[asia-apec 1373] FOOD RIGHTS WATCH Volume 7, Number 8
Anuradha Mittal
amittal at foodfirst.org
Fri Dec 17 10:41:54 JST 1999
FOOD RIGHTS WATCH Volume 7, Number 8 December 16, 1999
Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy believes that true
food security can be achieved only if national governments and other
international institutions of power recognize that the right to feed
oneself is an inalienable human right which must not be violated under
any circumstances. The right to food has been touted ceremoniously in
numerous international agreements, including the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), yet continues to be practically
ignored in an increasingly greedy New World Order.
Food Rights Watch is dedicated to gathering and distributing information
about food rights issues, as well as other economic and social human
rights issues, in the belief that education leads to action.
Subscriptions to the electronic version (e-mail) are free. To subscribe,
send a message to foodfirst at foodfirst.org. We welcome submissions to
Food Rights Watch. E-mail news about activities, events, and new
resources to foodfirst at foodfirst.org or call (510) 654-4400 (x 108).
National News:
"This city, what a magnificent place. If only the world could be like
Seattle."
---Mike Moore, WTO Director-General, 12/2/99
* FROM YOUR MOUTH TO GODS EARS, MIKE: ASSESSING THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE
* AND A WORD FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE ACLU
* THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WOMENS POVERTY: A FEW QUICK NUMBERS
* POLICY SHIFTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CONTRACT FARMERS
International News:
* ITS THE WTO, NOT CHINA, THATS INHUMANE
* FIFTEEN YEARS ON, UNION CARBIDE ONCE AGAIN IN COURT OVER BHOPAL
* PTO REVOKES U.S. PATENT ON PLANT SACRED TO AMAZON NATIVES
**************************************************************************************************************************
ASSESSING THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE
Democracy was certainly in the streets of Seattle last week, and a
whiffperhaps carried by tear gaseven made it into the convention
center where trade ministers from the World Trade Organization (WTO)
member states met. Many factors contributed to the collapse of the
current round of WTO talksan effort to expand the scope of the trade
agencys authoritybut there is no question that popular protests played
a central role.
Tuesday saw at least 40,000 people take to the streets to protest the
corporate tilt of the WTO. A stunning coalition of teamsters,
consumers, environmentalists, religious and womens groups, students,
anti-corporate youth and many, many others joined to "Just Say No to the
WTO." Approximately 10,000 peopleprimarily students and youthjoined
together in an extraordinarily well-organized and highly disciplined
direct action to block every access way to the convention center,
stopping most of the official and negotiating activities scheduled for
the WTO meetings first working day. Despite city efforts to clamp down
on public dissent in the downtown area, protests continued throughout
the week, with thousands demonstrating at separate environmental,
farmer, steel worker and womens marches and rallies. On Friday,
perhaps ten thousand joined in a labor-led marchorganized on about 24
hours noticein part to oppose the citys infringements on civil
liberties through the creation of a "no protest" zone.
Inside the convention center, where proceedings began on Wednesday after
riot-gear-equipped police and national guard forces cordoned off
downtown from most protesters, turmoil was building as well. When
separate working groups negotiating over a wide array of sectors failed
to produce compromise agreements, the United States sought to forge a
deal through the WTOs heavy-handed old-style tactics. U.S. Trade
Representative Charlene Barshefsky and the rest of the U.S. negotiating
team picked a handful of countries to commence bargaining in a closed
"Green Room." The idea was that the arbitrarily selected bunch would
work out a comprehensive deal, then present it to the entire membership
as a fait accompli for adoption. But even the Green Room gambit failed,
and the talks ended in complete disarray.
The complexity of trade talkswith compromises made in one sector
dependent on unrelated compromises in anothermeans that no single
factor can explain their failure. Nevertheless, it is possible to
identify a few key reasons for the collapse:
1) The European Union and the United States could not work out an
agricultural accommodation, with the EUs commitment to export subsidies
a critical stumbling block.
2) Many Third World countries revolted against the negotiating process
and their complete exclusion from Green Room discussions. More than 70
developing nations, primarily from Africa and the Caribbean, declared on
Thursday that they would not sign a final declaration written without
their input or consent.
3) Many developing countries also resisted the U.S. call for formation
of a working group to study the relationship between trade and labor
issues.
4) A compromise deal floated early Friday morning would have entailed
compromises on issues of concern to U.S. labor unionsnamely,
anti-dumping (rules permitting countries to block below-market-cost
imports) and some progress on rules to promote adherence to core labor
standards.
