by Anthony Gucciardi
January 3, 2012
from
NaturalSociety Website
The United States is threatening nations
who oppose Monsanto’s
genetically modified (GM) crops with
military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and
released by
the organization WikiLeaks.
Nations like France, which have moved to
ban one of Monsanto’s GM corn varieties, were requested to be
‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and
genetically modified foods. The information reveals just how deep
Monsanto’s roots have penetrated key positions within the United
States government, with the cables reporting that many U.S.
diplomats work directly for
Monsanto.
The WikiLeaks cable (below insert) reveals that in late 2007, the United States
ambassador to France and business partner to
George W. Bush, Craig
Stapleton, requested that the European Union along with
particular nations that did not support GMO crops be penalized:
Viewing cable
07PARIS4723,
FRANCE AND THE WTO AG
BIOTECH CASE
http://web.archive.org/web/20110304212343/http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html
VZCZCXRO2245
PP RUEHAG RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #4723/01 3481623
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 141623Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1495
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2786
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004723
SIPDIS
USTR FOR SUSAN SCHWAB
DEPARTMENT FOR E - REUBEN JEFFERY AND EB - DAN SULLIVAN
FROM AMBASSADOR STAPLETON
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/14/2017
TAGS: ECON ETRD EAGR PGOV SENV FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE AND THE WTO AG BIOTECH CASE
REF: A) PARIS 5364, B) PARIS 4255, C) PARIS 4170, D)
PARIS 3970, E) PARIS 3967, F) PARIS 3853, G) PARIS 3429,
H) PARIS 3399, I) PARIS 3429
Classified by Ambassador Craig Stapleton; reasons 1.4
(b), (d) and (e).
¶1. © Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the
USG reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on
agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation
list when the extend “Reasonable Time Period” expires.
In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on
this issue with France playing a leading role, along
with Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France,
the “Grenelle” environment process is being implemented
to circumvent science-based decisions in favor of an
assessment of the “common interest.” Combined with the
precautionary principle, this is a precedent with
implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation.
Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current
path has real costs to EU interests and could help
strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the
pro-biotech side in France—including within the farm
union—have told us retaliation is the only way to begin
to begin to turn this issue in France. End Summary.
¶2. © This is not
just a bilateral concern. France will play a leading
role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance
of agricultural biotechnology and its approach toward
environmental regulation more generally. France expects
to lead EU member states on this issue during the
Slovene presidency beginning in January and through its
own Presidency in the second half of the year. Our
contacts have made clear that they will seek to expand
French national policy to a EU-wide level and they
believe that they are in the vanguard of European public
opinion in turning back GMO’s. They have noted that the
member states have been unwilling to support the
Commission on sanctioning Austria’s illegal national
ban. The GOF sees the ten year review of the
Commission’s authorization of MON 810 as a key
opportunity and a review of the EFSA process to take
into account societal preferences as another (reftels).
¶3. © One of the
key outcomes of the “Grenelle” was the decision to
suspend MON 810 cultivation in France. Just as damaging
is the GOF’s apparent recommitment to the “precautionary
principle.” Sarkozy publicly rejected a recommendation
of the Attali Commission (to review France’s
competitiveness) to move away from this principle, which
was added to the French constitution under Chirac.
¶4. © France’s new
“High Authority” on agricultural biotech is designed to
roll back established science-based decision making. The
recently formed authority is divided into two colleges,
a scientific college and a second group including civil
society and social scientists to assess the “common
interest” of France. The authority’s first task is to
review MON 810. In the meantime, however, the draft
biotech law submitted to the National Assembly and the
Senate for urgent consideration, could make any biotech
planting impossible in practical terms. The law would
make farmers and seed companies legally liable for
pollen drift and sets the stage for inordinately large
cropping distances. The publication of a registry
identifying cultivation of GMOs at the parcel level may
be the most significant measure given the propensity for
activists to destroy GMO crops in the field.
¶5. © Both the GOF
and the Commission have suggested that their respective
actions should not alarm us since they are only
cultivation rather than import bans. We see the
cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO
advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict
imports. (The environment minister’s top aide told us
that people have a right not to buy meat raised on
biotech feed, even though she acknowledged there was no
possible scientific basis for a feed based distinction.)
Further, we should not be prepared to cede on
cultivation because of our considerable planting seed
business in Europe and because farmers, once they have
had experience with biotech, become its staunchest
supporters.
¶6. Country team
Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation
list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a
collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part
on the worst culprits. The list should be measured
rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the
long term, since we should not expect an early victory.
¶7. © President
Sarkozy noted in his address in Washington to the Joint
Session of Congress that France and the United States
are “allies but not aligned.” Our cooperation with
France on a range of issues should continue alongside
our engagement with France and the EU on ag biotech (and
the next generation of environmental related trade
concerns.) We can manage both at the same time and
should not let one set of priorities detract from the
other.
PARIS 00004723 002
OF 002
Stapleton
|
Stapleton, who co-owned the Dallas/Fort
Worth-based Texas Rangers baseball team with Bush in the 1990s,
stated:
“Country team Paris recommends that
we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain
across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but
that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.
The list should be measured rather
than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since
we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation
will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU
interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech
voices.”
The Leaked Political
Agenda Behind Monsanto’s GMO Crops
The ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against
nations who are against using Monsanto’s genetically modified corn,
admittedly linked to
organ damage and environmental devastation.
Amazingly, this is not an isolated case.
In similar newly
released cables, United
States diplomats are found to have pushed GMO crops as a strategic
government and commercial imperative. Furthermore, the U.S.
specifically targeted advisers to the pope, due to the fact that
many Catholic bishops and figureheads have openly denounced GMO
crops.
In fact,
the Vatican has 'openly' declared
Monsanto’s GMO
crops as a ‘new form of slavery’.
“A Martino deputy told us recently
that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on
biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his
vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath - to keep
relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our
source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach,”
says the cable.
Perhaps the most shocking piece of
information exposed by the cables is the fact that these U.S.
diplomats are actually working directly for biotech corporations
like Monsanto.
The cables also highlight the
relationship between the U.S. and Spain in their conquest to
persuade other nations to allow for the expansion of GMO crops. Not
only did the Spanish government secretly correspond with the U.S.
government on the subject, but the U.S. government actually knew
beforehand how Spain would vote before the Spanish biotech
commission reported their decision regarding GMO crops.
The cable states:
“In response to recent urgent
requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary
Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government
support of Spain’s science-based agricultural biotechnology
position through high-level US government intervention.”
Monsanto has undoubtedly infiltrated the
United States government in order to push their health-endangering
agenda, and this has been known long before the release of these
WikiLeaks cables.
The U.S. is the only place where
Monsanto’s synthetic hormone
Posilac is still used in roughly 1/3 of
all cows, with
27 nations banning the substance over legitimate
health concerns.
Despite Monsanto’s best attempts at
incognito political corruption, nothing can stop the grassroots
anti-Monsanto movement that is taking over cities and nations alike.
|