Published on March 19, 2013
The Chief Executive of the Volta
River Authority (VRA) has called for an immediate 80% increase in electricity
tariffs. According to him, the proposed level of increase would enable the
company to improve its finances. He was immediately supported by the new
Minister of Lands and Natural Resources Minister, Alhaji Inusah Fuseini, who,
until recently, was the Deputy Minister of Energy.
According to the Minister, “VRA
has a case because power is produced at a cost and so far as you are unable to
recover the cost of production of power, you are making losses”.
What the Minister did not say is
why the VRA is “unable to recover the cost of production of power”. The
Minister knows why this is so. The truth is that when he was Deputy Minister of
Energy, he was party to a commercially decadent albeit politically expedient
decision for VALCO to be supplied with electricity from VRA; although he knew
very well that VALCO was not in a position to pay the required tariff. It was a
particularly bad decision especially since VALCO only processes alumina on the
cheap for a US company without much benefit to Ghana. The result is that the
VRA generates electricity for VALCO for free. How can VRA recover its cost of
production in such circumstances?
The Minister is also aware that
the Northern Electricity Distribution Company (Nedcor), which is a subsidiary
of the VRA, is owed hundreds of millions of Ghana Cedes because various
government institutions and agencies that use electricity in the northern
section of Ghana have not paid the VRA for the use of electricity for several
years.
When the NDC government increased
tariffs in December 2011, the reason they gave was that it would enable the
electricity generators, transmitters and distributors to meet the cost of
production. If after just over 14 months, they need an additional whopping 80%
increase in order to meet the cost of production, then there is something
fundamentally wrong with the management. It surely cannot just be because of
the loss of gas from the West African Gas Pipeline. That event took place in
August last year, only about seven months ago.
Even if Ghana existed on thermal
plants alone without Akosombo, they cannot be claiming to spend US$20 million a
month on light crude oil. Do they think that we are completely stupid? It is a
fact that the management of VRA is always causing the company to pay penalties
whenever they import crude oil. This is because of the mismanagement of the
importation process.
Do Ghanaians know that by 2nd
December 2012 (five days before the 2012 elections), VRA was short of light crude oil to power the
Tema and Aboadze thermal plants, and that Ghana was at risk in having the
elections in darkness? The annoying
issue is that when they finally rushed to purchase crude oil off the coast of
Nigeria, the quality was so low that it had to be refined at an additional
cost. In the face of such
maladministration, why wouldn’t the cost of power production go up? Is this
what they want the poor consumer to pay? For the maladministration of VRA.? Why
did they not know that they were running short of light crude oil at the time?
Then comes the Electricity
Company of Ghana. When the ordinary consumer falls in arrears by more than two
months, his/her electricity supply is cut off. In the mean time, large private
companies owe it millions of Ghana cedis. According to a documentary by Anas Amereyaw Anas in 2012, more than one
thousand private companies and public institutions owed the ECG, more than
GHS460 million. In spite of this the ECG was not collecting the bills.
(Recently the MTN and ECOBANK have come to dispute the amounts quoted in Anas’
documentary).
What both the VRA and
ECG are virtually saying, by their demand for 80% increase in tariff is that
the ordinary consumer, including the labourer and farmer, are supposed to pay
to cover the energy that is supplied to the above companies and institutions.
How come, the private
sector, which our government says is “the engine of growth” are not supposed to
pay electricity bills but the poor consumer has to pay for them? Can anyone
explain this to me?
Apart from the Ministry of
Energy, which uses pre-paid meters, all the other Ministry buildings in Accra
do not pay for electricity. In addition, the Ghana Armed Forces, which buy
electricity in bulk from the ECG have not paid their bills for several years.
It is because of this that the
increase being advocated is an act of transgression against the individual consumer.
Even the World Bank knows this. In a report about the electricity supply
problem in Ghana, the World Bank recently bemoaned the failure of the ECG to
collect bills from certain organizations.
 |
| Inusah Fuseini, Ex Deputy Energy Minister |
It is in view of the above that
it amounts to careless talk for the ex-Deputy Minister of Energy to claim
that “Until we begin paying some
realistic prices for energy, we will be dogged by the problem of under
investment in the energy sector where government will have to move resources
from other critical areas into the power sector,”
He should rather have put it this
way: “That until the ECG and VRA collect the massive arrears owed them by
private companies and government institutions, those companies will be dogged
by the problem of under-investment in the energy sector”. How can government
that is not paying its dues claim to moving “resources from other critical
areas into the power sector”?
If the government pays its bills
and the ECG and VRA collect the massive arrears owed by private companies,
there will be more than enough to invest in the energy sector. If the ECG
collects its bills, it will be able to pay GRIDCO the over GHS80 million that
they owe the latter. When these are done, there would be no reason to increase
tariffs above the rate of inflation, currently at 10%..
Talking about inefficiency of the
top management of the VRA, one is minded to wonder how come in February this
year, all the generators at the Aboadze plant developed faults at the same
time.
It is true to say that the
current adverse situation of VRA’s balance sheet is due partly to government’s failure to pay
their own share of the electricity bills
and partly due to the maladministration of the top management of the
VRA.
Not long ago, the ECG received
US$70 million from the World Bank to procure smart pre-paid meters. With that
amount, most of the country could have been covered. However less than
one-third had been used, with ECG officials selling them at exorbitant
prices.
What is
the ECG management doing about illegal connections by large companies? Who in
the ECG top management gives pre-paid meters to ECG “goro boys” who in turn
sell them at exorbitant prices to consumers? Why are the VRA and the government
deceiving everybody by posturing that everyone in the electricity supply chain
is paying their bills and that we need 80% increase to invest in equipment. If
the ECG buys the appropriate equipment, why are their generators blowing up almost every day?
