 |
| President John Mahama |
In spite of protest from oil
marketing companies VIVO Energy Ghana, is expected to start operations in Ghana
today after acquiring almost 82 per cent of shall Ghana’s shares.
VIVO energy is more them 80 per cent foreign
owned in violation of the conditions for issuing licenses to oil marketing
companies in Ghana.
Industry sources say that it will be
headed by Fred Osoro as managing Director.
Osoro takes over from Vincent
Richter, former Acting Managing Director.
He has 20 years experience in the
energy industry during which he has held various management and marketing
position for Esso, Mobil and Engen including Managing Director of Engen Ghana
and Nigeria.
Shall has operated in Ghana for 85
years and there are fears that its deal with VIVO Energy may crowd out
indigenous oil marketing companies.
There are strong indications that
the Board of the National Petroleum Authority was by passed in the
transactions.
Editorial
ONCE MORE
Over the years, The Insight has warned of the
dangerous consequences of fully deregulating the petroleum sector but nobody
appears to be listening.
Only last week, the Mahama administration announced
further increases in the price of petroleum products as a result of the
implementation of the unwise policy of full deregulation.
For now, the increases in the prices of petroleum
products may not be that significant and the population may tolerate it for
awhile.
However, this situation will not persist forever
and the indications are that the time is coming soon when petroleum price
increases will cause substantial political, economic and social chaos.
From all indications the price of crude oil will
rise beyond expectation in the not too distance future.
When that happens price hikes will not be a
solution. The solution would be conservation and alternative sources of energy.
These solutions cannot be found and implemented in
the nick of time.
We have to start looking for and implementing the
long term solutions now.
Libyan people
dissatisfied
 |
| Muammar al Gaddafi |
The
Libyan People's National Movement has been launched in Libya, declaring the
principles of the Jamahiriya of Muammar al-Qadhafi and proclaiming the return
to a Green Libya, in opposition to the chaos, bloodshed, corruption and
incompetence of the FUKUS-imposed "Government" in Tripoli.
The
declaration comes in the form of The Founding Declaration of the Libyan
People's National Movement and the backdrop is the total failure of the
"Government" imposed by the FUKUS-Axis (France-UK-US) and implemented
through the terrorist atrocities of NATO and its terrorist minions, many of
whom were mercenaries from Chechnya, Albania, Afghanistan and contracted
mercenaries paid by the Gulf Cooperation Council (NATO bedboys Qatar and Saudi
Arabia).
And
what is the situation in Libya? According to those who founded this movement,
they are the following: "Systematic torture of prisoners, extra-judicial
killings, armed tribal conflicts, economic and political foreign domination,
robbing of national wealth, the reality of Al-Qaeda's control of parts of the
country, the invention and establishing of fragmented regional and cross-border
identities to replace the national unifying identity, anti-black politics
amongst the armed militias, the enforced displacements of whole tribes, the
flight of a third of the population to neighbouring countries for fear of
persecution".
Thank
you, Messrs. Cameron, Hague, Clinton, Obama and Sarkozy. Sterling job. Apart
from that, millions of Libyans who support Muammar al-Qathafi are being
excluded from the political life of Libya, living in fear. They cannot counter
or oppose any policies implemented by the Western-backed terrorist militia in
the virtual absence of any central authority.
The
new political movement encompasses all Libyans who are opposed to the
catastrophic current state of affairs and who wish to avoid another civil war.
The
following Declaration is concerned with the founding of the "Libyan
Popular National Movement" and has been written and agreed-upon by most of
the political/social/military leaderships of Green Libya.
Objectives
Maintain
the territorial integrity of Libya, safety of its land and security of its
people;
Work
on the release of all prisoners without exceptions, including Saif al-Islam
Gaddafi;
Treatment
and compensation to all victims of war without exception;
Create
conditions and safeguard for the return of forcibly displaced people to their
towns and villages;
Building
legislative, executive and judiciary institutions of the Libyan state, on the
basis of peaceful democracy based on citizenship, without discrimination of
ethnic or sectarian, regional or political belief;
Restoring
Libyan sovereignty, ending foreign interference and establishing an independent
foreign policy;
Rejecting
policies of exclusion and marginalization, that differentiate between the
components of the Libyan people;
Dissolving
armed militias, aiding former members to return to their previous jobs;
Launching
a reconstruction process of public and private properties destroyed during the
war, without discrimination;
Investigation
of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the war, forming
courts with public and international control standards to decide on
those issues;
those issues;
Ensure
the full participation of the Libyan citizens, exercising their right to
political decision-making, to choose its leaders and the political system in
the ways of democracy, under a constitution approved by the Libyan people,
without any tutelage or exclusion;
Put
the Holy Quran and the Sunnah as the reference of legislation in Libya, away
from extremism and fanaticism;
Urging
the international and regional organizations, NATO members and countries
supporting them in the aggression to take full responsibility for the situation
in Libya now, and for their legal violations and breaches of the Security
Council decisions;
The
LPNM [Libyan People's National Movement] declared also their exclusive
use of peaceful ways to accomplish their goals, but warned that the continuing
repression, killings, torture and forced displacement will lead to more
violence and hatred, and that the LPNM components and its fighters are ready to
engage in jihad and armed struggle for the defense of Libya and its citizens if
necessary.
http://za-kaddafi.ru/eng/founding-declaration-of-the-libyan-people-s-national-movement/
NATO,
the FUKUS Axis and its leaders are guilty of war crimes and breach of
international law. They should be tried in a court of law. Neither the ICC nor
the European Court of Human Rights even returned the courtesy of acknowledging
the following document:
The United Republic of Soybeans
“The United Republic of Soybeans.” That’s the
patronizing moniker given to the entire Southern Cone − comprising the
countries of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia − by the
Syngenta Corporation in a 2003 advertisement in the rural supplements of the
Argentine papers Clarín and La Nación. It’s an open statement of the
neocolonialist fervour with which these companies are attempting to dominate
this region of the world.
In 2012, the agribusiness transnationals really
stepped up their campaign to control these countries and their institutions.
They launched new genetically engineered (transgenic or GE) crops involving
increased health and environmental hazards because of the agrotoxins
(pesticides and herbicides) that have to be applied with them. They also
lobbied for policy changes that are without precedent except for the initial GE
onslaught in the second half of the 1990s. This new corporate drive comes in a
troubling new context in which almost all the governments of the region (at
least until June of last year) were “progressive” critics of neoliberalism.
These governments have begun to rectify some of the neoliberal policies adopted
in the 1990s, with the government taking a more active role in regulating the
economy and providing for social welfare, education, and healthcare.
