From amittal at foodfirst.org Tue Jul 3 05:46:23 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:46:23 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1780] New Book from Food First Calls for Development for People, Not the WTO Message-ID: <0.700000824.1742526361-738719082-994106785@topica.com> Development for People, Not the WTO Advocates New Book from Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy The Future in the Balance: Essays on Globalization and Resistance By Walden Bello, edited and with a preface by Anuradha Mittal "Among the expanding constellation of activists, academics, and thinkers who believe that mainstream economics does not have an answer to people's needs, Walden Bello is a prominent star." --Bangkok Post (Oakland, CA)- The unholy trinity of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), is based on exclusionary economics, faces a legitimacy crisis, and needs a complete overhaul to reflect true participation from Southern countries, according to the latest Food First book, The Future in the Balance: Essays on Globalization and Resistance, written by eminent scholar/activist Walden Bello, and edited and with a preface by Anuradha Mittal. Bello and Mittal are two of our foremost experts on trade and the Third World. They analyze the root causes of the current social, ecological, and financial crisis facing the world, in the process revealing little-known truths about the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, and their grip on the Third World. This book shatters the myths of development as prescribed by these institutions, and offers the possibility of a different world based on fairness and justice. "This book is about the exercise of power in international relations, and the way this generates inequities, crisis, and, ultimately, resistance," said Walden Bello, Executive Director of Thailand-based Focus on the Global South, and author of the book. "The book is about the exercise of power by the United States, its impact on the global economy and on global politics, and about the responses it has evoked from other societies, peoples, and communities," he added. "Those engaged in the process of international economic policy formulation invariably seek to erect a firewall between economic and social policy. It is vital that we tear down that artificial and insubstantial firewall. It is not possible to work in isolation. The message is clear: trade agreements must be tested first and foremost in social justice terms, not only in narrow economic terms," said Anuradha Mittal, co-director of Food First, and editor of The Future in the Balance. The crisis of legitimacy, warns Bello, could create a vacuum where ideals and themes of democracy, equality, and freedom are hijacked and distorted by forces hostile to them. The Future in the Balance considers these problems and articulates an alternative order, one that creates a fully participatory process to build institutions that are subordinate to society instead of the other way around. The Future in the Balance is co-published by Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and Focus on the Global South. Food First, founded in 1975 by Frances Moore LappÈ and Joseph Collins after the success of Diet for a Small Planet, is a policy think tank that carries out research and education-for-action. Food First works to identify the root causes of hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world, and to educate the public as well as policy makers about these problems and alternative solutions to them. Food First Books are distributed by LPC Group, 1436 West Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60607, (800) 243-0138 Read the back cover, browse the table of contents, and purchase this book on-line at: http://www.foodfirst.org Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 7 02:20:02 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:20:02 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1781] International Meeting of Social Movements Message-ID: <0.700000824.483625418-951758591-994440004@topica.com> A Message from Focus on the Global South Dear friends, In cooperation with Via Campesina, CUT-Brasil and ATTAC France, we are pleased to send you this invitation to an important meeting of social movements taking place in, Mexico 12-15 August. In solidarity, Walden Bello and Nicola Bullard Focus on the Global South              ---------------------------------------                            INVITATION                              INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS TO            CONTINUE TO DEVELOP COMMON ACTIONS Porto Alegre signifies an enormous step forward in the struggle against globalisation and neo-liberalism. Thousands of women and men, young people, unionists, farmers and women farmers, environmentalists, churches, politicians, academics and scientists; we met with the common objective to debate and analyse the economic, social and political international context, mobilisations by sectors of our societies, and the definition of the strategies of global struggle. Within the framework of this important process emerged the "Call of the social movements" to strengthen our global presence and define a common agenda of struggle against neoliberalism. Porto Alegre is a symbol of resistance that we have to strengthen and broaden from the local, continental and international level. After a number of months it is important to come together again and for this reason we are proposing a meeting in August in Mexico City, making use of the upcoming Third Congress of the Latin American co-ordination of rural organisations (CLOC), which is the organisation of farmers, rural women and indigenous