On each of these issues, the street demonstrations helped heighten
contradictions and conflicts. The mere prevention of proceedings on
Tuesday helped impede agreement in the agricultural sector. A delegate
from Zimbabwe affirmed that the protests emboldened the Third World
negotiators to object to the exclusionary processes inside the WTO.
For now, street heat has stifled the corporate elite. Just as they
blocked delegates from entering the convention center, protesters
blocked corporations attempt to extend the WTOs reach even further
into national economies and societies. But as spectacular as was the
Seattle victory, achieving the second half of one of the weeks primary
slogans"No New Round, Turnaround"will be even more daunting.
Launching a new negotiating round is nowhere near as important to
corporate interests as maintaining existing WTO rules and the prevailing
model of corporate globalization. Still, a little bit of democratic
empowerment can be a dangerous thing. If the broad coalition that came
together in Seattle can stay togethera big ifit may eventually be able
to force new rules for the global economy, so that trade is eventually
subordinated to the humane values of health, safety, ecological
sustainability and respect for human rights, rather than the reverse.
Source: Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, "USA: A Whiff of Democracy
in Seattle", Focus on the Corporation, December 6, 1999, posted to
www.corpwatch.org
*************************************************************
A WORD FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is closely monitoring
police treatment of WTO protesters and residents of Seattle. We are
looking for incidents of police action against citizens that occurred
during the WTO conference.
We need personal reports of any of the following activities if they
happened to you or if you were a witness:
1) unprovoked physical aggression by policeshoving, kicking, hitting
with billy clubs, overly forceful restraint;
2) use of pepper spray, tear gas, CS gas, shots of rubber bullets
against non-violent protesters or onlookers either without warning or in
excess;
3) pursuit or chase by police while trying to flee or disperse;
4) encountering any of these activities as a bystander or within an area
that is NOT designated a "no-protest zone";
5) other unreasonable restrictions on your civil liberties.
We need details on what happened to you or what you witnessed. Please
contact the ACLU of Washington right away! Go to our web page at
www.aclu-wa.org and click on the WTO: ACLU response, or call our
Complaint and Referral Line at 206-624-2180.
*************************************************************
THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WOMENS POVERTY: A FEW QUICK NUMBERS
In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70 percent of the
hourly wage of the median female worker. By 1998, that ratio had fallen
to 52 percent. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at
the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and
two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, that same family would
be 18 percent below the poverty line.
Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, worker purchasing
power declines when the minimum stagnates, as was the case throughout
the 1980s. Even with two increases thus far this decade, the rate lags
far behind inflation-adjusted 1979 levels. As Congress considers
raising the federal minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per
hour to $6.15, it is important to note that working women, almost one
million of whom are single mothers, stand to gain the greatest benefit
from the proposed increase. Of the 11.8 million workers who would
receive a pay increase as a result of this higher minimum wage, 58
percent would be women, simply because they earn lower wages than men
overall. Thus the increase would help reduce the pay gap between men
and women.
About 7 million women nationally12.6 percent of all working womenearn
an hourly rate between $5.15 and $6.14, the range that would be directly
affected by an increase in the minimum wage. In certain states,
including West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana and
Oklahoma, the share of working women that would benefit rises to
one-fifth or higher. The vast majority of these women are adults age 20
or older. Although most are white (65.4 percent), African-American and
Hispanic women are over-represented in low-wage jobs. African-American
women are 13.1 percent of all women workers, but 16.2 percent of those
in the affected range; Hispanic women are 9 percent of all women
workers, but 14.4 percent of those affected.
Parents with children under 18 years old represent 32.9 percent of the
beneficiaries of the proposed increase, while such workers make up 40.4
percent of the total workforce. More than two million men and women
with children would benefit, and within these families, women are
disproportionately the direct beneficiaries. Almost one million single
mothers would receive a pay increase as a result of a one-dollar hike in
the minimum wage. Single mothers are over-represented in the affected
workforce, at 10 percent of those affected compared to 5.7 percent in
the overall workforce.
All the evidence suggests that that the minimum wage increase is
well-targeted, providing significant benefits to poor and middle-income
households. About 18 percent of the benefits of a one-dollar increase
would go to households with incomes below $10,000 per year; another 32
percent would go to households with annual incomes between $10,000 and
$25,000. Among affected single mothers, 85 percent have household
incomes below $25,000, underscoring the importance of this change for
these low-wage and low-income families.