However, in all this time, the prevailing model
of agricultural production has not changed. There has been no official concern
about the problems caused by the widespread planting of transgenic soybeans and
the high levels of agrotoxins this requires. On the contrary, this model
continues to be consolidated and defended by all of the region’s governments,
which have adopted it as government policy in every case. At best – and only
when societal pressure becomes too great – they have given slapdash consideration
to the problems of agrotoxin poisoning, displacement of peasants and first
peoples, land concentration, and loss of local production. But these are
considered “collateral impacts.” (Bolivia is excluded from this assessment,
since although the “half-moon” region of Santa Cruz de la Sierra sits within
the territory dubbed the “United Republic of Soybeans,” the government of Evo
Morales has taken widely divergent positions from the rest of the governments.
This has led to conflict with Santa Cruz power brokers who have called for the
region to separate from the country).
In previous issues of Against the grain (1 2 3), we have criticized the soy incursion
as serving to consolidate the agribusiness model of production. The Southern
Cone has become the region with the highest concentration of GE crops in the
world and, in a closely related development, the region with the highest per
capita application of agrotoxins. In this issue, we will explore the soy
phenomenon and its implications for peasant communities and society as a whole.
The profound impacts of the agribusiness model
know no borders between rural and urban. In rural areas and outer suburbs they
are measured in terms of agrotoxin poisoning, displaced farmers (who swell the
ranks of the urban poor), ruined regional economies, correspondingly high urban
food prices, and contamination of the food supply. Ultimately, what we are
looking at is a social and environmental catastrophe settling like a plague
over the entire region. Wherever you live, you cannot ignore it.
The handful of people and companies responsible
for this chain of destruction have names: Monsanto and a few other biotech
corporations (Syngenta, Bayer) leading the pack; large landowners and planting
pools that control millions of hectares (Los Grobo, CRESUD, El Tejar, Maggi,
and others); and the cartels that move grain around the world (Cargill, ADM,
and Bunge). Not to mention the governments of each of these countries and their
enthusiastic support for this model. To these should be added the many
auxiliary businesses providing services, machinery, spraying, and inputs that
have enriched themselves as a result of the model.
To put some numbers on the phenomenon, there are
currently over 46 million ha of GE soy monoculture in the region. These are
sprayed with over 600 million litres of glyphosate and are causing
deforestation at a rate of at least 500,000 ha per year.
While the regional impacts of this model tend to
occur in interconnected fashion, we will attempt to break them down for further
analysis. This analysis takes place against a backdrop of a coup d’état in
Paraguay, where the powers that be have shown their intentions most abruptly
and nakedly. But this coup was intended to set an example for the entire
region. The idea was to show them the “right path” and the consequences of
straying from it.
Agribusiness and murder
This
has been a constant in the region in recent years. As mentioned, Paraguay is
where the most brutal impacts have been felt. Perhaps the worst incident was
the Curuguaty massacre on 15 June 2012 when 11 peasants and six police officers
died as a result of open conflict between peasants, paramilitaries, and the government.
The massacre was the pretext for the institutional coup d’état that put an end
to president Lugo’s administration.
Prior to the coup, and continuing afterward, a
wave of repression against peasant leaders took place. This has morphed into
selective assassinations that have taken the lives of Sixto Pérez (1 September
2012 in Puentesiño, Concepción Department), Vidal Vega (1 December 2012 in
Curuguaty, Canindeyú Department), and Benjamín Lezcano within a space of eight
months following the inauguration of new president Federico Franco.4 CONAMURI, the national rural
and indigenous women’s confederation, has stated that the same modus operandi
was used in the three cases and that the goal seems to have been the same in
each: to decapitate the peasant leadership.
In Argentina, three peasants
have been murdered in Santiago del Estero in the last three years (Sandra Ely
Juárez, Cristian Ferreyra, and Miguel Galván), all in connection with the
soybean industry. Elsewhere, communities in the provinces of Formosa and Salta
have been subjected to ongoing harassment.6
In Brazil too the peasant movement, and especially the Landless
People’s Movement (MST), has been hit with agribusiness violence. Recently, the
Comisión Pastoral de la Tierra (CPT) released a preliminary report on the
violence in 2012 that tabulates 36 deaths due to agrarian conflict.7 Already this year, three MST
leaders have been assassinated (Cícero Guedes dos Santos, Regina dos Santos
Pinho, and Fabio dos Santos Silva).
This is all taking place as part of a broader drive to criminalize
social movements. Not only are the movements persecuted and stigmatized
informally, but they are also targeted by repressive laws. Argentina in
December 2011 passed an antiterrorism law that joins a number of similar laws
already existing in countries of the region.
Agribusiness and agrotoxin poisoning
One
of the big lies told by the corporations, the media, and certain elements in
academia to justify the introduction of GE seeds was that they would help
reduce the use of agrotoxins. As many peoples’ organizations have repeatedly
shown, the reality is exactly the opposite. Today, the rise in the use of
agrotoxins is alarming, and their impacts on the entire region are increasingly
difficult to hide.
None of this should surprise anyone who realizes that genetically
engineered seeds are being promoted by the same corporations that sell
agrotoxins, with Monsanto in the lead. In fact, herbicide-resistant crops are
by far the most popular transgenic product on the market.
By 2008, Brazil had become the world’s largest per capita consumer
of agrotoxins, accounting for 20% of all agrotoxins used on the planet. Per
capita consumption was 5.2 litres of agrotoxins per year.8 9 The frightening figure of 853
million litres of agrotoxins used in 2011, with 190% growth in the Brazilian
market in the last decade, speaks volumes. Of this total, 55% of agrotoxins are
sprayed on soybeans and corn, with soy alone accounting for 40% of the total.10 Glyphosate accounts for about
40% of agrotoxin consumption in Brazil.
Argentina is keeping pace. In 2011 a total of 238 million litres
of glyphosate were sprayed, for a whopping 1190% increase over 1996, the year
herbicide-tolerant transgenic soy was introduced into the country.11
In Paraguay, the world’s sixth largest soybean producer, glyphosate
use in 2007 amounted to over 13 million litres.12
In Uruguay, where transgenic soy is also making inroads, at least
12 million litres were used in 2010.13 Uruguay is in fact the country
where, due to drinking water contamination in the city of Montevideo, the urban
population is beginning to react with alarm.
Taking stock of the region, it can be surmised that at least 600
million litres of glyphosate are being sprayed every year. This frightening
figure has translated into the filing of innumerable complaints by people who
have seen their health, ecosystems, agriculture, and communities be degraded by
these agrotoxins.
Glyphosate, widely promoted by Monsanto for its supposedly low
toxicity, is now under much closer scrutiny:
- The impact on communities is now impossible to hide. Thousands
of people living in the “sprayed communities” are complaining of new health
problems caused by pesticide applications, including birth defects, acute fatal
poisonings, respiratory problems, neurological diseases, cancers, abortions,
skin diseases, and others.
- Independent scientific research confirms these grave findings.
