Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Welcome!

“Africa will write its own history, and to the North and the South of the Sahara, it will be a glorious and dignified history.”
Patrice Lumumba.

Quote of The Month: On The Ivorian Crisis...

Food for thought and also for the AU Resolutions!

"Right now, in front of me is a statement which was issued by the President of Angola, when he met the Diplomatic Community in Luanda. President of Angola, a key member of the African Union! Now listen to what he said:

"His Excellency, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, The President Of Angola, Says:

We express however, our concern when military solutions are proposed to resolve crisis such as the one in Côte d'Ivoire. Ignoring the rules of international and domestic law and sometimes, the very evidence presented by the facts. The facts specifically tell us the following;

One: The president of the Electoral Commission released the results of the second round of the presidential election, when it was out of his competence to do so, since his time, for purposes defined by law, was expired and since the issue had been transferred to the Constitutional Council for due consideration and treatment.

Two: The United Nations representative in Côte d'Ivoire in a hastened move, certified and announced those results when the relevant UN resolution states that the certification should focus on election results validated by the Constitutional Council, which had not yet made a pronouncement.

Three: The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole international community."

And Listen very carefully,. The President of Angola says:

"The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole international community, since the Constitutional Council had not validated the provisional results released by the president of the Electoral Commission as a result of having accepted objections and complaints of serious irregularities and fraud which undermined these results.

Four: The Constitutional Council is in fact the only organ with the legal competence to validate and publish the final results of the elections.

Five: Under the law, The Constitutional Council should recommend the holding of new elections within 45 days, but it did not proceed in this manner and instead reported results that attributed the victory to another candidate.

Considering the above facts, it is difficult for Angola to accept that there is an elected president in La Côte d'Ivoire.

We believe however, that there is a constitutional president...,"

And this is very important, listen to the Angolan position:

"We believe however, that there is a constitutional president, the current president of the republic, who happens to be Laurent Gbagbo, who must remain in power until the new election as established by the electoral law of that country. The greatest difficulty now is that the 45 days are not enough to create a favourable climate for elections, and the current crisis complicates the matter further.

We are therefore of the opinion that any military intervention in the particular case of Côte d'Ivoire would have an adverse effect, with serious consequences beyond its borders.

The Angolan Executive supports and encourages dialogue and negotiations to overcome the crisis in this brother country, and believes that by demonstrating political will, wisdom, and realism, it is possible to find a solution that focuses, first and foremost, on the legitimate interests of all the people of Côte d'Ivoire.

Through the competent institutions of the African Union, Africa must prove its maturity, experience, and ability to solve problems on our own continent, even the most complex and delicate, in lieu of waiting for inadequate solutions imposed from outside."

This is the president of Angola! Eh? Jose Eduardo dos Santos!.

Compare this position to the position of President Mills, and it is clear that President Mills is a dove by any standard! You understand?

Now What Are The Essential Points That The Angolans Are Making?

One, that Ouattara did not win the elections; that the election results were so fraught with violence and so on, that you cannot use that election result to declare a President of La Côte d'Ivoire. What the Angolans are telling all of us Africans, is that, look, we should be guided by law and constitutionality. And that you cannot have democracy outside the ambit of the constitution. What is democracy if you ignore what is provided for in the constitution? What is democracy if it is in violation of the law of the country and so on? This is the point that the Angolans are making.

But you see, before anybody comes to the conclusion that this one President in Africa, hold on!

Yesterday, the Central African Republic made a very clear statement on the situation in La Côte d'Ivoire. Their position is that the whole world is being misled by foreign interventionist forces in La Côte d'Ivoire. And that it is now time for Africans to resolve their own problems. The Central African Republic has made it clear that it would not support military intervention in La Côte d'Ivoire, especially one that is dictated by neo-colonial imperialist forces, forces outside Africa, and that is clear.

The Gambia has even gone further. And Gambia is a West African country. Two days ago, the Gambian President despatched his Foreign Minister to Abidjan to declare solidarity with Laurent Gbagbo. As we speak, the Russians have blocked a UN vote on La Côte d'Ivoire because it fails to recognize the realities in La Côte d'Ivoire.

But you see, it is not just politicians who are seeing the light and who are speaking out publicly and speaking to the facts in La Côte d'Ivoire. You know, more than fifty Trade Union leaders from Africa have just met. More than fifty, have just met. And they come from countries such as Niger, Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Senegal, Rwanda, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Angola, Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and so on. More than fifty countries represented in this conference.