It is sad that in Ghana’s democracy of today, when
one raises such questions, our leaders take it as an affront to their person.
Such a feeling is enough to have one banned from all sorts of places. As someone said some time ago, "Truth will not make us rich, but
it will make us free." Someone is
not telling the truth about the need for an 80% increase in electricity tariff.
If, at the height of the electricity
crisis, the top management of VRA took time-off to fly to South Africa to watch
football, it goes a long way to show how much they care about the electricity
problems. Just after their jamboree in South Africa, they return only to
arrogantly demand an 80% increase in tariff. What a cheek?
EDITORIAL
WHY MAHAMA MUST NOT FAIL
The failure of the Mahama administration will
most definitely rob off badly on the Ghanaian progressive community.
This is largely because he is a product of the
Ghanaian progressive community and identified with its causes.
He was in the ranks of the broad students’
movement. He worked in the Cuban Solidarity
Campaign and was an activist of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
John Mahama’s father was also a Minister in the progressive government of
Osagyego Dr Kwame Nkrumah which was
overthrown by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America.
Given this background, the public expectation
was that he would pursue a progressive agenda.
The public expectation also springs from the
fact that progressive forces worked exceedingly hard to secure victory for
President John Dramani Mahama in the 2012 elections.
To a very large extent, the victory of John
Mahama is also a victory for Ghanaian progressives.
Unfortunately, so far, there are no indications
that there will be a paradigm shift in
Ghanaian governance.
It may be
true that it is too early to pass judgment on the Mahama administration, but the fact is that the vast
majority of the people on the streets are unhappy with their concrete conditions
of life.
The
insight believes that all progressive forces have a responsibility to
contribute to the success of the Mahama administration.
However, this contribution must come in the
proper assessment of the true national situation and not sycophancy.
The progressive forces must not abandon their
principles in helping President Mahama
to succeed.
It is
commitment to those principles and the truth which will be the most effective
tool in the effort to help the Mahama administration to succeed.
The
failure of the Mahama administration may have consequences far beyond the
National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Competition with cheap imports means that the margins are
thin for Ivorian rice farmers and small traders like Gnandé. Côte d'Ivoire was
self-sufficient in rice in the mid 1970s, but under pressure from international
donors, the national rice company was privatised, public support for production
was dismantled and the market was opened up to imports. Within two decades, two
thirds of the rice consumed in the country came from Asia.
These imports generated immense profits for the handful of
international grain traders and powerful local businessmen who dominate the
market. Yet they've been deadly for local production. Only the hard work and
ingenuity of the country's farmers and small traders have kept local rice
production alive.
Today the situation is changing. International prices for rice
spiked in 2008, and have not come down to previous levels. Local rice now costs
15 percent less than imports, and demand is growing along with production and
sales.
Women rice traders have recently formed several cooperatives and have even
created brands for local rice.
This has not escaped the attention of the big rice traders.
The same grouping of government, donors and corporations that demolished Côte
d'Ivoire's domestic rice sector is now conspiring to take control of it – from
farm to market.
New Alliance for Food Security and Corporate Control
Details of this plan are found in a 2012 agreement between
the government of Côte d'Ivoire, the G8 countries represented by the EU, and a
grouping of multinational and national companies involved in the rice trade.
Known as a Cooperation Framework, the agreement is part of the New Alliance for
Food Security and Nutrition – a partnership between the G8, a number of African
governments, transnational corporations and some domestic companies.
Under its Cooperation Framework, Côte d'Ivoire promises to
reform its land laws and make other policy changes to facilitate private
investment in agriculture. In exchange, it gets hundreds of millions of dollars
in donor assistance and promises from eight foreign companies and their local
partners to invest nearly US$ 800 million in the development of massive rice
farms (see Table 1).
One of these companies, Groupe Mimran of France, wants an
initial 60,000 ha, and plans to eventually expand its holdings to 182,000 ha.
Another, the Algerian company Cevital, is reported to be seeking 300,000 ha. On
January 31, 2013, the CEO of the French grain trader Louis Dreyfus, the biggest
importer of rice in Côte d'Ivoire, signed an agreement with the country's
ministry of agriculture, giving it access to between 100,000-200,000 ha for
rice production. These
three projects alone will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers
and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders – the very people
that the G8 claims will be the “primary beneficiaries” of its New Alliance.
Table 1 – Private sector investments in
rice under the Country Cooperative Framework signed between Côte d'Ivoire and
the G8.
|
Company |
Size of investment |
Land involved |
|
Olam (Singapore) |
US$ 50 million |
Unknown |
|
Louis Dreyfus (France)/SDTM
(Côte d'Ivoire/Lebanon) |
US$ 60 million* |
100,000-200,000 ha |
|
Groupe Mimran (France) |
US$ 230 million |
182,000 ha |
|
Cevital (Algeria) |
US$150 million |
300,000 ha |
|
Groupe CIC (Switzerland) |
US$ 30 million |
Unknown |
|
Export Trading Group
(Singapore) |
US$ 38 million |
Unknown |
|
Novel Group (Switzerland) |
US$ 95 million |
15,000 ha |
|
Sud Industries SA |
US$ 150 million |
Unknown |
Smells like structural adjustment
The New Alliance is phase two of the G8's coordinated
response to the global food crisis. The first was the L'Aquila Food Security
Initiative, launched by G8 leaders in 2009. They committed to mobilise $22
billion in donor funding to support national agricultural plans in developing
countries.
Both initiatives have been spearheaded by the US government.
“The L’Aquila initiative was more than just about money,”
says US Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs
Mike Froman. “In that initiative leaders agreed to put their money behind
country plans that had been developed and that were owned by the developing
countries themselves.”
For Africa, the G8 funds were to be aligned with the country
agriculture plans developed through the African Union's Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).