Studies linking glyphosate to tumours and deformities in embryos have been
published in the most prestigious journals in recent years.
- The health effects of the so-called “inert” ingredients used in
Roundup, most notoriously the surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), have
also been demonstrated. POEA is associated with gastrointestinal and central
nervous system disorders, respiratory problems, and depressed red blood cell
counts.
- The environmental harms caused by glyphosate have also been
amply confirmed by both research and experience. Glyphosate is unquestionably
linked to destruction of biodiversity, as in the peer-reviewed studies showing
its toxic effects on amphibians.
As alarming as these figures may be, of even greater concern is
the rising use of other agrotoxins in combination with glyphosate, often to
compensate where weeds have become resistant to it. For example, 1.2 million
litres of paraquat are now being sprayed in Argentina every year, and 3.32
million litres over the five soy-producing countries combined. Paraquat is
linked to neurological disorders and for this reason was banned in 13 countries
of the European Union in 2003.14
No doubt about it, agrotoxins are another piece of the murderous
agribusiness picture.
Agribusiness and the imposition of genetic engineering
The
introduction of new GE crops linked to the use of new agrotoxins is part of the
corporations’ strategy and has been since 2012.
Argentine President Cristina Fernández’s announcement of new
Monsanto investments in Argentina at the Council of the Americas meeting on 15
June 2012 gave notice of the official and corporate agenda to be rolled out in
the following months, including a tidal wave of projects, announcements, and
attempts to change national legislation.
In August 2012, Minister of Agriculture Norberto Yahuar stood next
to Monsanto executives and announced the approval of the new “Intacta” rr2 soy,
which combines glyphosate resistance with Bt production. Nothing new here,
except to combine the only two crop traits the biotech industry has managed to
put on the market in its twenty years of existence.
But other transgenics have been approved for field trials,
including soy and corn resistant to more dangerous herbicides such as
glufosinate and 2,4-D. Andrés Carrasco, a researcher at the Argentine National
Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), stated the problem clearly
a few months ago: “Five of those ten approved transgenic events [crop
varieties] in Argentina, three of corn and two of soybeans, combine resistance
to glyphosate with resistance to glufosinate ammonium [an inhibitor of
synthesis of the amino acid glutamine]. The need to combine these two types of
resistance in the new seeds shows up the inconsistencies in GE technology, in
terms of both construction and behaviour over time. Yet instead of rethinking
this approach, agribusiness keeps on trying to fix the problems with
increasingly dangerous applications of the same GE technology.”15
In Paraguay, just months after the institutional coup d’état, the
Ministry of Agriculture approved a transgenic maize variety that the deposed
government had been resisting and the peasant organizations had been expressly
rejecting, due to the threat it poses to the many local varieties of maize
grown by indigenous and peasant farmers. In October 2012, four varieties of
transgenic maize manufactured by Monsanto, Dow, Agrotec, and Syngenta were
approved.16 By August, de facto president
Franco had revealed his true constituency by issuing an executive order
allowing Roundup Ready Bt cotton seeds to be imported.
In Brazil, the escalation began in late 2011 with the announcement
by the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio) of the first
commercially grown GE bean variety “entirely developed in Brazil” and resistant
to bean golden mosaic virus. This event, because it was developed by a public
institution (Embrapa) and possesses different traits from the most widespread
GE crops (Bt and rr), and because it concerns a staple food of lower-income
people, became the poster child of “socially conscious” genetic engineering.17 However, this approval has been
challenged by public officials, the scientific community, and civil society.
Renato Maluf, President of the National Food and Nutritional Safety Council
(Consea), invoked the precautionary principle in stating his concerns about the
hasty release of this variety. “We think it showed a lack of precaution to
release a product that the whole population will consume when we don’t have
certainty about its food safety and nutritional value,” he said. Similarly, Ana
Carolina Brolo, legal counsel to the humanitarian organization Tierra de
Derechos, indicated that “this GE crop approval was characterized by a lack of
respect for domestic and international biosafety rules”.18
As has always been the case, the new GE crops depend on the use of
agrotoxins to a very large extent. Some, such as glyphosate, are already in
widespread use while other more toxic ones – dicamba, glufosinate, 2,4-D – are
now being introduced. In Brazil, the Small Farmers’ Movement (MPA), a Via
Campesina member, revealed in April 2012 that 2,4-D-resistant soy and maize
were slated for approval.19 These seeds are already being
grown experimentally in Argentina.
Agribusiness and control over seeds
New
seed laws are being steamrollered over Latin America. Argentina has been
particularly targeted as a direct result of its agreement with Monsanto. The
same day that the Minister of Agriculture announced the approval of “Intacta”
soybeans, he sent a new seeds bill to Congress with instructions that it be
passed before 2013.
The bill was never made public nor subjected to any in-depth
debate. It was discussed behind closed doors in the Ministry of Agriculture by
elements of Argentine agribusiness. Yet its content transcends the agriculture
ministry and confirms what the official announcement intimated: the bill will
subordinate domestic seed policy to the dictates of UPOV 20 and the transnationals.
The National Indigenous Peasant Movement (MNCI) presented a cogent
criticism: “The bill does not protect knowledge or biodiversity. It promotes
privatization and protects ownership over the collective heritage of our
peoples, especially peasant communities and indigenous peoples. It opens the
doors to more extensive expropriation and privatization of agricultural and
wild biodiversity in Argentina. It criminalizes or greatly restricts practices
in effect since the beginnings of agriculture; i.e., freely selecting,
breeding, obtaining, saving, reproducing, and exchanging seeds from the
previous harvest. It sets the stage for the continued introduction of new
genetically engineered crops, and the expansion of existing ones, by granting
ownership over varieties without requiring proof of quality but simply on the
basis of the existence of a trait. And, it gives the seed companies the power
to police compliance with the provisions of the bill”.21
Thanks to organizing by various sectors, the tabling of the bill
in Congress has been postponed, but the threat of its passage still looms.
Quite clearly, control over seeds – the basic unit of agriculture
– is one of the main goals of the corporations. In this way, they hope to gain
control over the entire agrifood system and build an unshakable monopoly. It is
equally clear that such control would directly impact all human beings,
preventing them from exercising food sovereignty and condemning millions to
hunger.
Agribusiness and forest destruction
Deforestation
throughout the region has intensified dramatically. Measures designed to rein
it in (such as the Forests Act in Argentina and various regulations adopted in
Brazil) have failed to stop it. The main cause is the advance of the
agricultural frontier (often pushing the ranching frontier ahead of it).
As in the past, Brazil leads the pack with a net 28 million
hectares of lost forest in the decade from 2000 to 2010.22 Between August 2010 and July
2011, 641,800 hectares of Amazon forest were lost,23 a fact triumphantly celebrated
by the national authorities.