Now, what is even more significant is that the final position adopted by African Trade Unionists was read by our own Kwesi Adu-Amankwaa, who was Secretary-General of the Trade Unions Congress of Ghana. It is a very long resolution, and I am not going to read all of it. And in fact, for those of you who want to read all these things, we will publish them on Monday.

But Listen To The African Trade Union Leaders!

Listen to them very carefully. This is what they said. And I am reading only a part of it. They say:

"Already, most of our leaders are compromised by the dubious ways in which they got themselves into power or secured their continued stay there. The military option is a dangerous one that can plunge the whole West African sub-region into an unprecedented crisis and should not be encouraged.

African leaders, particularly West African ones, need to think outside the box, to devise a resolution that ensures peace and stability, as well as promotes democracy in the long run. Everything should be done to prevent the situation in La Côte d'Ivoire from degenerating into a situation of full-scale conflict and civil war."

These are African Trade Union leaders! This is their position. Now, you know, in this discussion, and indeed in all discussions about La Côte d'Ivoire, I think it is absolutely important that we respect the facts. Now if you are going to respect the facts, what are the facts?

The African Union, which has joined ECOWAS and the UN in insisting on the military option, and insisting that Ouattara won the elections in La Côte d'Ivoire, sent an observer team to La Côte d'Ivoire to observe both the first round and the second round of the elections. The African Union Team was led by Koku Koffigoh, former Prime Minister of Togo.

At the end of the elections, Koku Kofigoh, made a public statement in Abidjan to the effect that the results of the elections were not credible. They were not credible! And that they were vitiated by extreme violence, stuffing of ballot boxes and so on. Indeed it is interesting that two of the AU observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and it took the intervention of the United Nations to secure their release.

So today, if the AU tells us that Ouatarra has won an election, or that we should wage war against La Côte d'Ivoire, what is the basis of the AU's position? Having regard to the fact that their own observers concluded that the elections could not be free and fair? Having regard to the fact that their own observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and were not able to perform their duties?

You understand? This is the problem with the analysis! This is the clear problem with the analysis! AU sends an Observer Mission, the Observer Mission says the elections are not credible, and yet the AU declares a winner! And insists that we should go to war in order to make the "winner" the President, when its own Observer Mission, headed by a former Prime Minister, says that the elections were not credible! I mean Suhuyini, can you believe this?

Now Let Us Come Back To The Facts.
I have taken the trouble to look at the election results. And the paper that I edit, has taken the trouble to publish the election results. The question I am posing to all these political parties in Ghana, and all of these African leaders, and ECOWAS leaders, is simply this: which one of them would accept election results such as the one which has been released in La Côte d'Ivoire?

You know, some of the facts I have repeated so many times over, I don't know why they are not sinking! You know, take the Vallée du Bandama region in La Côte d'Ivoire, the Electoral Commission comes up with votes, you understand, votes, for Ouattara, you add those votes, they come to one hundred and forty nine thousand votes, and yet the declaration of results gives Ouatarra two hundred and forty four thousand votes! Who would accept this? You go to some other constituencies, turn-out, eh? Is two hundred and fifty per cent of registered voters! Two hundred and fifty per cent of registered voters! Who would accept those results?

Indeed, I asked my colleague and friend, Comrade Kwesi Adu, to do an analysis of the election results, because he does these things. He was an election observer in Guinea and so on, so he is so good at it. And I asked him to do an analysis. In one constituency, Gbagbo won one hundred and eighty per cent of all the registered voters. In the same constituency Ouattara won one hundred and something per cent of registered voters. How do you accept these results? How can you say that these results represent the will of the Ivorian people? By what magic?

So, either people are deliberately lying, or they don't know the facts, or they are being insincere in the discussion of the Ivorian crisis. You understand? Now you put that aside.

What Does The Law Of La Côte d'Ivoire Say?
The law of La Côte d'Ivoire says it very clearly that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire declares provisional results. That those provisional results ought to be validated by the Constitutional Council. That is what the law says. So, the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, does not declare who a winner is. It only declares provisional results. It is only the Constitutional Council of La Côte d'Ivoire, which can declare a winner in an election.

Then you have some apologists of Ouattara, they come up and they say, look, the legal position is that that provision of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution was suspended because an agreement was reached under UN auspices! My brother, this is a joke! Is anybody telling me that the UN, ECOWAS, AU, or any International organisation, can amend the constitution of a country, without reference to the people of that country? Does it make sense?

And yet, we are pushing this position that by virtue of an agreement which was reached under UN auspices, parts of the Ivorian constitution are no longer valid. Let us assume that even is true, eh? Let us assume that that position is true. Now, if you assume that that position is true, it would have meant that in the first round of elections, those provisions in the constitution of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution, still remained suspended.