The New Alliance, which carries forward the funding
commitments of the L'Aquila Initiative, is supposed to do the same: align donor
funds with the CAADP national plans. But this is not what is happening.
The G8 has signed Cooperation Frameworks with six countries
since the New Alliance was launched in May 2012: Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania.8
The Frameworks involve a set of 15 or so different policy measures that each
African government commits to implement within clearly defined deadlines.
But few of these policy commitments are found in the CAADP
plans that these countries developed through national consultations.And, while the national plans are extensive documents covering a wide range of
issues, the frameworks zero in on only a small number of measures. almost
exclusively aimed at increasing corporate investment in agricultural lands and
input markets (see Annex).
So where do these specific policy commitments come from?
"The policy commitments in the Cooperation Frameworks were identified
through a consultative process between the respective African governments and
the private sector," says USAID in a written response to GRAIN.
Such behind-the-scenes consultations between
African officials and corporate executives are being facilitated by the World
Economic Forum's Grow Africa Partnership. The partnership's mandate is to bring
business executives from companies like Monsanto and Yara together with African
governments to convert the CAADP national plans “into increased flows of
private sector investment.”
The G8 tasked Grow Africa to identify the
private sector investments that are included in the Cooperation Frameworks.
Many of these investments and the government policy commitments in the
frameworks target the specific geographic areas for farmland investment that
Grow Africa is focussing on, such as the Southern
Agricultural Growth Corridor in Tanzania and Burkina Faso's Bagré Growth
Pole for private investment.
The involvement of the G8 gives a boost to the wish lists
drawn up by Grow Africa's members with African governments behind closed doors,
because it ties their implementation to donor funding. The “performance” of
African governments in implementing the policy measures they have committed to
under the Cooperation Frameworks will be regularly reviewed by a joint
Leadership Council of the G8 and Grow Africa, which USAID describes as a
“high-level accountability mechanism to drive implementation.”
On the eve of the G8 leaders summit in 2012, Mamadou
Cissokho, Honorary President of the Network of Farmers' and Agricultural
Producers' Organisations of West Africa (ROPPA), sent a letter to the President
of the African Union on behalf of African civil society networks and farmers'
organisations expressing his concerns over how the G8 was dictating
agricultural policy in Africa.
“At the
moment when the President of the United States, acting in good faith I am sure,
has decided to organise a Symposium on Food Security in Washington on 18-19 May
2012, on the eve of the G8 meeting at Camp David, I address myself to you, the
President of the African Union – and through you to all African Heads of State
– to ask what leads you to believe that Africa's food security and food
sovereignty could be achieved by international cooperation and outside the
policy frameworks formulated in inclusive fashion with the peasants and
producers of the continent…
The G8
and G20 can in no way be considered appropriate places for such decisions.”
Straight through the heart
One of the main corporate partners of the G8's New Alliance
is US-based Cargill, the world's largest grain trader. In a rare interview, the
vice chairman of this secretive, family-owned company, Paul Conway, told Al
Jazeera that the key to resolving the current global food crisis is “to make
better use of the land in Africa and, at the very heart of that, is better
property rights.”
Land is a top priority for Cargill and the other
agribusiness corporations targeting Africa. This is why it figures so
prominently in the Cooperation Frameworks of the G8's New Alliance.
Each Cooperation Framework contains a set of policy commitments
by African governments that are designed to make it easier for companies to
identify, negotiate for and acquire lands in key agricultural areas of the
continent. Ghana will create a database of suitable land for investors,
simplify procedures for them to acquire lands, and establish pilot model 5,000
ha lease agreements by 2015.15
Tanzania will map the fertile and densely populated lands of Kilombero District
to make it easier for outside investors to find and acquire the lands they
want. Burkina Faso promises to fast forward a resettlement policy, and
Mozambique commits to develop and approve highly controversial “regulations and
procedures that authorise communities to engage in partnerships through leases
or sub-leases (cessao de exploração)" by June 2013.
Ethiopia, for its part, will extend protections for
commercial farms and establish a one-window service for investors to cut
through the red tape involved in acquiring land . The Ethiopian government has
already allocated more than three million hectares of land to corporate investors
under an agricultural development plan linked to gross human rights violations.
It has only three policy indicators to live up to in its Cooperation Framework
with the G8: “improved score on Doing Business Index,” “increased dollar value
of new private-sector investment in the agricultural sector,” and “percentage
increase in private investment in commercial production and sale of seeds.”
There are no policy commitments in the framework for
Ethiopia – or any of the other countries involved – to protect peasants and
pastoralists from the growing number of land grabs taking place.
The New Alliance instead promotes a voluntary approach to
regulate the corporate investment in land that it encourages. Within each
framework, the New Alliance partners confirm their “intentions” to “take
account” of both the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of
Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests and the Principles for Responsible
Agricultural Investment (PRAI).
The PRAI, which were initiated by the World Bank in 2009,
have been fiercely rejected by civil society organisations for legitimising
land grabs. And while the principles have been endorsed by both the G8 and the
G20, the FAO-hosted Committee on World Food Security (CFS) refused to do so.
The Voluntary Guidelines, on the other hand, were adopted by
the CFS in May 2012, after a three-year process of bottom-up consultation and
are acclaimed for putting emphasis on the rights and needs of women, indigenous
peoples and the poor. The effectiveness of these guidelines will depend entirely
on how they are implemented, and this is being fiercely contested..19
Social movements and NGOs in the CFS want the Voluntary Guidelines translated
into binding national laws; corporations want them to remain voluntary.
The New Alliance is posing as a programme for the
implementation of both the Voluntary Guidelines and the PRAI. Both will be
implemented through “pilot implementation programs" that the New Alliance
partners – i.e. the very actors doing the land grabbing (governments and
companies) – commit to develop together under each Cooperation Framework.