people from Latin America, the US and Canada, and a member of Via Campesina. GOALS OF THE MEETING The international meeting of social movements would have the following goals: -Assessing who are the representatives of international capitalism, how they operate, their methods and strategies and the impacts on the system, -Evaluating the international actions/mobilisations that have taken place during the last two years and their results -Proposing and identifying joint actions and an international agenda that we can realise during the next two years. THE PARTICIPANTS The participants will be members of organisations that have signed the "Call of Porto Alegre" and others that want to incorporate the "Call of Porto Alegre" and agree to be part of a worldwide alliance against neoliberalism. Participants must cover their own travel expenses to Mexico as well as expenses for lodging and food. The cost of lodging and food will be communicated later. To facilitate your participation and communication we have created an eGroup "movsoc-fms". Please send a message with your name and organisation to in order to receive a subscription form and further information. LANGUAGES The meeting will be in Spanish with translation to French and English WHERE AND WHEN Mexico City, 12-14 August, 2001 Starting at 9h00 on the 12 August and ending 12h30 on the 14 August. The exact venue will be sent to the participants later on. Other activities taking place in Mexico: 6 - 7 August: Women's Assembly of the CLOC 8-11 August: Congress of the CLOC You are also invited to participate in the closing session of the CLOC Congress on the 11 August. PROPOSED PROGRAM Sunday 12 August 1) Registration and presentation of participants 2) Explanation of the objectives of the proposed program 3) Analysis of the international context. Presentations and discussion. Monday 13 August 1) Evaluation of mobilising actions and its impacts during the last two years in Seattle, Bangkok, Argentina, Cancun, Quebec, etc. 2) Indentification of actions and common objectives 3) Strategies for struggle Tuesday 14 August 1) Formulation and approval of a strategic plan for the next two years 2) Elaboration of a calendar for actions (2001-2002) 3) Evaluation and closing session We look forward to an active and militant participation Globalize hope, globalize the struggle for ATTAC-France, Christophe Aguiton and Bernard Cassen for CUT-Brasil, Kjeld Jakobsen for Focus on the Global South, Walden Bello and Nicola Bullard for Via Campesina, Rafael Alegria and Joao Pedro Stedile Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 7 06:23:49 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:23:49 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1782] Food First Books: Call For Manuscripts Message-ID: <0.700000824.1457884730-738719082-994454631@topica.com> PLEASE POST Food First Books Call for Manuscripts Since its inception in 1975, Food First Books has been committed to a vigorous publishing program for social justice. Many of our books are considered classics, and have been well-reviewed in both the academic and general press. Some of our well-known titles include Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, and Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. We are now reaching out for new authors and new manuscripts on the following subjects: o our global food system o alternative food systems o hunger o economic and social human rights o economic globalization o movements for social justice o poverty in America and abroad o rural development o biodiversity, biopiracy, genetic engineering, patenting of life o environmental justice o etc. Food First books are activist and/or college-oriented, well-researched and documented, written in an active voice, mobilizing, and committed to confronting pervasive myths about hunger, poverty, and environmental decline. We can do something to build a better world and our readers want to know how. Our authors are experts in their given fields of study and present their knowledge in forms that appeal to both the academic and the general reader. At this time we are issuing a special call for completed manuscripts or full first drafts. Authors should send us sample chapters, table of contents, curriculum vitae, and a cover letter describing the author's expertise, the purpose of the book, it's target audiences, and how it compares to similar titles on the market or coming out. If you know colleagues who are finishing manuscripts that might be appropriate for Food First Books, please pass them this announcement. We make very good books and support them with our marketing efforts and the help of our national distributor, LPC Group. For more information contact: Sal Glynn Managing Editor Food First Books 398 60th Street Oakland, CA 94618 USA salglynn@foodfirst.org. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Tue Jul 10 04:23:26 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 19:23:26 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1783] Think Tank Report Challenges U.N. on Genetic Engineering Message-ID: <0.700000824.354314507-738719082-994706666@topica.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 CONTACT: Nick Parker (510) 654-4400 ext. 229 Think Tank Report Challenges U.N. on Genetic Engineering FULL REPORT ON-LINE: "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?" by Dr. Peter Rosset http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html OAKLAND, CA: Comments about genetically engineered (GE) crops expresses in the just-released "Human Development Report 2001", the flagship publication of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), reveal a shocking lack of understanding of the production problems that must be confronted by poor farmers in marginal environments in the third world, according to a crop science expert at a U.S.