And yet in the first round of the elections, the Electoral Commission declared Provisional Results, they were validated by the Constitutional Council, before the UN endorsed them. Why didn't we apply the same formula which was applied in the first round in the second round of the election? Does it make sense? You understand what I am saying very clearly?

Now, there is also this problem. A lot of people assume that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is the same as the Electoral Commission in Ghana Ghana. It is not true! The Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is made up of thirty two members. Those thirty two members, represent political parties, to the extent that the government of La Côte d'Ivoire has only five representatives on a thirty two-member Electoral Commission.

The Opposition has twenty seven members of the Electoral Commission. If you want to compare the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire with the Electoral Commission of Ghana, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is the IPAC [Inter-Party Advisory Committee] in Ghana! You understand, it is the IPAC in Ghana.

So when people say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When they say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When twenty seven members of that thirty-two member Commission is from the Opposition? And indeed, when the President of the Electoral Commission is from the Opposition and his deputy is also from the Opposition?

In any case, people should stop to consider the circumstances under which the election results were declared. The election result was not declared by the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire. It was declared by one member of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, in Hôtel du Golf, which is the Headquarters of the Opposition. He was accompanied to do that declaration by the Ambassador of France and the Ambassador of the United States of America.

Indeed, the declaration was not done before the Ivorian media. The declaration was done, exclusively before the French media. No Ivorian journalist was present when the declaration was made. And it was made in the Headquarters of the Opposition.

Now, all our friends from the NPP, NDC and so on, which one of them would have accepted election results, declared solely by Afari-Gyan? Even Afari-Gyan has the right, the Electoral Commission of Ghana has the right to declare final results! Now let us just imagine a situation in which Afari-Gyan, alone, without other members of his Commission, accompanied by the French Ambassador, the US Ambassador, goes to the NDC Headquarters to announce results, what would happen?

Now the President of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire was interviewed on Radio France International, and he was asked this question: "How come that you went and declared the results in the Headquarters of the Opposition?" His first answer was that, look, the conditions in the Electoral Commission offices were not conducive to him announcing the election results there.

The questioner then said, "But did you know you were were announcing the results in the headquarters of the Opposition?" He says, "No, I don't know"! Then he said, "But everybody in La Côte d'Ivoire knows that that is the headquarters of the Opposition?" Then he says "I am not supposed to know what everybody knows"! Suhuyini, can you believe this? He says he is not supposed to know what everybody else knows in La Côte d'Ivoire! You understand? You put that aside.

Even if you accept that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is an independent Commission, and you accept that the final constitutional authority for declaring results is the Constitutional Council, what you do have in La Côte d'Ivoire is a situation where the electoral Commission has declared one result, and the Constitutional Council has declared another result. What you do have is a political crisis! It is an issue of the legitimacy of two state institutions.

Do You Resolve That By Going To War?
Do you resolve this situation by declaring that Ouattara is the Head of State? Does it make sense? My goodness! I don't know what is happening to all of us! African leaders! West African leaders! UN, and so on! What is happening to us?

So, we have a political crisis resulting from the contestations over electoral results. Is La Côte d'Ivoire the only country in the world to have this situation? We just had elections in Belarus. You remember? The election was heavily disputed. The Opposition was on the streets. There was mayhem. The Head of State's reaction was to was to arrest two hundred members of the Opposition, including his opponents, and lock them up. They are still in jail.

That is in the heart of Europe! Europe is quiet! Nobody is talking about military intervention! But when it comes to West Africa, they say our leaders should gather troops and go and kill themselves! We should send our soldiers to go and die! Why are they not sending their soldiers to go and die in Belarus?

Look at what has happened with the Egyptian elections! Who is talking about military intervention there? Who is talking about sanctions against Hussein Mubarak? They are not doing so because of vested interests in Egypt! Because of their support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the key role that Egypt is playing in that area!

So they are acting clearly from a self-interest point of view! And we say, that our self-interest does not matter! So when the President says "Dzi wo fie asem", then there is a problem! But all of them, every one of them, France, the United States, Britain, all of them they are "dzing their fie asem"! All of them!

None of them is doing what they are doing because they love West Africans more than themselves! They are doing it because of their interests in the strategic resources of La Côte d'Ivoire! They are doing it because they don't want the example of Gbagbo to spread through the African continent. That is what they are doing!

And that is why it is important for us to wake up to that reality and to begin to raise the fundamental questions of law and constitutionality. To begin to raise the moral question and so on. Now for those of you who have been shouting about war and so on... More...