Louis Dreyfus will thus “take account” of the Voluntary
Guidelines and the PRAI as it takes over 100,000-200,000 ha of farmlands in
Côte d'Ivoire to produce rice. So will the Japanese trading house, Itochu, as
it works with the Japanese government and Brazilian farming companies to
establish large-scale soybean and maize farms in Northern Mozambique.
These will serve as models for how to responsibly handle the transfer of
African farmlands to corporations.
At the next G8 meeting, in the UK in June 2013, the British
government will propose an initiative to encourage companies and developing
countries to disclose basic information on large scale land acquisitions. The
proposed Global Land Transparency Initiative is intended to demonstrate
concrete and effective implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines. But it will
remain voluntary and would provide only rudimentary information about land
deals.
The UK's Department for International Development is organising an invitation-only session to discuss the initiative on the sidelines of the World Bank's Annual Conference on Land and Poverty in April 2013.
The UK's Department for International Development is organising an invitation-only session to discuss the initiative on the sidelines of the World Bank's Annual Conference on Land and Poverty in April 2013.
Holding the G8 to account
In the five years since the global food crisis began and
investors started to turn their attention to African farmland, there have been
hundreds of conflicts – some of them violent – between marginalised peasant
communities and powerful foreign companies over access to Africa's lands and
water for agriculture.
By using their influence as donors to push African
governments to enact policies that make it easier for transnational companies
to acquire farmlands in Africa, the G8 governments are taking sides. They are
contributing directly to the displacement of peasants and pastoralists to make
way for foreign agribusiness.
Going further
The Cooperation Frameworks for Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania are available here: http://feedthefuture.gov/article/unga2012
The national agriculture and investment plans that have been
published by Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique and
Tanzania are available here: http://www.grain.org/e/4662
GRAIN, “Responsible farmland investing? Current efforts to
regulate land grabs will make things worse,” August 2012: http://www.grain.org/e/4564
Annex: Some policy commitments dealing
with land and seeds made by African countries within the Cooperation Frameworks
signed with the G8
|
Country |
Land |
Seeds |
|
Burkina Faso |
-Develop / rehabilitate 18,500
ha of irrigated areas and 35,000 ha of low-lands (Dec. 2015) -Adopt and disseminate a policy framework for resettlement in the developed areas (Dec. 2013) -Draft transparent procedures for access to land in State or local government developed areas, delineate, register the land areas already developed and issue documents relative to land use rights in all the developed areas (Dec. 2014) |
|
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
-The Rural Land Act
implemented through programs to demarcate village lands and through the
issuance of land tenure certificates (June 2015) -The land information system extended and operationalized throughout the country (Dec. 2013) |
-The draft seed act finalized
and adopted; procedures for the approval of seed varieties and their entry in
the official catalogue simplified (Dec. 2014) |
|
Ethiopia |
-Establish a one-window
service that assists agriculture investors to obtain a business license,
secure access to land, obtain market information on pricing and production
availability, etc. (Apr. 2013) -Implement policy measures, as necessary, that secure ownership and crop trading rights for commercial farms (Dec. 2013) -Extend land certification to all rural land holders (June 2015) -Refine land law, if necessary, to encourage long-term land leasing and strengthen contract enforcement for commercial farms (Dec. 2013) -Further develop and implement guidelines of corporate responsibility for land tenure and responsible agriculture investment (June 2013) |
|
|
Ghana |
-Database of suitable land for
investors established: 1,000 ha registered (Dec. 2013); 4,500 ha registered
((Dec. 2014); 10,000 ha registered (Dec. 2015) -Pilot model lease agreements for 5,000 ha of land in database established (Dec. 2015) -Clear procedures to channel investor interest to appropriate agencies completed (to provide a transparent and structured way for investors of all types to avoid extra transaction costs and reduce the perceived risk of approaching government to manage access to, and security of land (Dec. 2013) |
-Seed registry system
established (June 2013) -Protocols for variety testing, release and registration, authorization to conduct field inspections, seed sampling, and seed testing developed (June 2013) -Standards for seed classification and certification established (June 2013) |
|
Mozambique |
-Adopt procedures for
obtaining rural land use rights (DUATs) that decrease processing time and
cost (Mar. 2013) -Develop and approve regulations and procedures that authorize communities to engage in partnerships through leases or sub-leases (cessao de exploração) (June 2013) |
-Systematically cease
distribution of free and unimproved seeds except for pre-identified staple
crops in emergency situations (Nov. 2012) -Implement approved regulations governing seed proprietary laws which promote private sector investment in seed production (June 2013) |
|
Tanzania |
-All village land in Kilombero
demarcated (Aug. 2012) -All village land in SAGCOT region demarcated (June 2014) -20% of villages in SAGCOT complete land use plans and issued certificate of occupancy (June 2016) -Instrument developed that clarifies roles of land implementing agencies in order to responsibly and transparently allocate land for investors in the SAGCOT region (Dec. 2012) |
-Revised Seed Act that aligns
plant breeder’s rights with the International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV) system. (Nov. 2012) |
1 Fulgence Zamblé, “Les femmes
rurales et l’autosuffisance alimentaire en riz,” IPS, 16 juillet 2009
4 “Cevital, 1ère entreprise privée
algérienne, choisit la Côte d’Ivoire pour sa 1ère implantation à l’étranger,”
20 minutes, 11 juin 2012:
5 “Côte d'Ivoire : Louis Dreyfus
investira 60 millions de dollars dans le riz,” Jeune Afrique, 31 janvier
2013
6 Food security: EU supports G8 initiative
for a "New Alliance" with partner countries, donors and the private
sector, Letter from African Civil Society Critical
of Foreign Investment in African Agriculture at G8 Summit
8 According to USAID: "These African
countries [participating in the New Alliance] have committed to major policy
changes that open doors to more private sector trade and investment, such as
strengthening property rights, supporting seed investments, and opening trade
opportunities. G8 members identified development assistance funding aligned
behind these nations' own country investment plans for agriculture, and private
sector firms from within these countries and from around the world have laid
out investment plans in the agricultural sectors of these countries."
