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
reveals (below insert) 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/20110204205309/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. (C) 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. (C) 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. (C) 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. (C) 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. (C) 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. (C) 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.
|