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

3. GM Crops and Foods: Real and present dangers...

Wikileaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs

Source: Tom Laskawy

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Who Is AGRA In Ghana?
by crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com

October 25, 2010
Who Is AGRA In Ghana?
Posted by xcroc under Ghana, agriculture, development, maize
Leave a Comment

Here are AGRA’s agents in Ghana. The result of their efforts, if they are successful, will be small farmers crushed by debt and forced off their land, the land will be depleted by chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and new super weeds and insect pests will flourish. As a friend who has worked with AGRA in Ghana says, if they give you 2000, they make sure to get 4000 back from you (in dollars, cedis, or any currency you name).

AGRA Watch researchers have mapped AGRA grant recipients and some alternatives to AGRA. The map, which is linked below, covers all of Africa, this is just the Ghana section. More...

See also:

GM Crops and Foods

Why is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? The GMO Assault On Africa

***

I/ RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS

Food Sovereignty and Security/ Real and present dangers...

The Multifunctionality of Agriculture
WTO Agreement on Agriculture
GM Crops and Foods
Food Subsidy and local economies
Corporate, Foreign Government land grab
The Right To Water

***

I/ RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •

II/ FACILITATING SELF-MOBILISATION •
CHALLENGING DOGMA AND PROPAGANDA

III/ EFFECTIVE NETWORK •
AMBUSHING AN IMMINENT CONJUNCTION

IV/ THE ENDURING IMPERATIVES •
OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST STRUGGLE

V/ CONSOLIDATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY •

3. GM Crops and Foods: Real and present dangers...

The World According to Monsanto

The World According to Monsanto – Click here for: Full Documentary

Seattle-led coalition tells Gates Foundation to change approach

Posted by Kristi Heim
A coalition of groups led by Seattle-based activists has sent a letter and online petition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, saying its current approach to agriculture in Africa is unlikely to solve problems of hunger, poverty and climate change, and may make them worse.
The letter, signed by 100 organizations and individuals from 30 countries, was released to coincide with protests at the UN climate talks in Cancun.
Led by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice (CAGJ), the coalition said the foundation and its private sector partners are pushing industrialized agriculture and genetically engineered crops at the expense of small farmers and the environment.
The Gates Foundation has made agricultural development one of its priorities in recent years, launching the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) with the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006.
The Gates Foundation spent about $316 million last year on agricultural development, which it says is part of a larger strategy to reduce hunger and poverty by giving small farmers tools and opportunities to boost their productivity and increase incomes. More...

Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2013630646_seattle-led_coalition_tells_ga.html

Wikileaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs

Source: Tom Laskawy

The Wikileaks release of U.S. State Department classified diplomatic cables may be problematic, but it has been quite a trove of information on the workings of our diplomatic corps. For the most part, the dump has confirmed things that we already knew about U.S. policy -- and that seems to be the case regarding the one mention of agricultural policy in these thousands of emails and documents (no doubt there are more) to which I was alerted.

Buried deep in a document that outlines priorities for intelligence gathering in the African "Great Lakes" countries of Burundi, the Republic of Congo, and Rwanda is a list (for the most part, very reasonable) of what the State Department would like to know about the region's agricultural policy. Things like government policies on food security and food safety top the list, for example, along with information on the impact of rising food prices in these countries. Agricultural yield statistics, infrastructure improvements, data on deforestation and desertification, water issues, and invasive species are included as priorities for "reporting" as well.

But also getting its own line item on the intel priority list is this:

Government acceptance of genetically modified food and propagation of genetically modified crops.

Sigh.
Tom Philpott has reported on the State Department's biotech-loving science adviser Nina Federoff and her industry ties -- and certainly USDA Chief Tom Vilsack believes that genetically modified foods are an answer to world hunger. So this revelation hardly counts as a surprise. But it's still a shame to see that our spymasters are actively engaged in efforts to make the world safe for Monsanto. Aren't there better things for them to do?

Source: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-29-wikileaks-state-dept-wants-intel-on-african-acceptance-of-gmos

September 08, 2010

Raj Patel: Mozambique’s Food Riots Are the True Face of Global Warming

Thirteen people died and hundreds were wounded last week in the African nation of Mozambique when police cracked down on a three-day protest over a 30 percent hike in the price of bread. The UN says the riots in Mozambique should be a wake-up call for governments that have ignored food security problems since the global food crisis of 2008, when countries around the world saw angry protests in the streets over the rising prices of basic food items. We speak with author and activist Raj Patel. [includes rush transcript]

Kofi Annan Hosts Forum On Africa's Food Security

Wednesday August 11, 2010
By Samuel Amoako

As part of efforts to realise his dream of ensuring food security for Ghana and other African countries, Mr. Kofi Annan Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan will host African and some world leaders to a forum the of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in Accra in the first week of September.

