tax receipts.
The Green Party Canada was instrumental in forming an Ad-Hoc Coalition for the Banning of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops which
coordinated the October 15 “Global Day of Action Against Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops”. On October 15, we donned lab coats and went in front of 8 supermarkets congratulating clients for being part of a global experiment. The Coalition also put together two street theatre skits on the “terminator gene” and the “transgenic cafe”. Both of these were performed in front of the Federal government office in Victoria and in front of the legislature of British Columbia. Also in front of the legislature,the Raging Grannies -the infamous singing activist group- poured simulated milk into a container to demonstrate against BGH and rBST.
At the institutional level in Canada the Senate of Canada held a series of hearing investigating rBST and the tampering with a gap analysis report which had been prepared by government scientists. This Committee meeting was well publicized particularly about the pressure from Monsanto on the scientists and about the shredding of documents.
I attended the first rally against Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-one of the major seats of genetic engineering in Canada. I visited the local office of Monsanto at the University of Saskatoon. On November 25, I gave a public lecture in Saskatoon at the library on the need to call for the Banning of Genetically Engineered foods and Crops.
The Green Party of Canada is circulating internationally the draft Bio-devastation Declaration against Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops with the hope of moving the dialogue opposing genetically engineered foods and crops from calling for labelling only to calling for outright banning.
Why Fate of Earth Must Not be Decided by US, Other Nuclear States
Through the current negotiations at the UN on nuclear weapons there is the global opportunity to save the world from the scourge of war.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRSWORLD26/APR/2017
Victoria: When the UN continues its negotiations in June for an international treaty against nuclear weapons, there must be a treaty that should cover every single aspect of the devastating weapons – and leading eventually to their total elimination from the world’s military arsenals.
As envisaged, the treaty should not only prohibit stockpiling; use and threat of use and planning for use of nuclear weapons but also the deployment; transfer, acquisition, and stationing; development and production of these weapons – along with testing; transit and transshipment; and financing, assistance, encouragement, and inducement and an obligation for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a framework to achieve it. (WILPH, Reaching Critical Will).
As Eva Walder, the Swedish representative to the UN’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, declared: “Sweden’s position is clear. The only guarantee that these weapons will never be used again is their total elimination.”
Through the current negotiations, there is the global opportunity to speak truth to power, to save the world from the scourge of war and to prevent and remove the threats to peace.
The US has stated that the treaty to ban nuclear weapons would be ineffective, with adverse consequences for security and would hinder the implementation of Article VI of the US constitution on international treaties.
It is, rather, NATO’s nuclear policy which contravenes Article VI, as well as some of the Thirteen Steps Towards Nuclear Disarmament, and has consequences for common security:
1) Nuclear weapons must be maintained indefinitely.
2) We will improve their use and accuracy (modernize them).
3) We can use them first.
4) We can target non-nuclear weapon states.
5) We can threaten to use them.
6) We can keep them in Europe, as they are now doing.
7) We can launch some on 15 minutes warning.
8) We say “they are essential for peace
(Murray Thompson, Canadian for a Nuclear Weapons Convention)
In October 17 2016, prior to the vote of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on nuclear weapons, the US circulated a “non-paper”, to NATO and its allies on potential negative impacts of starting negotiations for a nuclear ban treaty and wrote,“for the allies, participating in the OEWG , we strongly urge you to vote ‘no’ on any vote at the UN First Committee on starting negotiations for a nuclear ban treaty.”
Subsequently, in the October 27 2016 meeting of the OEWG, the US Intervention appeared to work. Only the Netherlands did not vote ‘no’. On December 23, 2016.the UN General Assembly (UNGA) approved a significant resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.
The resolution was adopted by a large majority, with 113 UN member states voting in favour, 35 voting against and 13 abstaining. Support came from every continent, except Australia, and represented the range of legal systems. It thus fulfilled the criteria for a peremptory norm.
The US appears, however, to have provided a script for the US allies voting on the nuclear ban treaty; most of them gave the reason for voting against the resolution as being, “the US nuclear weapons are essential for its security and they have refused to declare that nuclear weapons should never be used”. Perhaps “security” needs to be redefined not distorted by the US weapons industry.
The late Olof Palme, former prime minister of Sweden, affirmed “True security exists when all are secure, through “common security” [Palme Commission (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security) 1982]
The aforementioned October 17, 2016 letter to the NATO and the script for allies at the UNGA, continues the practice of the US “influencing“ votes through financial incentives, threats, or intimidation (FITI),
For example, in 1990, only two countries on the UNSC opposed the passage of US Resolution 678, and when Yemen cast one of these votes, the US ambassador threatened him: “that will be the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and the US immediately cut off aid to Yemen.
In 2003, several UNSC non-permanent members who opposed the US’s proposed intervention in Iraq, suddenly came out with a US script supporting the invasion of Iraq. In addition, in 2003, the US sent a letter, described as an ultimatum, to all the members of the UNGA pressing them to not support the call for an emergency session of the UNGA to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
The data, based on UNGA voting patterns, provided in the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) document of participants in the March negotiations, indicates that there were 138 ‘supportive’ states, one “not supportive” state (Japan), and 13 ‘not clear’ states
The ICAN data on voting patterns of participants who did not attend the March negotiations indicate 14 were ‘supportive’, five were ‘not clear’, 27 NATO states were ‘not supportive’, along with the other non-NATO nuclear weapons states (Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and other US allies from NATO along with Japan, and South Korea)
If the 14 supportive states attend the upcoming June 15 -July 7 meeting, there will be around 143 ‘supportive’ states (70% of the 193 member states of the UN). This would be the case, provided the US does not threaten or offer financial incentives and persuade them to claim “that the US nuclear weapons are essential for its security and has refused to declare that nuclear weapons should never be used”.
If there is a positive vote in the UNGA, the US and the four other permanent members will try to block decision through taking any UNGA decision to the UNSC. With the current composition of the UNSC, the nuclear powers will be able to get ‘not supportive’ votes from only three non-permanent members: Italy, Japan and Ukraine.
This is assuming that Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden and Uruguay will not be coerced into renouncing their former supportive positions for a treaty on the abolition of nuclear weapons. If the required number of nine votes does not oppose the treaty, the UNSC would fail to make a decision. Then there is a precedent in the 1950 “Uniting for Peace Resolution” and the decision could pass back to the UNGA.
In the Preamble to the Charter of the UN, there is a call to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war – and “to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace”…
In 2017, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday clock to two and one half minutes to midnight because of the threats arising both from nuclear weapons and climate change. The funds thus saved from ending the production of nuclear weapons could be transferred to fully implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.