Personal communication from USAID, 8 February 2013.
9 The Cooperation Frameworks reference
both the national agriculture plans and the national agricultural investment
plans, which involved varying degrees of national consultation in their
formulation. In Mozambique, for instance, the national peasants union was
involved in the formulation of national agriculture plan but not the investment
plan.
12 Letter
from African Civil Society Critical of Foreign Investment in African
Agriculture at G8 Summit, 15 May 2012
14 Seeds and fertilisers are another major
area of focus for transnational agribusinesses like Monsanto and Yara that are
also part of the New Alliance, and there are several policy commitments dealing
with both of these as well. Tanzania, for instance, commits to approve a new
seeds act based on UPOV 91, while Mozambique will “systematically cease
distribution of free and unimproved seeds.”
15 These policy commitments are also found
in a separate project with the World Bank and USAID, called the Ghana
Commercial Agriculture Project, that was initiated in 2012.
16 The exact same policy commitment is
found in a Development Policy Operation (DPO) that Mozambique is negotiating
with the World Bank.
17 Figures on land come from the 2011 Oakland Institute report on Ethiopia. For
information on land grabs and human rights violations in Ethiopia, see the 2012
report by Human Rights Watch, “Waiting Here
for Death”; and, “Ethiopia's
resettlement scheme leaves lives shattered and UK facing questions,”
Guardian, 22 January 2013, which points the involvement of the UK government.
19 Both the B20, the business lobby that
reports to the G20, and Via Campesina, the largest global peasant movement,
have called on governments to adopt the voluntary guidelines.
20 UNAC, Via Campesina Africa, GRAIN, “Brazilian agribusiness invades
Africa,” 30 November 2012; ASA-IM
– Special Report - US Soybean Export Council .
Source:
Grain.org
European Monetary Union is a failed experiment
By Michael P Gardner
The
European Monetary Union (EMU) is a failed experiment and should be put to rest.
It was a good idea in principle, but not in practice. Like the saying goes, the
road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I understand this proverb, what I
do not understand is, why some nations want to go down this road, and join this
disastrous endeavor.
Let's
look at some of the current economic conditions in the EU according to
Eurostat. GDP growth rate in 2013 is 0.1%, compared to 2007 3.2%. Retail sales
have steadily declined since 2000 despite a near zero European Central bank
benchmark interest rate. Unemployment is currently at 12%, the highest since EU
statistics were compiled. Consumer spending in 2012 is at 2007 levels. By almost
every measure, the people of the EU are worse off than before unification.
Greece (27% unemployment) and Spain (26% Unemployment) are much worse off. In
the case of Bulgaria, just being pegged to the Euro has required them to enact
severe austerity measures.
This has brought down the Bulgarian government.
According to Danish economist Lars Christensen, "The Bulgarian Government
has been heroic. But the fact is there hasn't been any real growth for five
years. They have lost their policy levers and are importing a monetary crunch
from the ECB's tight policies and a credit crunch due to links to Greece. They
now face years of deflation."
This
is merely the latest casualty in a series of EMU countries like Greece,
Portugal, and Spain. These countries have given up their economic sovereignty
for what? They have an economic union that has been devastating to their
countries. It is one thing to have a dire economic situation in your country
and be able to make adjustments and control your own destiny. It is quite
another to have a foreign authority tell you what you must do, and when you
comply, it not only does not correct the problem, but actually makes it worse.
I
don't want to blame all of the economic problems in Europe on the EMU. Some of
it is cyclical and some of it because of demographics. Europe is getting older
and there are less young people to stimulate economic growth and create jobs.
But as Lars Christensen, states "Turkey is doing much better. So is
Ukraine. So is Moldova". How can these economies be doing better when they
are operating under the same conditions and demographics as the rest of Europe.
He answers that question by saying "In fact, the lesson is that if you
want to prosper as a developing economy on Europe's fringes, keep well-clear of
the EMU Project". Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, financial writer for the UK
Telegraph, reports what the European commission said in its annual report.
"A string of countries on the periphery (either in EMU or pegged) seem
trapped in a downward spiral of falling output, fast rising unemployment and
eroding disposable incomes". Evans-Pritchard states "the wave of austerity policies
raise important questions about the viability of Europe's welfare states."
The
current economic situation in Europe requires each country to make adjustments
based on what is best for them. Unfortunately, that impossible if your country
is pegged to the Euro, or you are in the EMU. You must do what Brussels tell
you to do, like it or not. In this atmosphere, I cannot understand why
countries like the Turkey, Serbia, and Macedonia want to be a part of this
disaster. There is no evidence to suggest that it improves a countries economic
situation, and, may in fact, make it worse. The reality is that this economic
union (pegged or EMU) has not worked and will, in all probability, collapse in
the future. New EU candidate countries need to ask themselves if they want to
be part of this debacle, or safely sit it out.
ANTI-BIOTICS NO LONGER WORK?
The admission by Britain's Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally
Davies should send shock waves through the world medical community and
the international drug industry. The war between man and microbe is being lost
to the superbug. Antibiotics no longer work. Or at least they are becoming less
and less effective in the treatment and control of disease.