In Argentina, the figures (from official and NGO sources) were as
follows: between 2004 and 2012, the logging machines destroyed 2,501,912
hectares, an area 124 times that of the city of Buenos Aires. Put another way,
Argentina is destroying 36 football fields worth of forest every hour. The last
Ministry of the Environment report, covering 2006-2011, found that 1,779,360
hectares of native forest had been destroyed during this period.24
In Paraguay, the deforestation picture is perhaps the most
serious. On the one hand, historical deforestation (1945–1997) for agriculture
caused a loss of 76.3% of the original forest cover in the eastern region.25 On the other, current
deforestation in the western region culminated in 2011 with a loss of 286,742
ha of forest, a 23% increase over the figure of 232,000 ha deforested during
2010.26
A global look at this tragedy gives a better idea of the
dimensions of what is occurring. An FAO study published in 201127 found that the average annual
worldwide net loss of forest between 1990 and 2005 was around 5 million ha −
and 4 million of that is taking place in South America.
Here again, agribusiness is making a killing in the literal sense:
it is killing the unique ecosystems of the region, and thereby the peoples who
have cohabited with the forest for millennia.
Agribusiness and land consolidation
Land
consolidation is another phenomenon that has characterized the introduction of
GE soybeans throughout the Southern Cone. Land concentration was already a
serious problem in these countries, but it has gotten much worse.
Paraguay, already among the Latin American countries with the most
unequal land distribution, saw this situation escalate to the point where
today, 2% of owners control 85% of the farmland. The regional situation is
worse when one considers that the neighbouring countries – Brazil especially
but also Argentina – are also experiencing land concentration for transgenic
soybeans.
-
In Paraguay, in 2005, 4% of the soybean growers occupied 60% of total area
planted to this crop.
- In Brazil, in 2006, 5% of the soybean growers occupied 59% of
the total area planted to this crop.
- In Argentina, in 2010, over 50% of the soybean production was
controlled by 3% of producers, who occupied farms over 5000 ha.
- In Uruguay, in 2010, 26% of producers controlled 85% of soybean
land. That same year, 1% of growers controlled 35% of soybean land.
The soybean model has profoundly transformed the way in which land
is concentrated. Today, most land is not purchased but leased by the large
producers. These “producers” are not physically identifiable persons but pools,
financed for the most part by speculative investment groups.
The consequences for local, peasant, and indigenous communities
are always the same: expulsion from their land, in many cases with physical
violence, as discussed above.
Figures on land expulsion are hard to come by, since there are no
official statistics for any country of the region. However, researchers have
found that in Paraguay, the agribusiness soybean steamroller, in its push to
control 4 million ha of land, has displaced 143,000 peasant families. That’s
more than half the farms under 20 ha recorded in the agricultural census of
1991.29 For Argentina, this model has
provoked an unprecedented rural exodus which, by 2007, had expelled more than
200,000 farmers and their families from the land (26). In Brazil, starting in
the 1970s, soy production displaced 2.5 million people in the state of Paraná
and 300,000 in the state of Río Grande do Sul.30
Agribusiness: meet the new dictator
The
institutional coup d’état in Paraguay shows how agribusiness – basically
transnational corporations in cahoots with large landowners – is unwilling to
be held back by whatever timid restrictions the national governments may try to
impose.
In Paraguay, the Lugo government, though it had a parliamentary
minority, was trying to set some limits on some of the worst aspects of
industrial agriculture. Initiatives carried out by the ministries of health and
environment and by the National Phytosanitary and Seed Service (Senave) sought
to rein in the use of agrotoxins and the approval of new transgenics,
especially Roundup-Ready maize and Bt cotton. The government also initiated
dialogue with peasant organizations to try to put a stop to the long-running
violence in the countryside as a result of land concentration.
The powerful agribusiness sector grouped under the UGP, with the
support of Monsanto, Cargill, and other transnationals declared war on the
authorities responsible for these initiatives, publicly calling for their
ouster. The Curuguaty massacre was the excuse they found to overthrow President
Lugo with the help of their allies in Congress. A two-hour session was all it
took to bring in a new government favourable to their interests.
It was not just a change of president: with Lugo went all the
public officials responsible for these positive initiatives. In short order
they were replaced by agribusiness-friendly officials and measures. The
proposed restrictions on spraying, new transgenics, and Seeds Act amendments
vanished.
With the recent election of Horacio Cartés, the Colorado Party is
back in power. Impunity for the coup plotters and free rein for agribusiness
are the order of the day.
In the other countries of the region the situation is different.
While the crude reality of Paraguay is not in evidence, it is also clear that
agribusiness is making headway with its preferred policies and interfering with
attempts to derail them.
The upshot is plain for all to see: democracy is incompatible with
corporate control. We must demolish the structures allowing for agribusiness to
take control over our resources if we wish to live in a democracy where the
common good is preserved.
Agribusiness control over research
Universities
and research institutes throughout the region, with a few honourable
exceptions, have been colonized by the power and money of the agribusiness
corporations. These corporations are using the research facilities as a
mechanism through which to introduce genetically engineered crops and
industrialized production models.
In 2012, it became public knowledge that Monsanto and the National
Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay (INIA) had signed an agreement to
include company-owned transgenes in local soy germ plasm handled by the
Institute.31 This agreement was publicly
challenged by the National Rural Development Commission (CNFR), which
represents family farmers on the INIA Board of Directors. It also came under
fire from a number of civil society organizations, including REDES-Amigos de la
Tierra. The agreement, whose text has not been made public, became the subject
of an access to information request by elected members of the Frente Amplio
(FA).
After the coup in Paraguay, the new minister of agriculture, Enzo
Cardozo, announced that Paraguay would be producing its own GE seeds and making
them available to all farmers. The seeds would be bred by the Paraguay
Institute of Agricultural Technology (IPTA), which would receive a “technology
transfer” from Monsanto upon payment of an amount to be agreed upon by de facto
president Federico Franco.32
But Monsanto has already been operating under “cooperation”
agreements for many years with public institutions in Argentina, Paraguay,
Uruguay, and Brazil. It uses the research institutions as cheap scientific
labour and as an agricultural extension channel for getting its seeds to
farmers. Likewise, many public officials act as the ideological arm of the
corporations. A paradigmatic case is that of Argentine science and technology
minister Lino Barañao, who loses no opportunity to lobby on behalf of
genetically modified agribusiness.
Agribusiness: another type of mining
Industrial
agriculture is like mining in that it considers soils to be an inert substrate
from which nutrients (proteins and minerals) can be extracted with the addition
of technology and chemicals. It has no use for soils as living organisms nor
does it ever restore the nutrients extracted.