-based think tank. The authors of the U.N. report urged rich countries to put aside their fears of genetically modified organisms and help developing nations unlock the potential of biotechnology. "Biotechnology offers the only or the best 'tool of choice' for marginal ecological zones, left behind by the green revolution but home to more than half the world's poorest people," they said. The reality of farming in these regions, however, is such that GE crops are likely to do more harm than good, according to a report from a leading food policy think tank, the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), based in in Oakland, California, USA. In this report, "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?," the Institute's co-director and author of the report, Dr. Peter Rosset, argues the approach of genetic engineering, which is to produce single, genetically uniform varieties, ignores the needs of farmers in complex habitats for multiple varieties fine-tuned to local soil and climatic conditions. "Genetically engineering is just not capable of producing what poor farmers need," said Dr. Rosset, an agricultural scientist himself. "Hands-on participatory plant breeding, where farmers themselves take the lead, has been shown to be far more effective in producing the crop varieties needed by poor farmers in marginal environments. Furthermore," he added,"the risks associated with GE crops are likely to impact poor farmers more than rich farmers." According the Dr. Rosset's report, small and peasant farmers, despite their disadvantaged position in society, are the primary producers of staple foods, accounting for very high percentages of national production in most third world countries. Their agriculture is complex, diverse and risk prone. This is because they have historically been displaced into marginal zones characterized by broken terrain, slopes, irregular rainfall, little irrigation, and/or low soil fertility; and because they are poor and are victimized by pervasive anti-poor and anti-small farmer biases in national and global economic policies. In order to survive under such circumstances, and to improve their standard of living, they must be able to tailor agricultural technologies to their variable but unique circumstances, in terms of local climate, topography, soils, biodiversity, cropping systems, market insertion, resources, etc. ÝFor this reason such farmers have over millennia evolved complex farming and livelihood systems which balance risks -- of drought, of market failure, of pests, etc. -- with factors such as labor needs versus availability, investment needed, nutritional needs, seasonal variability, etc. Typically their cropping systems involve multiple annual and perennial crops, animals, fodder, even fish, and a variety of foraged wild products. Under such highly varied circumstances, uniform varieties, such as those put forth under the green revolution, or newer GE or ëtransgenicí crop varieties, are unlikely to be widely adopted or found useful by many such farmers. When GE crop varieties, carrying the Bt insecticide gene, for example, are "forced" into such cropping systems, the risks are much greater than in large, wealthy farmer systems, or farming systems in Northern countries. For example, in the Third World there will typically be more sexually compatible wild relatives of crops present, making pollen transfer to weed populations of insecticidal properties, virus resistance, and other genetically engineered traits more likely, with possible food chain and super-weed consequences. Such farmers are unlikely to plant refuges, making resistance evolution by insects more likely. ÝHorizontal transfer of genetic material is also highly risky in such circumstances. The associated risks of super-weeds, new crop varieties, among others, are likely to put the poor in a more precarious position. Furthermore, the widespread crop failures reported for GE varieties (i.e., stem splitting, boll drop, etc.) pose economic risks which can affect poor farmers much more severely than wealthy farmers. If consumers reject their products, economic risks are equally high. Also, the high costs of GE crops introduce an anti-poor bias. The risks seem to outweigh the potential benefits for such farmers, especially when we consider the factors that currently limit their ability to improve their livelihoods, and the proven agroecological, participatory and empowering alternatives available to them. It is not a lack of technology which holds such farmers back, but rather pervasive injustices and inequities in access to resources, including land, credit, market access, etc., and other anti-poor policy biases. Two approaches make the most sense under such conditions: Ý1) technologies which have pro-poor diseconomies of scale, like agroecological or organic farming practices, and 2) building social movements capable of exerting sufficient political pressure to reverse policy biases. There is little useful role that genetic engineering can play, the report concludes. For more information on the report, please visit the link below. To talk with Dr. Peter Rosset, please contact Nick Parker, (510) 654-4400, ext. 229. FULL REPORT ON-LINE "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?" by Dr. Peter Rosset http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html ### Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 14 05:40:00 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:40:00 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1784] U.N. Dead Wrong About Engineered Crops Message-ID: <0.700000824.219169384-951758591-995056802@topica.com> This is being distributed by Knight-Ridder/Progressive Media Services. If anyone wants to reprint it, please let me know. U.N. Dead Wrong About Engineered Crops by Anuradha Mittal Comments about genetically engineered (GE) crops expressed in the just-released "Human Development Report 2001", the flagship publication of the United Nation Development Program (UNDP), and in accompanying press statements, reveal a shocking degree of Northern arrogance in tone and content. The authors of the report urge rich countries to put aside their fears of genetically engineered (GE) food and help developing nations unlock the potential of biotechnology. UNDP head Mark Malloch Brown, praised the report, saying that it has moved in a new direction by challenging some cherished opinions about what the Third World needs. Yet as a citizen of India I ask, who nominated Mark Malloch Brown, in his New York office, to speak for the needs of poor countries and to say what we need? The UNDP report accuses opponents of genetically-modified food of ignoring the food needs of the Third World. It goes on to say that the movement is driven by conservationists in rich countries, and claims that the current debate mostly ignores the concerns and needs of the developing world. Western consumers who do not face food shortages or nutritional deficiencies, or work in the fields are more likely to focus on food safety and the loss of biodiversity, but farming communities in developing countries emphasize potentially higher yields and greater nutritional value" of these crops, the authors say. Obviously the UNDP and Mark Malloch Brown have done only part of their homework. While they have read up on the genetic engineering debate in the U.S. and Europe, they have ignored the even louder debate going on in the Third World. In my country, for example, the debate pits mostly U.S.-trained technocrats, seduced by technological fixes, against farmer organizations and consumers who overwhelmingly say no to genetically engineered crops. Surely it is worth noting when the people who are to use the modified seeds, and those who are to eat the modified food, want nothing to do with them? This UNDP report further fails to acknowledge that despite overproduction, even a country like the United States faces massive problems of hunger with over 36 millions Americans food insecure and ignores the lives of millions of farm workers in the fields of this country, while converting all Americans into consumers of unlabelled modified foods. The report rehashes the old myth of feeding the hungry through miracle technology, the mantra that has been chanted forever, whether it was to push pesticides or genetic engineering. The famous green revolution of Northern technology sent to the South may have increased food production, at the cost of poisoning our earth, air and water. But it failed to alleviate hunger. Of 800 million hungry people in the world today, an estimated 250-300 million live in India alone. Its not that India does not produce enough food to meet the need of its hungry, it's the policies that work against the working poor--slashing of social safety nets, for example, at the behest of Northern agencies like the IMF, that are the root cause of today's hunger. Over 60 million tons of excess food grain-unsold-- because the hungry are too poor to buy it--rotted in India last year, while farmers in desperation burnt the crops they could not sell, and resorted to selling their body parts like kidneys or committing suicide, to end the cycle of poverty. A higher, genetically engineered crop yield would have done nothing for them. And if the poor in India cannot buy two meals a day, how will they purchase nutritionally rich crops such as rice engineered to contain Vitamin A? No technological fix can help change the situation. Only political commitment can. The report compares efforts to ban GM foods with the banning of the pesticide DDT, which was dangerous to humans but was effective in killing the mosquitoes which spread malaria. The choice presented to the Third World then was the choice of death from DDT or malaria. Its appalling that even today the development debate in the North can only offer the Third World the option of dying from hunger, or from loss of livelihoods or unsafe foods. The North ignored the cries from the South at the time of the DDT debate, that if our national health budgets were not slashed, perhaps we could deal with malaria differently. Malaria, like hunger, is a disease of poverty. When economic conditions improve, it disappears, just as it did in the U.S. and Italy. Why is the focus never on the root causes of the problem, but always on the symptom. Once again, UNDP has decided to focus on the symptom of hunger and not the root cause of poverty. Yes, a debate that affects communities in the Third World should not be driven solely by conservationists in the rich countries. It should also not be driven by corporate apologists like Mr. Brown. It would do UNDP good to learn that the anti-GE debate is also driven by civil society in the Third World, which is concerned about corporate concentration in our food system, loss of livelihoods as corporations gain control of our biodiversity and seeds, and that several of our countries, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, and China, among others, have taken national action and imposed a moratorium on some or all GE crops. If UNDP indeed cares about the Third World, it would do much better by respecting the sovereign will of our nations. +++++++++++ Anuradha Mittal, a native of India, is co-director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy (http://www.foodfirst.org). Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 14 10:20:25 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:20:25 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1785] PR Firms Target Food First Message-ID: <0.700000824.1028996054-212058698-995073628@topica.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 13, 2001 CONTACT: Nick Parker (510) 654-4400 (ext. 229) Corporate Groups Use Leaked Grant Proposal to Attack GMO Foe Food First (Oakland, CA) Several corporate public relations groups are using a leaked grant proposal in an internet attack on the Oakland-based Institute for Food and Development Policy, also known as Food First. Food First is well known for it's research reports which cast doubts on biotech industry claims concerning the virtues of genetically engineered (GE) foods and crops, also known as GMOs (http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/index.html). The attack began several days ago when a report on the leaked grant proposal was posted on the corporate public relations web site ePublicRelations (http://www.epublicrelations.org/). The report, titled "Food First seeks funding to discredit biotech industry: Small budget takes on entire industry," warned companies that, "while corporate PR folks shell out US $50,000, and more, a month in retainers, and participate in multi-million-dollar campaigns to lobby opinion leaders and get national media coverage, a special interest group is seeking a paltry US $150,000 per year for three years to bring the biotech industry to its knees." The report goes on that while the biotech industry has enormous resources, "Food First has significant tactical and strategic advantages," because of its connections to real people at the grassroots. The report was then picked up yesterday, July 12, by the Guest Choice Network, another corporate group, in an opinion piece titled "Foes of genetically improved foods go grant-shopping" (http://guestchoice.com/headlines_200107.html#0712). This piece warns that "Food First wants $450,000 to team up with another group, called the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). If their proposal is funded, these two groups would begin a national onslaught to try and shape public opinion against genetically improved foods. Their grant proposal describes how Food First and PANNA would forcefully argue that the best choices are 'none of the above,' neither genetic engineering nor pesticides, but rather biological pest control, integrated pest management, organic farming, and argoecology (sic)." The Guest Choice editorial was then circulated around the internet today on the corporate AgBioView electronic list serve. "This corporate attack shows that they are nervous," said Dr. Peter Rosset, co-director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, "because they fear that the facts -- the scientific data we have accumulated -- support our argument that we need to call a timeout from commercializing these potentially dangerous products, a timeout for real health and environmental safety testing." "The work we seek funding for," said Ms. Anuradha Mittal, also co-director of Food First, "is called 'A Counter-Offensive of Reason." She went on to explain that "what we mean is reason is on our side. No reasonable person would want unlabelled and untested novel genetic constructs in their food supply." "What I think has them particularly worried," she added, "is our work surveying opinion in the Third world, where we have found that farmers and consumers strongly oppose genetically engineered food, despite the fact that industry tells us these countries 'need' these products, and therefore U.S consumers should accept them in the food supply." Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy is a member supported, education for action policy think tank. Founded in 1975, by Frances Moore LappÈ and Joseph Collins, following the success of Diet for a Small Planet, the Institute is known for its uncompromising progressive stance on issues related to food, hunger, poverty and environmental degradation around the world. For more information, contact Nick Parker, Media Coordinator at (510) 654-4400 (ext. 229). ### Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 21 02:23:17 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:23:17 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1786] Food Rights Watch, Focus on Trade and Human RightsNumber 1 Message-ID: <0.700000824.1169005702-951758591-995649798@topica.com> Welcome to Food Rights Watch: Focus on Trade and Human Rights Food Rights Watch provides information about economic and social human rights issues in the belief that education leads to action. With this edition, Food First / The Institute for Food and Development Policy is launching a new series focusing on Trade and Human Rights. Trade agreements such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), have been the institutional drivers of economic globalization. These trade agreements have attracted serious criticism from civil society groups who hold them responsible for further weakening of human rights and labor standards, undermining public health and national sovereignty, and accelerating environmental destruction. The current negotiations and controversy over the rules and governance of global trade-as being played out in the WTO and the FTAA, among other venues-threaten to set narrow limits to human aspirations in coming decades. Negotiations are often shrouded in secrecy, carried out in a non-transparent way, with little or no participation from those likely to be negatively affected by their outcome. Food Rights Watch with focus on trade and human rights, hopes that education will