85 years after Fleming's discovery of penicillin western
medical practice has bellied up like a dead fish in polluted waters. The
analogy has relevance to ecology and the environment. In 1928 Fleming's
wonder-drug was hailed as a major breakthrough for medical science. Antibiotics
became the Holy Grail of western medicine, providing an almighty safety-net
against disease and infection. A proliferation of synthetic compounds (drugs)
spiraled into today's multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry, which soon
became the backbone of the medical profession, the panacea for all ailments,
and the universal answer to disease control and eradication.
Less than a century later the safety-net has bottomed out.
Drug resistance was not factored into the prognosis. Scant attention was given
to the immune system and the body's innate ability to reject malignant
organisms.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) attempted to eradicate
malaria by spraying DDT in the developing world in the 1950s - not taking into
account that the mosquito has probably been around longer than man on the
planet.The poisonous compound DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) resulted
in more loss of life than prevention of illness. It entered the food chain,
contaminated the environment, altered animal, plant and human life, and
transformed the mosquito into a super-resistant purveyor of disease.The WHO
also tried to eradicate polio, rickets, tuberculosis and other diseases that
have returned with alarming vigor and virulence. Medical boffins are forced to
admit that we may be fast-tracking back to the Dark Ages where the simplest
operation can have fatal consequences. The threat of infection is less preventable
than before, and the human immune system has taken a severe beating in the last
50 years through massive abuses of the world's environmental and eco-systems.
Modern medicine (like the banking system) duped millions into believing it was
a fail-safe option, only to be revealed as dodgy 'practice' based on trial and
error. Once again man's effort's to play God have come up short - with
disastrous consequences for world health, Nature and quality of life on planet
earth.
The West is slowly awakening to the fact that modern
medicine has been built on a shaky foundation: the assumption that drugs would
always beat bugs. But antibiotics are anti-life. Literally. And life is based
on holistic principles. While 'alternative' healers - the Sebis, Ssalis, Chopras,
Babus, Baggas, Drobos, Afrikas, at al have been grossly maligned,
marginalised and persecuted, Western medicine (hand in glove with the
pharmaceutical industry) has promised miraculous cures which it is now
tragically unable to deliver. On the contrary world health has nosedived since
the 1960s.
Pandemics are on the rise: heart disease, stroke, obesity,
fibroids, diabetes, impotence, mental disorder and the big "C". Dame
Sally Davies openly acknowledges that "many cancer treatments can
cause weakened immune systems", rendering patients vulnerable to a
range of illnesses or life-long dependency on medication. Inoculation has been
outed as dangerous and life-threatening. AIDS is the first disease
to be defined by its effect rather than its cause: immune deficiency. It has
either been genetically engineered or processed into being through
long-term systemic malfunction - or both. Invasive techniques such
as pills, injections, sprays, scans, surgery and chemotherapy have
waged war on the human body. Perhaps for the first time in human history
sickness has overtaken well-being as the 'unnatural' state of mankind.
But rather than review the misdirection of modern medicine a
desperate search for new drugs will obtain. This will involve billions of pounds
worth of investment in research, experimentation and trials that will take
years to come up with the next miracle cure. Serial gamblers are like a runaway
train. They gather speed and can't be turned round until they crash.
In the meantime harmful organisms will multiply and become stronger
in relation to the weakening human condition. Countless millions of lives
will be lost. The overall quality of life will be ruined for new generations
hooked on prescriptive drugs - just like our planet -
haemorrhaging under the weight of oppressive stewardship
and exploitation for half a millennium.
“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal
Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”
The Vatican conclave has elected Cardinal Jorge Mario
Bergoglio as Pope Francis I
Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for
the Society of Jesus.
In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit
in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla
(1976-1983).
He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope
John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001
When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly
elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the
crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).
The military junta had been supported covertly by
Washington.
US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the
scenes role in the 1976 military coup.
Kissinger’s top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers,
told him two days after the coup that “we’ve got to expect a fair amount of
repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long.”
… (National Security Archive, March
23, 2006)
“Operation Condor”
Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March
5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The
ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is: “to consider the totality of crimes
carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed
Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and
murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.”
For further details, see Operation Condor: Trial On Latin
American Rendition And Assassination Program By Carlos
Osorio and Peter
Kornbluh, March 10, 2013
Photo left: Henry Kissinger and General Jorge Videla
(1970s)
The military junta led by General Jorge Videla (left) was
responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who
opposed military rule following the CIA sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which
overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:
”Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights
crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985,
Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”
Wall Street and the Neoliberal
Economic Agenda
One of the key appointments of the military junta (on the
instructions of Wall Street) was the Minister of Economy, Jose Alfredo
Martinez de Hoz, a member of Argentina’s business establishment and a close
friend of David Rockefeller. (See Image below: From left to right:
Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, David Rockefeller and General Jorge Videla)
The neoliberal macro-economic policy package adopted under
Martinez de Hoz was a “carbon copy” of that imposed in October 1973 in Chile by
the Pinochet dictatorship under advice from the “Chicago Boys”, following the
September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat and the assassination of president Salvador
Allende.
Wages were immediately frozen by decree. Real purchasing
power collapsed by more than 30 percent in the 3 months following the March 24,
1976 military coup. (Author’s estimates, Cordoba, Argentina, July 1976). The
Argentinean population was impoverished.
Under the helm of Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez
de Hoz, central bank monetary policy was largely determined by Wall Street and
the IMF. The currency market was manipulated. The Peso was deliberately
overvalued leading to an insurmountable external debt. The entire national
economy was precipitated into bankruptcy.
Wall Street and the Catholic Church
Hierarchy
Wall Street was firmly behind the military Junta which waged
“The Dirty War” on its behalf. In turn, the Catholic Church hierarchy played a
central role in sustaining the legitimacy of the military Junta.
The Order of Jesus –which represented the Conservative yet
most influential faction within the Catholic Church, closely associated with
Argentina’s economic elites– was firmly behind the military Junta, against
so-called “Leftists” in the Peronista movement.