Source: Heidi Hartmann, Jared Bernstein, John Schmitt, "The Minimum Wage
Increase: A Working Womans Issue", Economic Policy Institute and
Institute for Womens Policy Research, reprinted in Nebraska Report,
Nebraskans for Peace, 941 O Street, Suite 1026, Lincoln, Nebraska
68508, November/December 1999, p. 9
*************************************************************
POLICY SHIFTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CONTRACT FARMERS
As Congress rushed to pass legislation to help Americas faltering
farmers, the needs of farmers who use contracts to sell their
productwhich is fast becoming a way of life for manywere not
addressed. A few short years ago, "contract farmer" usually meant a
poultry grower who, since he did not own his product (unless the bird
died), was not considered a real farmer. Today in agriculture contracts
of all types are common, including forward contracts for cattle in
feedyards as well as row crop contracts covering gm soybeans and high
oil content corn. Nuts, vegetables and many other commodities are
produced on contract.
Farmers are being told that the American taxpayer is tired of bailing
them out, whether for a disaster or for overproduction. A recent
editorial in Feedstuffs warns that "American agriculture must now
quickly consolidate all farmers and livestock producers into about 50
production systems." The bigger-is-better strain is not new in our
national agricultural policy: the 1962 report of the Committee for
Economic Development advocated the removal of one-third of Americas
farmers, reducing the number in production to about 400,000 to 500,000.
Recent predictions say only 25,000 to 50,000 farms are needed in the
United States to produce for the global food system. Farmers are also
being told that free market processes must reign and should not be
legislated or regulated. Yet the government is responsible for
legislation and regulation that has harmed farmers in the past; it is
irresponsible to assert that none is needed now. To do so would be to
abandon family farmers and change the landscape of America. Polls show
that Americans want to retain the family-sized farm and keep rural towns
alive. How are we to reconcile these opposing views?
Contract farmers require action on the following seven policy points:
1) national legislation assuring fair contracts and prohibiting unjust
behavior by contractors;
2) creation and funding of a section within the USDAs Marketing and
Regulatory section that deals with al aspects of contract farming;
3) extension of indemnity guarantees to cover income losses by contract
growers, just as is done for farmers who own their products;
4) passage of H.R. 2830, The Family Farmer Cooperative Marketing
Amendments Act of 1999, providing for good faith bargaining between
processors and voluntary cooperative associations of agricultural
producers;
5) adequate funding to Packers & Stockyards Programs, to make use of the
recent reorganization and hiring of economists to investigate complaints
of deceptive and non-competitive marketing practices;
6) passage of H.R. 2829, which gives the USDA the same administrative
authority over poultry as it has over red meat (currently any poultry
complaint from Packers & Stockyards must be taken to the Department of
Justice, which has not brought a poultry case in modern history);
7) development of other model contract legislation, with particular
attention to companies use of farmers independent contractor status to
escape state and federal taxes, unemployment insurance and withholding
tax. Most of the criteria used by the IRS to determine independent
contractor status are not being met in poultry and hog production
contracts.
Contractors are also without recourse to the protections provided by the
National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In recent years two government reports have shed light on the inequities
contract growers face as companies use their dominant positions to
impose unfair, unjust and discriminatory terms and conditions. Many of
the above solutions are recommended in these reports. It is time to act
on them.
Source: Ina Young, "Contract Farmers Need Help", The Progressive
Populist, volume 5, number 13, December 1, 1999
ITS THE WTO, NOT CHINA, THATS INHUMANE
U.S. labor union leaders are pledging to block Congressional approval of
the Clinton administration's deal with China signed Nov. 15, which paves
the way for that country's entry into the WTO. Congress members say they
feel betrayed that President Clinton, who once promised to put a "human
face to the global economy," is willing to reach a trade liberalization
pact with a country that has a dubious human rights record. They want to
add a social clause and a labor clause to the WTO agreement which would
allow members to restrict imports from
other members by citing human rights offenses.
Those castigating China, however, need to recognize that using trade
sanctions to punish countries that violate human rights is just another
way of forcing Western morality on the rest of the world. They forget
that countries including the United States continue to spurn half the
rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR)--economic and social human rights which guarantee the right to a
standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
Anyone who is opposed to the Chinese joining the WTO needs to be
reminded that the United States' own economic system is not a paragon of
virtue, and has aspects of the system of a rogue nation. We have prison
labor and sweat shops. And many WTO members -- including democratic
countries like India -- have child labor. Maybe some WTO members are
offended by the quasi-slavery conditions faced by many farm workers in
parts of the United States. A member country could say that U.S. law
which makes it possible to execute a teenager is an
offense against humanity. The proposed social clauses mean these and
other charges might form the justification for an embargo on U.S.
exports.