The soil mining aspects of agriculture are expressed most brutally
in genetically engineered soybean cropping. All the propaganda about “no-till”
agriculture cannot hide the crude reality that soybeans do not even remotely
return to the soil all the nutrients that they extract, nor can no-till methods
sustain the soil’s structure and water retention capacity.
In previous reports we have discussed how Argentine soils are
being degraded, with millions of tons of nutrients and billions of litres of
water being taken away.33
Here are a few figures for Argentina alone (the numbers are not
available for the other countries):
Soybean monoculture without crop rotation causes intense soil
degradation, with a loss of 19 to 30 tons of soil depending on management
techniques, slope, and weather.
Soybean growing in 2006/2007 (which yielded 47,380,222 tons)
involved a net extraction of:
- 1 148 970.39 tons of nitrogen;
- 255 853.20 tons of phosphorus;
- 795 987.73 tons of potassium;
- 123 188.58 tons of calcium;
- 132 664.62 tons of sulphur, and
- 331.66 tons of boron.
Each exported annual soybean harvest also removes 42.5 billion
cubic metres of water (data from 2004/2005 season).
Agribusiness and its corporate media partners
The
agribusiness colonization of the region can count on a powerful ally to back it
up: the corporate media. The media act as the unconditional communication arm
of agribusiness (in return for payment of millions of dollars to buy
advertising that fills newspaper pages and radio and television hours).
This agribusiness-media collaboration is designed to convey the
following messages:
- The myth that agribusiness is the panacea for world food
production problems. The ideas of “progress,” “development,” and societal
well-being are deliberately being confused with agribusiness interests.
- The myth that agribusiness is somehow involved with “sustainable
development.” Media propaganda turns any agribusiness initiative into a
generous act of “sustainable development” by ignoring its real effects.
- The myth that there are no downsides to agribusiness. All
discussion or information about societal resistance, scientific or economic
debate, or impact on communities and the environment is excluded from corporate
media reports.
- The image of social movements as subversive, violent,
antisocial, or “stuck in the past.” In this way, these movements are
stigmatized and in some cases even criminalized.
Paraguay is perhaps the country where this alliance is most
obvious. The UGP is linked to the Zuccolillo Group, owner of the powerful daily
ABC Color. This was one of the papers calling most stridently for President
Lugo’s ouster. In addition, Zuccolillo is president of the Inter American Press
Association (IAPA).34
Agribusiness and climate change
The
links between industrial agriculture and the global climate crisis have been
amply demonstrated. The figures are alarming: at a minimum, between 44 and 57%
of greenhouse gases are due to the agroindustrial chain of production.
It is obvious that a region where industrial agriculture has
become so dominant has got to be a major contributor to this global crisis. But
it is also clear throughout the region that the conjunction of global problems
with local ones such as deforestation is causing severe impacts. Rural areas
are experiencing prolonged cycles of drought and flooding. Cities lack the
infrastructure to deal with these unprecedented rainfall patterns. The main
victims are the urban poor, a large percentage of whom are former peasants from
plundered communities.
While there is still a great degree of fragmentation among social
movements, it can also be said that they are all attempting to adopt a
comprehensive analysis and avoid piecemeal struggle. They all understand that
food sovereignty, autonomy, and protection of the common good must be the
central themes of any campaign against agribusiness.
It is our hope that this edition of Against the grain will plant
new seeds of struggle in the Southern Cone, and that they will grow into a
powerful movement.
4 “El asesinato selectivo de líderes campesinos, una práctica
más frecuente”,
BASE-IS, 15 March 2013
5 “Plan de exterminio”, Reportaje a Magui Balbuena de CONAMURI por
Radio Mundo Real, 23 February 2013
10 “Agrotóxicos, segurança alimentar e nutricional e saúde”,
Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva, 2012
17 “Aprueban la producción y comercialización del primer transgénico brasileño”, Agro Noticias
FAO, 16 September 2011
19 “Brasil: MPA denuncia próxima aprobación de transgénicos
resistentes al 2,4-D”, Vía Campesina , 24 April 2012
20 UPOV -
the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants – is an
organisation that promotes legislation protecting patents on plant genes and
plant breeders' rights, to the detriment of indigenous and peasant farmers
ownership, use and exchange of seeds.
21 “¡NO a la privatización de las semillas en Argentina!”, MNCI - CLOC-VC Argentina -
GRAIN - AT - ACBIO, 2 October 2012
22 “A brief overview of deforestation in tropical forests”, WRM Bulletin No 188, March
2013 3 April 2013
25 “Paraguay: cómo se pierde el 90% de los bosques de un país, Vanessa Sánchez, Soitu.es, 11
August 2008
30 “Una
reflexión sobre la reciente expansión del cultivo de la soja en América Latina”,
Segrelles Serrano, José Antonio, Grupo Interdisciplinario de Estudios Críticos
y de América Latina, 25 June 2007
33 “Extractivismo y agricultura industrial o como convertir
suelos fértiles en territorios mineros”, GRAIN, Revista
Biodiversidad, sustento y culturas N° 75, January 2012
What Does the Manning Verdict
Mean for Edward Snowden?
 |
| Bradley Manning |
By Elias Groll
Watching the verdict handed down against Bradley
Manning Tuesday, Edward Snowden had his worst fears confirmed.
With a litany of guilty verdicts, the judge, Col. Denise Lind,
all but certainly condemned Manning, the man accused of providing WikiLeaks
with a huge trove of classified documents, to spend the majority of his adult
life behind bars. And it's all bad news for Snowden.
Though the military court acquitted
Manning of the most serious charge -- aiding the enemy -- it convicted him on
five charges of espionage under a legal rationale similar to the one presented
by prosecutors in indicting Snowden under the 1917 Espionage Act.
In past cases in which the government
pressed espionage charges against members of the intelligence community who
provided classified information to the media, the government had to prove
"bad faith" -- that the accused intended to harm U.S. interests. If
there was ever to be a legal reprieve for men like Manning and Snowden, it lay
in the "bad faith" provision and the argument that these
whistleblowers had in fact acted in the best interests of the nation. But that
provision has been jettisoned in more recent rulings, a precedent continued by
Lind.
"I think that if the government
had to prove bad faith, it would be tough, and I don't think they would be able
to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt," Elizabeth Goitein, the
co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center
for Justice, tells FP. "That's the one thing that could have saved [Manning and
Snowden]. It's very unfortunate that the intent requirement is being read out
of the statute because it makes no sense to treat traitors and whistleblowers
and everyone in between the same."
In explaining his decision to flee
the United States, Snowden has explained that the treatment of Manning, who has
been held in solitary confinement and, on several occasions, stripped of his
clothing, served as an example of the treatment he was likely to face for
leaking sensitive National Security Agency documents. Now Snowden has seen
Manning not only roughed up by his military captors but also convicted under
the full weight of espionage charges. Even if Manning's acquittal on the aiding
the enemy charge represents a victory for him and his legal team, he is still
likely to face significant jail time. In sum, Manning was convicted on five
counts of espionage, five charges of theft, a computer fraud charge, and a set
of military infractions. He could face up to 136 years in jail.