lead to action. Please read on, forward to friends, send story ideas, and most importantly- take action!!! Food First - For Land and Liberty, Jobs and Justice *********************************************************************** URGENT CALL TO ACTION ON FAST TRACK (U.S.): Let your Congressperson know how you feel about free trade! Legislation that would enable President Bush to push trade deals through Congress with minimal input is currently on the top of the national agenda. Let your congressperson know how you feel about expanding free trade at any cost. TAKE ACTION!:  for background and action steps, Call Washington, DC toll free: 1-800-393-1082 and speak your mind! Read the Background article on Fast Track,  Fast Track is Back! by David Moberg of In These Times: http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=11139 IN OTHER NEWS [see below]. . . (1) Tensions Rise in Genoa as G-8 Summit Nears-- Walden Bello, Director of Focus on the Global South and Member, Board of Directors, Food First, reports on the G-8 summit.  Click on the accompanying links to background information and breaking news. (2) Food First Report Challenges UN on Genetic Engineering--Read up on Food First's report on biotechnology and food production that questions the UNDP's assumptions on Genetic Engineering (GE). (3) Globalization: the solution to poverty?--Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research writes about the shortcomings of free trade as a solution to poverty issues. (4) Transparency and Accountability at the WTO?--Director-General of the WTO Michael Moore shares his thoughts on codes of conduct, as long as they don't deal directly with his own institution. COMING SOON: MORE ON THE G8 AT GENOA. . . *********************************************************************** (1)  Tensions Rise in Genoa as G-8 Summit Nears Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South "Strategy of Tension" is the phrase in the air as Genoa prepares for the G-8 Summit. The explosion of a letter bomb that hurt a policeman has made some people compare the atmosphere to that which existed in the 1970's, when a series of bomb explosions in Milan, most of which remain unresolved, became the pretext for a crackdown on the progressive movement.  No one is saying that the authorities deliberately set off the explosion, but all groups associated with the Genoa Social Forum organizing the counter-summit vehemently deny that anyone from the progressive sector and civil society had anything to do with it. An unparalleled series of restrictive moves have been set in motion by authorities, ostensibly to provide security to the leaders of the G-8 that are meeting in this ancient Italian city, the birthplace of Christopher Columbus.  Leaders of the Genoa Social Forum, who expect some 100,000 to 200,000 people to join the protests here, say that the moves are simply directed at "criminalizing" the movement and scaring people from attending the mobilisations . Many people, including Nigerian lawyer Oronto Douglas, have been prevented by France from entering Italy. There are also reports that Jose Bove, a key leader of the anti-corporate globalization movement, was stopped at the border, though he was originally allowed through. Upon hearing of instances of French authorities cooperating with the Italian government's restrictive moves, Susan George, one of the luminaries of the movement, said, "I am ashamed of being a French citizen." The authorities have made life "very difficult" for the Genoa Social Forum organizers, said Cristina Bianchi, one of the key organizers. They told hotels not to accept reservations except for people from the press. They were late in making available the huge tents near the beach where the Forum was to be held. They pulled out their offer to provide services for simultaneous translation at the last minute. Despite these obstacles, the Social Forum was launched on Monday, January 16. Panels have been set up on a variety of topics, including "Our World is not for Sale," "Globalization and Work, " and "Who Needs Trade Liberalization." The massive teach-in is in preparation for the mass marches and mobilizations that begin on Thursday. Authorities have sealed off the ancient center for the city from demonstrators. However, a number of groups, including the famous Ya Basta! ("White Overalls") have promised to breach the so-called "red zone," using special instruments to force their way through. With heated preparations going on on both sides, Genoa promises to be a confrontation between the pro- globalization elite and the anti-corporation globalization forces that will rival Seattle, Washington, DC, and Prague. After being here for a few days, I am more than ever convinced of the words of C. Fred Bergsten, a partisan of globalization, that their side has lost the initiative and that our side now has "the ascendancy." READ BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS ON GLOBALISATION BY WALDEN BELLO: Genoa and the Multiple Crises of Globalisation http://www.focusweb FOR BREAKING NEWS ON THE G8 ANTI-GLOBALIZATION ACTIONS: http://www.indymedia.org (2) Food First Report Challenges U.N. on Genetic Engineering Comments about genetically engineered (GE) crops in the just-released "Human Development Report 2001", the annual publication of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), reveal a shocking lack of understanding of the production problems that must be confronted by poor farmers in marginal environments in the third world, according to a crop science expert at a leading food policy think tank, the Institute for Food and Development Policy, Food First, based in Oakland, California, USA. The authors of the U.N. report