Of course it is appropriate to castigate China for accepting only those
human rights which suit its political and economic interests. Different
cultures might nurture different values, but the UDHR was drafted 50
years ago to reflect universal aspirations and standards for human
dignity.
But the U.S. conditions placed on China amount to a policy of moral
imperialism, clearly framed to suit rich countries. They would result in
a ban on child labor without any guarantee that parents could find jobs;
but inhuman treatment of migrant farmworkers would not be affected. Many
of the developing nations that belong to the WTO complain that the
previous Uruguay Round of trade talks (1986-94) only yielded benefits
for industrialized countries. Mostly they are right. Northern countries
have continued to protect their home markets while dumping surplus
production on the poorer southern countries, undercutting local
production and driving
unemployment.
Today we need to point the finger at trade agreements such as the WTO
and NAFTA rather than at China. Let's not forget that NAFTA eliminated
over 400,000 jobs in the U.S., and drove some 28,000 small enterprises
in Mexico out of business. The WTO and NAFTA are a direct cause of
unemployment and poor working conditions, not the tool to correct these
problems. Instead of adding hollow social clauses, we should block these
inherently inhuman treaties.
The time has come to step back from this mania for free trade at any
cost , and the selective bashing of some countries while turning a blind
eye to others, and seek a new start. The bottom line is that while China
should have the same right as any nation to join the WTO, we should
recognize that in fact the WTO is bad for people everywhere, whether
they are Chinese, American, Mexican or Indian. It's not China joining
the WTO that hurts American workers--it is the WTO itself.
Source: Pacific News Service, Anuradha Mittal, Policy Director of Food
First/Institute for Food and Development Policy www.foodfirst.org.
FIFTEEN YEARS ON, UNION CARBIDE ONCE AGAIN IN COURT OVER BHOPAL
A lawsuit was filed in New York in mid-November charging the Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its former CEO, Warren Anderson, with
violating international law and the fundamental human rights of the
victims and survivors of the 1984 release of lethal gases from the Union
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. The toxic gases killed at least 6,000
people; another 520,000 were injured, many of them blinded, by the gas.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, charges that "the defendants are liable for fraud and civil
contempt for their total failure to comply with the lawful orders of the
courts of both the United States and India." The plaintiffs in the case
include individual survivors as well as victims organizations in Bhopal
that have been representing survivors and next-of-kin of victims for the
past 15 years.
On the night of December 2, 1984, an explosion at a Union Carbide
factory in Bhopal, India released a cloud of poison gas. During routine
maintenance operations at the methyl isocyanate plant, a large quantity
of water entered one of the storage tanks through leaking valves and
corroded pipes, triggering a runaway reaction in tank no. E-610
containing 60 tonnes of methyl isocyanate. This reaction produced
enormous heat and pressure and 40 tonnes of a deadly cocktail of methyl
isocyanate, hydrogen cyanide, monomethyl amine, carbon monoxide and
possibly 20 other chemicals, spewed forth in the form of dense clouds.
A northerly wind carried the clouds over half a million sleeping people.
By one the next morning, an entire city had been turned into a gas
chamber.
Doctors at Bhopal hospitals were helpless to treat the dying people
crowding their wards. They called Union Carbides medical officer, who
asserted that the gas was akin to tear gas and advised them to simply
wash it out with water. Meanwhile, the hospital mortuaries were
overflowing, and graveyards and cremation grounds were unable to cope
with the flow.
Citizens groups battling over the issue charge that plant safety
systems were either switched off, malfunctioning or under repair.
Kenneth McCallion, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, alleged in his
complaint that "Union Carbide (since) demonstrated a reckless and
depraved indifference to human life in the design, operation and
maintenance of the Union Carbide of India Ltd. (UCIL) facility."
The Indian Council of Medical Research, a government agency, concluded
that over 520,000 exposed persons had poisons circulating in their
bloodstream that caused damage to almost all the systems in the body.
Over 120,000 of the survivors are still in need of medical attention.
Ten to fifteen people die every month from exposure-related illnesses.
Breathlessness, persistent cough, diminished vision, early age
cataracts, loss of appetite, menstrual irregularities, recurrent fever,
neurological disorders, fatigue, weakness, anxiety and depression are
the most common symptoms among survivors. Campaigners charge that Union
Carbide continues to withhold information on the composition of the
leaked gases and their effects on the body. The corporation claims
these are "trade secrets." But in the absence of this information,
doctors in Bhopal still do not know the proper treatment for
exposure-related illnesses. Company-sponsored studies have confirmed
that carelessly dumped toxic sludge has seeped into local soil and
drinking water.