Like Manning, Snowden argues that his
decision to put classified documents in the public domain was done out of a
desire to expose wrongdoing at the highest level of the government. But as
Tuesday's verdict in the Manning trial illustrates, that argument is no defense
in the face of espionage charges, which the Obama administration has relied on
heavily in its efforts to crack down on national security leaks. For the
administration's critics, the idea that providing information to journalists
amounts to espionage is ludicrous on its face. But as the Manning verdict
shows, it's a line of reasoning that holds up well in a court room.
The Manning verdict also comes as a
setback for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who became a household name using
the documents and videos supplied by Manning and slammed the court decision
in a statement: "Throughout the proceedings there has been a conspicuous
absence: the absence of any victim. The prosecution did not present evidence
that -- or even claim that -- a single person came to harm as a result of
Bradley Manning's disclosures. The government never claimed Mr. Manning was
working for a foreign power." If Assange's statement reads as surprisingly
defensive, it shouldn't -- after all, the WikiLeaks founder sees himself as the real target of the Manning trial.
Though the Obama administration has
received heavy criticism for its pursuit under the Espionage Act of self-described
whistleblowers, it has seen mixed results in securing convictions -- until now.
The case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake fell apart amid a heated legal
battle, and Drake ended up pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges. The
administration is currently engaged in a heated legal battle in the case
against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent, and is attempting to force New York Times reporter James Risen to name
Sterling as his source for the leaked information at the center of the trial.
That case may very well end up before the Supreme Court. Former CIA agent John
Kiriakou is currently serving a 30-month sentence. The Manning conviction,
however, hands the administration a bona fide courtroom win. With that ruling,
which Goitein describes as "absolutely precedent setting," the
administration can reasonably argue that it will go after whistleblowers in the
government with espionage charges -- and emerge victorious.
"With each additional case
things look worse," Goitein says, noting that the bad faith requirement
was jettisoned with the Kiriakou case and, with the Manning verdict, shows no
sign of returning to federal jurisprudence.
That's something that has civil
liberties activists deeply worried. In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union described the Manning
prosecution as nothing but an exercise in intimidation. "Since he already
pleaded guilty to charges of leaking information -- which carry significant
punishment -- it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate
anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future,"
said Ben Wizner, the director of the group's Speech, Privacy and Technology
Project. If those activists are looking for confirmation of their fears, they
need look no further than a joint statement from Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, the
chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence: "There is still much work to be done to reduce
the ability of criminals like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to harm our
national security. The House Intelligence Committee continues to work with the
Intelligence Community to improve the security of classified information and to
put in place better mechanisms to detect individuals who abuse their access to
sensitive information."
Snowden's decision to leave the
United States now looks all the more prescient. Though his critics have been
quick to dismiss him as a spy and a traitor, there is little evidence to
indicate that is actually the case. Nonetheless, he finds himself facing a
federal indictment that includes espionage charges for disclosing to the Guardian and the Washington Post the
astounding reach of the NSA's intelligence gathering capabilities. Over the
long history of whistleblowers stepping forward to disclose classified
information, Snowden and Manning broke ground in disclosing unprecedented
volumes of material involving multiple programs and agencies. That, it is now
clear, has only made them more vulnerable to prosecution. Men like Drake,
Kiriakou, and Sterling struck at single programs or problems inside the
intelligence community and avoided the legal assault Manning now finds himself
under.
Should he ever return to the United
States, Snowden now knows that federal prosecutors will throw the book at him
-- and win.
More Catholic than the Pope
 |
| Pope Francis I |
By
Michael D’antonio
When an estimated three million enraptured people gathered on
Rio de Janiero's Copacabana beach on Sunday, July 28, Pope Francis's pilgrimage
to Brazil suddenly went from big news in Latin America to huge news around the
globe. The beachside Mass confirmed for the press corps his charisma and sent
reporters scurrying for superlatives. The Guardian described the Pope's trip as "triumphant." The Wall Street Journal said he had received a "rock star reception." Al Jazeera's
correspondent Lucia Newman declared the scene on the beach in Rio as
"extraordinary."
Following the Copacabana Mass,
Francis flew home to Rome aboard a chartered jet. After the plane leveled off
at a cruising altitude, he wandered to the back of the cabin to mingle with
reporters and conduct a press conference in the manner of a presidential
candidate. The moment was unexpected, especially since the pope had previously
declined all requests for interviews since taking office in March. But Francis
was buoyant from the reception he had received in Brazil and, perhaps,
emboldened to spend a bit of the capital he had accumulated.
No question was off limits and the
reporters rose to the occasion, inquiring about controversies ranging from the
Vatican Bank to gay priests in a Church that condemns homosexual activity. On
that subject, Francis said, "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill,
who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to
homosexuality] is not the problem ... they're our brothers." It was the
kind of statement -- humble, direct, and friendly -- that makes people feel
he's like the priest who asks for second glass of wine at Sunday dinner and
encourages you to have one too.
Even if Francis's olive branch
toward homosexuals in the church falls short of a shift in substance, his words
represent a major break with the church's long history of deep-seated social
conservatism. While the Church still regards homosexual acts as sinful, no
previous pope has offered a "who am I to judge?" response to the
question of what to do with gay priests.
Indeed, under the reign on
Francis's immediate predecessor, Benedict XVI, top church officials frequently
blamed gay priests for the terrible sexual abuse crisis afflicting the church
worldwide. Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana even suggested the church could benefit from the some of the anti-gay prejudice
seen in his country, echoing similar sentiments expressed by churchmen in the
U.S. In this context, Francis's comments about gay priests mark him as a very
different leader who may be heralding the end of an era deep and abiding
intolerance of homosexuality. (During his flight home Francis also said that the church needed a new theological perspective on the role
and status of women. "Let us remember," he said, "that Mary is
more important than the bishop apostles, so women in the church are more
important than bishops and priests.")
In speaking so boldly, Francis
risks alienating Catholics in the industrialized West who have supported
conservative theology, doctrine, and leadership. This significant minority is
energized by the fight against abortion and resistance to those who would
welcome both women priests and an end to mandatory celibacy for clerics. They
have loyally supported the church with donations and activism and can be
expected to oppose any change in direction of the sort Francis has signaled.
With his comments, Francis poses a challenge to those who felt comfortable with
the conservative leadership they have known for more than a generation. But
this constituency cannot sustain the church in the long term, and the church
now needs a figure able to bridge the gap between its rightward movement and
the reality that Westerners are leaving the church in droves. That problem
requires a wily pope with the skill and charisma to pull off the high-wire
balancing act of unifying these two disparate impulses. Could Francis be that
man?