“The Dirty War”: Allegations
directed Against Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal
suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the
military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.
Image Left: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and General Jorge Videla
Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society
of Jesus, had ordered two “Leftist” Jesuit priests “to leave their pastoral
work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus
regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military
Junta.
Condemning the military dictatorship (including human rights
violations) was a taboo within the Catholic Church. While the upper echelons of
the Church were supportive of the military Junta, the grassroots of the Church
was firmly opposed to the imposition of military rule.
In 2010, the survivors of the “Dirty War” accused Cardinal
Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of two members of the Society
of Jesus Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)
In the course of the trial initiated in 2005, “Bergoglio
twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court,
and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive”:
“At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One
examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco
Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated
liberation theology. Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over
to the death squads… by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their
work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German
monastery.” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005)
The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two
kidnapped Jesuit priests are but the tip of the iceberg. The entire Catholic
hierarchy was behind the Military Junta.
According to lawyer Myriam Bregman: “Bergoglio’s own
statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was
torturing and killing its citizens, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators.
“The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support,”
(Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005
emphasis added)
Holy Communion for the Dictators (image right: General Jorge Videla takes communion from
priest Jorge Mario Bergoglio)
The Catholic hierarchy was tacitly complicit in torture and
mass killings, an estimated “22,000 dead and disappeared, from
1976 to 1978 … Thousands of additional victims were killed between
1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.” (National Security Archive, March
23, 2006)
The Catholic Church: Chile versus
Argentina
It is worth noting that in the wake of the military coup in
Chile on September 11,1973, the Cardinal of Santiago de Chile, Raul Silva
Henriquez openly condemned the military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet.
In marked contrast to Argentina, this stance of the Catholic hierarchy in Chile
was instrumental in curbing the tide of political assassinations and human
rights violations directed against supporters of Salvador Allende and opponents
of the military regime.
Had Jorge Mario Bergoglio taken a similar stance to that of
Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez, thousands of lives would have been saved.
“Operation Condor” and the Catholic Church
The election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the Vatican conclave
to serve as Pope Francis I will have immediate repercussions regarding the
ongoing “Operation Condor” Trial in Buenos Aires.
The Church was involved in supporting the military Junta.
This is something which will emerge in course of the trial proceedings. No
doubt, there will be attempts to obfuscate the role of the Catholic hierarchy
and the newly appointed pope Francis I, who served as head of Argentina’s
Jesuit order during the military dictatorship.
 |
| The Vatican City |
Jorge Mario Bergoglio: “Washington’s
Pope in the Vatican”?
The election of Pope Francis I has broad geopolitical
implications for the entire Latin American region.
In the 1970s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was supportive of a US
sponsored military dictatorship.
The Catholic hierarchy in Argentina supported the military
government.
Wall Street’s interests were sustained through Jose Alfredo
Martinez de Hoz’ office at the Ministry of Economy.
The Catholic Church in Latin America is politically influential.
It also has a grip on public opinion. This is known and understood by the
architects of US foreign policy.
In Latin America, where a number of governments are now
challenging US hegemony, one would expect –given Bergoglio’s track record– that
the new Pontiff Francis I as leader of the Catholic Church, will play de
facto, a discrete “undercover” political role on behalf of Washington.
With Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I in the Vatican (who
faithfully served US interests in the heyday of General Jorge Videla) the
hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Latin America can once again be effectively
manipulated to undermine “progressive” (Leftist) governments, not only in
Argentina (in relation to the government of Cristina Kirschner) but throughout
the entire region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
The instatement of “a pro-US pope” occurred a week following
the death of president Hugo Chavez.
Washington and Wall Street’s Pope in
the Vatican?
The US State Department routinely pressures members of the
United Security Council with a view to influencing the vote pertaining to
Security Council resolutions.
US covert operations and propaganda campaigns are routinely
applied with a view to influencing national elections in different countries
around the World.
Did the US government attempt to influence the election of
the new pontiff? Jorge Mario Bergoglio was Washington’s preferred candidate.
Were undercover pressures discretely exerted by Washington,
within the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly, on the 115 cardinals who
are members of the Vatican conclave, leading to the election of a pontiff who
will faithfully serve US foreign policy interests in Latin America?
Author’s Note
From the outset of the military
regime in 1976, I was Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Institute of the
Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina. My major research focus at the time
was to investigate the social impacts of the deadly macroeconomic reforms
adopted by the military Junta.
I was teaching at the University of
Cordoba during the initial wave of assassinations which also targeted
progressive grassroots members of the Catholic clergy.
The Northern industrial city of
Cordoba was the center of the resistance movement. I witnessed how the Catholic
hierarchy actively and routinely supported the military junta, creating an
atmosphere of intimidation and fear throughout the country. The general feeling
at the time was that Argentinians had been betrayed by the upper echelons of
the Catholic Church.
Three years earlier, at the time of
Chile’s September 11, 1973 military coup, leading to the overthrow of the
Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende, I was Visiting Professor at the
Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago de Chile.
In the immediate wake of the coup in
Chile, I witnessed how the Cardinal of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez –acting
on behalf of the Catholic Church– confronted the military dictatorship.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
Western media set up North Korea for war
By Finian Cunningham
Western so-called news media coverage of the escalating tensions on the
Korean Peninsula is like watching a cross between a bad James Bond movie and a cheap
horror flick about flesh-eating zombies.
It would be funny if the danger of war
was not so serious and imminent. The disturbing direction of the Western media
coverage is to set up North Korea - a poor impoverished country - for an
all-out military attack by the world’s nuclear superpower psychopath - the
United States.
United States.