The Indian government initially claimed a compensation of over $3
billion on behalf of the victims. Several years of litigation later,
Union Carbide paid out a mere $470 million. Over 95 percent of the
claimants who received payments have been paid only $600 in the case of
injuries or less than $3,000 in the case of death. The suit recently
filed in New York asserts that the Indian Supreme Court, in a judgement
of October 1991, held that the criminal investigation and prosecution of
Union Carbide should proceed and stated that failure to accomplish this
would constitute "a manifest injustice."
Satinath Sarangi, founder of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action
(BGIA), a plaintiff in the suit, asserts that "tens of thousands
continue to suffer from what amounts to the largest industrial disaster
in history." In an open letter to concerned citizens worldwide, Sarangi
writes, "Union Carbide continues to operate in 40 countries around the
world and shows annual profits of over $1 billion. Warren Anderson, the
Union Carbide chairman, jumped bail and is now a fugitive from justice.
The disaster in Bhopal is a dramatic example of what goes wrong when
corporations rule the world
Today, wherever we may be, there are slow
and silent Bhopals happening all around us
We look forward to the day
when communities will win back control of their environments, their
health, and what goes into their bodies...every day, in every corner of
the world, communities and individuals are confronting giant
corporations. And, increasingly, we are winning."
Sources: Frederick Noronha: "Union Carbide Sued in U.S. for 1984 Bhopal
Gas Release", Environment News Service, November 16, 1999
Satinath Sarangi, open letter calling for solidarity in campaign against
Union Carbide, November 1, 1999
*************************************************************
PTO REVOKES U.S. PATENT ON PLANT SACRED TO AMAZON NATIVES
Indigenous peoples from nine South American countries won a
precedent-setting victory in November, when the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) canceled the patent issued to a U.S. citizen for
the ayahuasca vine. The plant, Banisteriopsis caapi, is native to the
Amazon rain forest, and thousands of indigenous people of the region use
it in religious and healing ceremonies.
The PTOs decision came in response to a request for reexamination of
the patent filed with the PTO in March by the Coordinating Body for the
Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), the Coalition for
Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment, and lawyers at the Center for
International Environmental Law (CIEL).
"Our shamans and elders were greatly troubled by this patent. Now they
are celebrating. This is an historic day for indigenous peoples
everywhere," said Antonio Jacanamijoy, General Coordinator of COICA.
David Rothschild, director of the Amazon Coalition, said, "Given that
ayahuasca is used in sacred indigenous ceremonies throughout the Amazon,
this patent never should have been issued in the first place."
The PTO based its rejection of the patent on the fact that publications
describing Banisteriopsis caapi were "known and available" prior to the
filing of the patent application. According to patent law, no invention
can be patented if described in printed publications more than one year
prior to the date of the patent application. William Anderson, director
of the University of Michigan Herbarium, agreed that the PTO needs to
improve its procedures for researching applications.
CIEL lawyer David Downes noted that "while we are pleased that the PTO
has canceled this flawed patent, we are concerned that the PTO still has
not dealt with the flaws in its policies that made it possible for
someone to patent this plant in the first place. The PTO needs to
change its rules to prevent future patent claims based on the
traditional knowledge and use of a plant by indigenous people
[it]
should face the issue head-on of whether it is ethical for patent
applicants to claim private rights over a plant or knowledge that is
sacred to a cultural or ethnic group."
In a separate proceeding, the three groups have called for changes in
Patent Office rules. They argue that it should be mandatory for patent
applicants to identify all biological resources and traditional
knowledge used in developing a claimed invention. Applicants should
also disclose the geographical origin of resources used, and provide
evidence that the source country and indigenous community consented to
its use.
Source: "U.S. Patent Office Admits Error, Cancels Patent On Sacred
Ayahuasca Plant", no author, date or source indicated, posted to
www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/ayapatent.html
*************************************************************
EDITORS NOTE
I would appreciate any input on the stories found in this issue or those
you would like to see in the future. Please help our efforts to
publicize issues of poverty and hunger in the U.S. and around the world
by sending story ideas to:
Food First
398 60th Street
Oakland, California
94618 USA
Tel: (510) 654-4400
Fax: (510) 654-4551
foodfirst at foodfirst.org
Thank you for your interest, comments and support.
Joan Powell, editor
Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst at foodfirst.org.
_____________________________________________________________
You share a similar passion. You align with common interests.
You connect over a favorite topic. You belong at Topica.
http://www.topica.com/t/10
More information about the Asia-apec
mailing list