Beginning with the election of
John Paul II in 1978, the institutional Catholic Church entered a period of
conservative theology and politics. Even as he encouraged the flowering of
democracy in his native Poland and across Eastern Europe, John Paul II shut
down efforts to give national bishops conferences and laypeople a greater role
in decision-making. He punished theologians who challenged orthodoxy, delivered
searing attacks on the secular world, and filled the ranks of Catholic bishops
with men committed to his own brand of orthodoxy -- isolating those who
expressed a more expansive view of Christianity.
As John Paul II sought to build a
stronger papacy, he also allowed problems to fester in the Vatican Bank and in
the priesthood. Years passed before he addressed the sexual abuse scandal that has involved thousands of priests
and many times that number of child victims. When he finally spokeof it, he
excoriated the media for publicizing cases and blamed the mores of the broader
society for corrupting clergy. Meanwhile, hundreds of clergymen went to jail,
the church spent billions of dollars on settlements of civil claims, and the
church's moral authority declined.
Upon John Paul II's death in 2005,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany became Pope Benedict XVI. He might not
have been cut from the same cloth, but he clearly carried on John Paul II's
legacy. Ratzinger had been dubbed the "Pope's Rottweiler" in his previous job as head of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the powerful arm of the church
charged with enforcing doctrine. The CDF, which replaced the office that ran
the Inquisition, identified and investigated liberal theologians whom John Paul
II disciplined. One was fired from his university job, another was ordered to
refrain from writing and speaking for a year. Under then-Cardinal Ratzinger,
the CDF (which oversees proceedings against priests accused of molesting and
raping children) moved so slowly against officials charged with abuse that some
priests served a decade or longer before being defrocked. Others died in good
standing, even after their victims had been compensated for being
harmed.
As Pope Benedict, Ratzinger
continued a kind of leadership consistent with his early writingsabout a future "remnant church" that would be much
smaller and less engaged with the world but comprised of true believers. This
vision was of a church in a self-protective crouch, waiting for a day, perhaps
centuries in the future, when its message would once again be relevant. It is a
view which no doubt contributed to Benedict's decision in February to step down from office. The
first pope to resign in nearly 600 years, he seemed a discouraged if not
defeated man as he spoke of being fatigued by the demands of his office.
Francis, the first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years, is clearly more interested and
inclined to engage with the world. Where Benedict often seemed distressed and
uncomfortable with the public, Francis wades into crowds, embraces children,
and hugs women. Before he was even elevated, Francis rejected the trappings of
his office -- the gold ring, ermine stole, red shoes -- worn by previous popes.
He shocked Vatican watchers by refusing to stand above his fellow cardinals
after his election and then by visiting the hotel where he had stayed during
the conclave to pay his bill and collect his luggage. Even his choice of name,
honoring Saint Francis of Assisi, signaled a departure from the regal papacy
and an embrace of the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless. He has declined
to live in the official papal quarters, refused to spend the summer at the
beautiful Castel Gandolfo, and insists on carrying his own briefcase to
meetings.
In his first months in office,
Francis has reached out to women, Muslims, atheists, and now gays with
insistent gestures of humility. He has also promised a dialogue with victims of
abuse, reforms at the Vatican Bank, and greater commitment to the poor. Possessing
the same singular power as John Paul II and Benedict, he seems to be wielding
it without concern for a backlash. His maturity -- he is 76 -- may have
something to do with his aura of calm confidence. But he can also draw strength
from the knowledge that he was elected by the very men who owed their place in
the College of Cardinals to Benedict and John Paul II -- even if the cardinals
are now having second thoughts about their pope, there's little they can do to
rein him in.
On the specific issue of
homosexuality and Catholicism, the pope has begun a discussion that will
continue in parishes worldwide and may lead, over the long term, to a revision
of official teaching. More generally, by enthusiastically wading into
controversial issues, Francis is clearly rejecting the "remnant
church" approach to the modern world. He's not interested in withdrawing
and prefers, instead, to swim in the stream of history. Here, finally, is a
pope willing to grapple with the implications of a social trend -- the increasing
acceptance of homosexuality -- that threatens to relegate the church to
irrelevance. Unlike his predecessor, Francis is not content to wait out the
millennia with his head in the sand until Catholic orthodoxy once more becomes
in vogue. Rather, this is a pope eager to explain how this ancient church
should fit into a changing world.
For 30 years, conservative church
leaders have stood by and watched as the Church failed to end its sex abuse
crisis and the scandal afflicting the Vatican bank. They have watched while the
people of the industrialized West, including those in that most
Catholic of countries,
Ireland, have abandoned the Church in droves. Issues like homosexuality, the
status of women, and the desire of many priests to be married, were never going
to be addressed successfully by men who could not reach out with authentic
warmth. Francis, the man they selected, seems up to the task. As he pursues it,
the old guard appointed by John Paul and Benedict may feel he is leaving them
behind. But he will be catching up to modern Catholics who believe the equality
of persons as well as souls.
Where there
is no logic, power will do
 |
| Edward Snowden |
By
Sergei Vasilenkov
The
Russian Federation is a long-time member of the European Convention on
Extradition of 1957 and the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism
of 1977. However, Russia does not have an extradition treaty with the United
States, or any agreements that would facilitate the process. The situation
remains tense, especially when legal conflicts are complicated by politics.
There are plenty of examples when the United
States refused to extradite Russian criminals, including fugitive and traitors.
To be more exact, there are no examples to the contrary, which makes
Washington's threats against Russia that allegedly refused to extradite
Snowden, a former intelligence contractor to the U.S., at the very least
illogical. Under such circumstances of an overt dictatorship without legal
framework, a question whether Russia should cooperate with the U.S. on
extradition of criminals is quite legitimate.
In 1887, Imperial Russia signed a convention with the United States, which has never been cancelled, according to the chief of the Main Department of International Legal Cooperation of the Russian Federation Prosecutor Generals Saak Karapetyan. This convention stipulates extradition of persons involved in assassination attempts against the Tsar or his family. The U.S. provided mixed responses to the request of the Russian Federation on the relevance of this convention.
A representative of the U.S. State Department made it clear that the convention was too "old," and the extradition treaty was not legally binding, although there is no formal date or year of its termination. According to a United Nations report of 1970 on International Treaties, Washington unilaterally terminated the agreement on extradition in 1941, without notifying the other party.
Not that long ago, diplomat Kirill Alekseev fled
Russia to the United States with his family. Russia accused him of treason,
embezzlement, betrayal, provocation, slander, and hoped for his extradition. In
response, the U.S. State Department reported that it could not meet the request
of the official Moscow, as there was no agreement on extradition between the
two countries. Despite this, the United States back in the 1980s deported Nazi
war criminals Linnas and Fedorenko to the Soviet Union.