Paradoxically, this danger is being
incited by “news” corporations that pompously claim to be free-thinking
bastions of independent journalism, when in reality they are nothing more than
progenitors of the worst kind of pulp fiction.
Kim Jong-un, the young leader of North
Korea who took over from his late father in 2011, is being cast as an insane
villain whose Western media persona resembles that of a putative Doctor Evil.
His projected character is fit for a role in an early 007 movie.
Days ago, Kim was reported as
threatening “preemptive nuclear war” against South Korea and its patron the
United States. How evil!
Scarcely mentioned were the facts that Kim was forced into this position of
making a staunch defense of his country, under immense pressure of relentless
imperialist aggression. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been
slapped with yet more US-led sanctions aimed at ostracizing the country from
any international contact.
It’s the equivalent of solitary
confinement of a prisoner, subjected to sensory deprivation. But this is
torture of an entire nation with no reprieve.
Yes, North Korea conducted an underground nuclear weapons test in mid-February.
This was after the US tightened the
thumb-screws with yet more sanctions; and after years of Washington refusing to
reciprocate with a negotiated settlement to end more than six decades of
crippling trade embargoes in addition to the ever-present threat of nuclear
annihilation against North Korea following the 1950-53 war with its
American-backed Southern neighbour.
No other country has been threatened
with nuclear Armageddon as often as North Korea - and always by the US - for
more than 60 years.
Western media have now highlighted the
North Korean leader ordering his massed troops to prepare for “wiping out” a
South Korean island by turning a craggy maritime outpost into “a sea of
flames.”
Do you see the innuendo here? Wiping
out an island? Well, Kim must be an insane megalomaniac, right?
The island in question is the disputed
territory of Baengnyeong, which is actually located off the North Korean
mainland, but which the US forced into South Korea’s possession following the
1950-53 war. It has been used since, provocatively, as a staging post for
American surveillance and forward planning for attack against North Korea.
No doubt the island will be used this week during the US perennial war
planning maneuvers that simulate the invasion of North Korea, but which
Washington euphemistically calls “defensive measures.”
Befitting the caricature of
arch-villain, photographs and footage have abounded in Western media showing
Kim Jong-un clad in black long overcoat and black gloves, peering through
binoculars apparently towards South Korean and American forces across the
Demilitarized Zone of the 38th parallel.
Just in case the Western public fail
to pick up on the demonic Dr
Evil caricature, there is another sub-plot being instilled - the North Korean flesh-eating zombies.
Evil caricature, there is another sub-plot being instilled - the North Korean flesh-eating zombies.
In recent weeks, there has been a rash
of stories regurgitated by the same Western media of outbreaks of cannibalism
among the allegedly starving people of North Korea. These stories of
cannibalistic gore and nihilism have not just been printed by the voyeuristic tabloid
gutter press. They have also been published prominently by supposed quality
outlets, such as Britain’s Sunday Times and Independent, as well
as one of America’s paper of record, The Washington Post.
Significantly, these macabre stories
began circulating in Western media outlets at the end of January - some two
weeks before North Korea conducted its underground nuclear explosion.
That suggests that the flesh-eating
horror claims in North Korea are the work of a Western intel psychological
campaign aimed at adding pejorative technicolor to the present crisis.
It makes for difficult reading. Not
because of the alleged gruesome details, but because these stories are so
obviously concocted and regurgitated in reflex manner by supposed news
organizations. The horror claims all come from one source: allegedly an
undercover team of journalists from an outfit called the Asia Press, based in
Japan, who were allegedly spirited secretly into North Korea and allegedly
interviewed various anonymous farmers and Communist party officials.
It’s so bad you could not make it up.
Yet the Western media presses have
gone into overdrive to pump out these unconfirmed and unverifiable accounts of
purported bloodcurdling cannibalism among the North Korean population.
In one version published by Britain’s Daily
Mail, the headline runs, “North Korean parents 'eating their own children'
after being driven mad by hunger in famine-hit pariah state.”
Daily Mail readers are told of how
starving adults are kidnapping and murdering children. One man was allegedly
executed by firing squad after his wife found out that he had killed their
young daughter and son “while she was away on business;” when she returned to
the starving family homestead her husband greeted her with the welcome news
that “they had meat” to eat.
In another ghoulish tale, printed as
serious news, an elderly man is reported to have dug up the graves of his
grandchildren and eaten their rotten flesh.
 |
| North Korean Leader Kim Jung Un |
The truly disturbing thing about these
reports is that not only are they sordid sensationalism passed off as credible
reports by supposedly serious news organizations, but worse is that this
propaganda is apparently believed by droves of the Western public who read or
watch such media. Check out some of the readers’ comments below the stories
printed in the above mentioned media and you will find all sorts of
denunciations of North Korea and its “sick people.”
But it’s not the people of North Korea who are depraved: it’s the Western
media and their gullible subscribers who indulge in this odious character
assassination of an entire nation.
The Western media coverage of North
Korea recalls stories of babies being ripped from hospital incubators by Iraqi
soldiers in Kuwait, which was a crucial tipping point for Western public
opinion to support the American-led war on Iraq in 1991. More than a decade
later, the same Western media ran scare stories of weapons of mass destruction
that paved the way of the American genocide in Iraq from 2003-2012.
The same Western propaganda press
repeats endless claims about “sinister Iranian nuclear ambitions” that serve to
justify a criminal American-led trade embargo on Iran that may result in a
US/Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic.
The same Western propaganda press is
now doing the same hatchet job on North Korea. A nation of flesh-eating zombies
led by an evil personality cult who wants to blow up islands? “Yeah, go on
Chuck, nuke those mothers!”
The Western public are being played
like fools to go along with the most depraved behaviour of military barbarism -
a nuclear superpower itching to destroy an impoverished nation that threatens
no-one.
No comments:
Post a Comment