urged rich countries to put aside their fears of genetically modified organisms and help developing nations unlock the potential of biotechnology. "Biotechnology offers the only or the best 'tool of choice' for marginal ecological zones, left behind by the green revolution but home to more than half the world's poorest people," they said. The reality of farming in these regions, however, is such that GE crops are likely to do more harm than good, according to a report from Food First. In this report, "Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?," the Institute's co-director, Dr. Peter Rosset, argues that the approach of genetic engineering, which is to produce single, genetically uniform varieties, ignores the needs of farmers in complex habitats for multiple varieties fine-tuned to local soil and climatic conditions. According to the Food First report, peasant and small farmers, despite their disadvantaged position in society are the primary producers of staple foods, accounting for very high percentages of national production in most third world countries. READ FOOD FIRST'S FULL REPORT: http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo READ THE UNDP REPORT: http://www.undp.org/hdr2001 RESOURCES ON GE FROM FOOD FIRST: http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech (3) Globalization: The Solution to Poverty? Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research It has become increasingly fashionable for our government officials and their friends to promote Washington's global agenda as a helping hand to the world's poor. "If one is concerned about the developing countries, both history and recent studies would suggest an open system is going to be the formula for them," said Bob Zoellick, US Trade Representative at a recent press briefing. Even less partisan observers such as Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School, assert that globalization "has improved the lot of hundreds of millions of poor people around the world." But what if it just weren't true? Is it possible that globalization has been a losing proposition for most of the countries and people -- of the world? It is generally considered heresy to even ask such questions. Everyone who has managed to stay awake through an introductory economics course knows that the world is better off when trade expands -- at least in theory. But the real world is often more complex. Over the last 20 years most countries have increasingly opened their economies to international trade and investment. They have also adopted -- under the theory that "Uncle Sam knows best" -- a host of related economic policies promoted by Washington-run institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. The real world results look very bad. For the vast majority of countries, the last two decades have shown considerably -- and often drastically -- slower growth than was seen in the previous 20 years (1960-1980). And the poorer countries have generally suffered the worst declines in the growth of income per person, the most basic indicator of economic progress. READ THE LATEST REPORT FROM CEPR: The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress (4) Transparency and Accountability at the WTO Marissa Mika, Food First On July 6th, WTO Director-General Michael Moore welcomed a group of NGOs and other members of civil society to a two day symposium on contested issues confronting the world trading system. In the middle of his welcoming address, which focused on the benefits of trade in improving the human condition, Moore suggested an international code of conduct that would provide for greater transparency, increased accountability, and the rejection of violence. However, the proposed code of conduct was not meant for transnational corporations, but for NGOs, in exchange for greater participation in the decision-making process at the WTO. Either Director-General Moore is unfamiliar with the demanding rules and regulations regarding transparency to which NGOs must already adhere, or he was attempting to dodge criticism of the WTO by shining the spotlight on NGO conduct. Regardless of his motivations, Moore did manage to regurgitate rhetoric in the WTO's favor, saying, "It would strengthen the hand of those who seek change if NGOs distance themselves from masked stone-throwers who claim to want more transparency, anti-globalization dot.com-types who trot out slogans that are trite, shallow and superficial. This will not do as a substitute for civilized discourse." Perhaps to Moore's surprise, the discourse was civilized at the symposium, covering topics from biodiversity to the impact of free trade on agricultural production. Noticeably absent from the discussion, however, was a balanced approach to the topics. While there were a few dissenting opinions on the merits of free trade at any cost, the majority of the panels seemed to echo Moore‚s opening sentiments: trade and economic growth are the best way to cure the often cited statistic that more than 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day. There was some acknowledgement of the roles that good governance, income distribution, environmental protection, health, and education can play in combating poverty, but there was very little substantive discussion of the real effects of free trade on those in poverty. While Moore did suggest that "poverty is the greatest threat to peace, democracy, human rights, and the environment," He chose to present uninhibited growth and free trade as ideal solutions for these issues. Furthermore, he managed to stereotype those who question these solutions as people dedicated to halting globalization in its tracks (although it is clear from symposium