In fairness it should be noted that the United
States continued to deport people with criminal records back to Russia. In some
cases, against the background of the ongoing disputes between the two
countries, Russian officials insist on reviving a bilateral extradition treaty
with Washington. Alexander Konovalov, Minister of Justice of Russia, during his
visit to Washington noted that such issues were raised repeatedly, but so far
the U.S. has not made a decision. In contrast, the State Department spokesman
said that there were no negotiations or discussions on the issue of
extradition.
Commenting on the fate of Edward Snowden this
week, the presidents of both countries, Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama,
publicly acknowledged the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty. Snowden,
pursued by the United States and accused of divulging state secrets, is
believed to be hiding in the transit area of the
Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow. Putin said that Russia had no authority to
detain Snowden because he did not cross the territory of Russia and did not
commit illegal acts. The Obama administration insists on Snowden's extradition
in a spirit of reciprocity (over the last few years, the U.S. extradited seven
people to Russia).
There is no doubt that the process will draw the
attention of the international legal community, and it is possible that the
extradition treaty of 1887 will be enforced again in a different wording. But
as long as the legal basis for extradition is reminiscent of quicksand,
politicians will continue to encourage the parties to adhere to the standards
of conduct and the rule of law. The other day, Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the attempts to accuse Russia of
violating U.S. laws were ungrounded and unacceptable.
The modern international law provides a
procedure for the extradition of a criminal or suspect to the country from
which he fled. In accordance with the general principles, any country is
sovereign, that is, may interpret and apply its own laws in respect of
nationals of other countries, and is not obliged to comply with the laws of
another country. As a result, the only way to ensure co-operation between them
are international treaties, conventions, etc.
Over the past years, several countries have
entered into multilateral extradition treaties that spell out the terms and
conditions relating to the transfer of individuals from one country to another.
They all have their own peculiarities, depending on the member states that have
objective reasons to refuse or accept extradition.
It should be understood that granting of asylum
does not violate the international law. For example, some countries insist that
the crime that the person in question is accused of should be considered as
such in the country where he fled to. This creates a problem with actions that
are legal domestically and illegal abroad.
France, Germany, Japan and China categorically
deny the extradition of nationals to another country, and prefer to try them at
home. Many countries that oppose death penalty do not agree to extradite the
accused to the United States if there is likelihood that they will be given a
death sentence. In addition, some countries will not extradite on the basis of
a belief in the possibility of trials in absentia. As a rule, those suspected
of political crimes are excluded from the extradition process.
Currently, 141 countries are parties to the
Convention against Torture, and another ten have signed but not ratified it
yet. The third article of this document implies, first, that no country should
give people to another country if there is a possibility that the suspect might
be tortured, and secondly, to determine whether there are such grounds,
relevant circumstances, including the practice of gross violations of human
rights, should be taken into account. Judging by the media, all these phenomena
are characteristic of the United States.
The United States does not have diplomatic
relations and extradition treaties with Andorra, Angola, Bhutan, Bosnia,
Cambodia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Serbia, Taiwan, Vanuatu and Vietnam.
Countries that do not have extradition treaties with the United States, but
have diplomatic relations include Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China,
Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea , Indonesia, Jordan, South Korea,
Laos, Lebanon, etc. According to Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Alexander
Zvyagintsev, Russia today has extradition agreements with 65 countries. There
are numerous issues with regard to extradition to Sweden and Great Britain that
in twenty years have not issued any criminal suspects.
Cooperation between Russia, the U.S. and other
countries on extradition is of mutual interest, and its approval is in the
framework of the international law and the development of mutually acceptable
mechanisms for interaction. It is a shame that the interest in this issue
escalates dramatically mainly in times of crisis, as in the story of Snowden.
My son won’t
get fair trial in US – Snowden’s father
 |
| Mr Lon Snowden |
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
would be better off staying in Russia, because he won’t get a fair trial in the
US, believes his father Lon Snowden. He may soon travel to Moscow to meet his
son.
Lon Snowden backs Edward’s
decision to seek political asylum in Russia, he told Rossiya 24 news channel on
Wednesday. The live interview taken in the US was most likely viewed by the NSA
whistleblower from his temporary refuge at a Moscow airport transit zone, as he
was warned beforehand by his legal representative in Russia Anatoly Kucherena.
If Edward returned to the US for
prosecution, he would not be granted the constitutional right of due process,
the elder Snowden fears.
“The fact is no assurances have
been made that he will be given a fair trial, that he deserves, or any citizen
of this nation is given by our Constitution,” he said.
Edward Snowden’s case has taken on
all the characteristics of a witch hunt, argues Lon Snowden’s attorney, Bruce
Fein, who was interviewed by the channel along with his client. A number of
Obama administration officials and lawmakers openly branded the former NSA
contractor a traitor although he has yet to be tried on espionage
charges.
There is also concern that should
a trial be conducted, Snowden’s defense team would find it difficult to call
witnesses and present evidence due to the secrecy surrounding the NSA’s
surveillance programs.
In the run up to the trial, Lon
Snowden fears his son would be maltreated in US custody, citing the case of
Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was recently found guilty on 20 offences linked to
the leaking of classified US information to WikiLeaks.S Nationa
"He was subjected to inhumane
conditions. He was stripped of his clothes, kept for 23 hours a day in solitary
confinement, his glasses were removed. That was unacceptable,” the elder
Snowden said. “I just don’t have a high level of trust in our justice
system, not only because of what has happened to my son.”
When asked whether it would be
better for Edward Snowden to seek asylum in one of the countries that have
already voiced their readiness to provide shelter like Venezuela, Lon Snowden
said he thought Russia would be better for his son and would himself seek
refuge there if he were in a similar position.
“I would certainly have
appreciated the offers by Venezuela and Ecuador and Bolivia,” he
said. “But considering actions that were taken, particularly the
grounding of Evo Morales’ aircraft, where my son was thought to be, I feel
Russia has the strength and resolve and convictions to protect my son.”
He said he hopes he will be able
to soon visit Russia and reunite with his son. The FBI tried to organize such a
meeting, but the effort was stalled after Lon Snowden found the agency would
not guarantee that their conversation could be conducted in
private.
“I said, ‘I want to be able to
speak with my son...Can you set up communications?’ And it was, ‘Well, we’re
not sure,’ ” Snowden’s
father told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I said, ‘Wait a minute,
folks, I’m not going to sit on the tarmac to be an emotional tool for you.’ ”
Now Kucherena is working on
bringing over Lon Snowden and arranging for him to meet his son.
“We haven’t set a time for such e
visit yet, but we will do it very soon. I hope that I will be able to deliver
an invitation as soon as today,” he told Vesti FM radio
station on Wednesday. “Edward needs moral support.”
No comments:
Post a Comment