reports that those who raised questions did so in a thoughtful and balanced manner). Ironically, but not surprisingly, the solutions and the stereotypes Moore chose to illustrate were alarmingly simplistic. It is most likely that Director-General Moore will continue to manufacture strong correlations between human welfare and global free trade, regardless of daily reality. After all, statistics can say just about anything one would like, especially if a well-financed international trade organization is compiling the data. It is even more likely that Moore will continue to dodge the difficult demands of accountability and transparency for the WTO by throwing these demands back at NGOs, regardless of the reality. Those who question and oppose free trade at any cost are numerous, but the symposium provided minimal exposure to the WTO's opposition. If Moore's remarks are any indicator of future strategy the WTO will seek, it is to placate this opposition by offering more small venues for venting, along with empty codes of conduct. Moore is challenging civil society to a game of rhetorical ping pong, rather than offering a forum for change. NGOs and civil society already adhere to strict transparency and accountability guidelines. Moore should follow his own advice, and ensure the WTO does the same. READ MICHAEL MOORE'S SPEECH ON-LINE: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spmm67_e.htm *********************************************************************** EDITOR'S NOTE Please help us in our effort to spread awareness and spur action regarding social and economic rights issues in the U.S. and around the world. Send stories, feedback, and/or suggestions for future editions to humanrights@foodfirst.org. We encourage you to forward Food Rights Watch along to friends and colleagues. If you are receiving this as a forward and would like to subscribe, please send an email with "subscribe" in the subject heading to foodfirst@foodfirst.org To unsubscribe from this list send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject heading to foodfirst@foodfirst.org Thank you for your support! Marissa Mika, Editor - Food Rights Watch ****************************************************************************************** Food First is a member supported education-for-action organization. Add your voice to thousands of others who are supporting our organizing for the basic human right to feed oneself.  http://www.foodfirst.org/join/member.html For Land and Liberty:Jobs and Justice - Food First Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Jul 24 05:44:49 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:44:49 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1787] poorest nations ironing out trade stance Message-ID: <000a01c113b8$594b45a0$27cfa7cb@notoapec> Reuters Story from NZ Herald Poorest nations ironing out trade stance 24.07.2001 ZANZIBAR - Top trade officials from the world's poorest nations are meeting in Zanzibar to plan a common stand for the next World Trade Organisation meeting later this year. When Trade Ministers join the conference today on the Indian Ocean island off Africa's east coast, they are expected to press for cancellation of Third World debt, a question left open at the rival rich-world Group of Eight summit at the weekend. The 49 United Nations-classified Least Developed Countries (LDCs) resent what they see as their growing marginalisation from global trade and want easier access to rich world markets. The European Union, United States and other developed nations are pushing hard for a new round of trade talks, where the rules of trade are hammered out, to be launched this year. Many poor countries remain sceptical about the benefits they will derive from more trade liberalisation. They will consider a proposal that they should not enter new rounds of trade negotiations until the commitments made by the developed world in the past are honoured. Tanzania's Trade Minister, Idi Simba, said that Europe and the US subsidised their agricultural sectors, while lecturing poor countries not to do the same. "We know we are not getting a fair deal," he said, pointing out that Europe had previously promised to reduce its agricultural subsidies by 2000. - REUTERS From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jul 28 03:34:20 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:34:20 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1788] Anuradha Mittal on AlterNet.org Message-ID: <0.700000824.1070722284-738719082-996258861@topica.com> Anuradha Mittal on AlterNet.org AlterNet.org, an online alternative news source and part of the Independent Media Institute,invites you to learn more about the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods. The UNDP's recent Human Development Report asserts that genetically modified seeds can be an important tool in the effort to reduce hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. The report claims that opposition to GMOs eminates primarily from activists in the developed countries, and irresponsibly overlooks the needs of poor farmers in the third world. Read a response to this report by Anuradha Mittal, co-director of Food First and a citizen of India, as she debunks the notion that developing countries are not part of the global resistence to genetic modification. Also find links to the UNDP's report and an article that supports it, a Food First report on why GMOs wont feed the world, a simple explanation of the science behind GMOs, and a short video clip with interviews of leading experts, including Anuradha Mittal. Then log on to AlterNet's discussion forum and speak your mind. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================