AGRA formed by Mr Annan works to achieve food security and prosperous Africa through the promotion of rapid sustainable agricultural growth based on small-holder farmers.

The forum will discuss how to improve the methods of farming on the continent and promote food security.

Mr. Annan disclosed this in Accra yesterday when he paid a courtesy call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Alhaji Mohammed Mumuni.

The meeting with the minister centred on the discussion of the developments in the African region and efforts being made by Ghana to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Mr. Annan who on retirement from the UN expressed his desire to promote the attainment of food security, said it was important for farmers in Africa to be assisted by their governments in diverse ways to be competitive with their counterparts in other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, he said, assistance in the form subsidies on farm inputs was non-existent in most African countries and therefore the forum will stress the need for government to pay attention to those areas.

He said he could not have achieved what he did at the UN without the support of Ghana and the people, adding, “no Secretary General of UN could achieve success without the contributions of the civil society.

He therefore called for the collective effort of all in the process of developing the world.
Mr. Annan said “I did it my own way and l am happy that whatever started is being built upon.

Alhaji Mumuni said Ghana and Africa take pride in the achievements of Mr. Annan who served the world body with distinction, adding that “you are one of the iconic personalities in the world.

“During your stewardship at the UN, we noted with admiration achievements in world security and that legacy was outstanding”.

The Foreign Minister said Mr. Kofi Annan also worked to protect humanity and the fundamental human rights of people during his tenure as the head of the UN.

“You promoted the setting up of the International Criminal Court to protect people from crimes against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing,” he said and added that those were achievements which serve as encouragement to the people of Ghana.

He assured Mr. Annan of government’s support to promote food security in the country.
http://www.newtimes.com.gh/story/2132

Why is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? The GMO Assault On Africa

by Crossed Crocodiles

under Africa, GM crops, Ghana, Monsanto, agriculture, development, globalization, hunger, recolonize | Tags: AGRA, Gates Foundation, Kofi Annan, GMOs, USAID |
[7] Comments

Why do you bring your mistakes here?

Kofi Annan has joined with President Obama, Monsanto, AGRA, and the Gates foundation to promote and execute food aid that replaces bags of wheat, rice and corn (agricultural dumping) with bags of pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers and genetically engineered seeds. The end result will be to starve people in Africa and feed corporations in the US and Europe.

Kofi Annan and farmers

Under the guise of “sustainability” the [Gates] Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform Africa into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project. Up to now AGRA spokespeople have been slippery, and frankly, contradictory about their stance on GMOs.
…
If you had any doubts about where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really placing its bets, AGRA Watch’s recent announcement of the Foundation’s investment of $23.1 million in 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock should put them to rest. Genetic engineering: full speed ahead. (Eric Holt-Gimenez)

If you have questions about Monsanto’s agenda, here it is in brief:

At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct. (Jeffrey M. Smith)

Monsanto: No food shall be grown that we don't own

Kofi Annan is Chairman of the Board of Directors for AGRA. He is convening a conference in Ghana in the first week of September. As detailed in this blog, and by others, both AGRA and USAID top positions are filled with people that come from Monsanto and Dupont.
Kofi Annan Calls For United Effort To Accelerate African Green Revolution

African heads of state, industry representatives, the international donor community and farmers will meet in Ghana at the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) in the first week of September. Delegates will create an action plan on the acceleration of a Green Revolution in Africa.

Samuel Amoako has reported on this as well: Kofi Annan Hosts Forum On Africa’s Food Security in the Ghanaian Times on August 11.
It is worrisome that Kofi Annan is connected with AGRA. Maybe he believes that US mechanized and chemical agriculture work well. Most people in the US do, aside from family farmers who see the effects first hand. I have a good friend who works for the US Dept. of Agriculture and thinks this kind of big agriculture really is the best and that Monsanto is a boon to mankind. We have had several heated discussions. In fact Monsanto is destroying land, causing chemically induced human diseases, creating super weeds, super insect pests, and economic havoc in many parts of the US farming areas, particularly in the midwest and the south. There have been countless protests all over India and Brazil. I’ve read many heartbreaking stories, including this comment from Pearl on this blog:

The farmers of southern Kentucky have been enslaved by Monsanto. The previous generation fell for an ad campaign called “Hi-bred” or “High-Bred”, and the current generation is stuck with fulfilling the contracts their fathers signed. The chemicals that Monsanto has contractually required be applied to those fields have so damaged the soil that the only way to get anything to grow in the fields now is to keep applying more of those blasted chemicals. So even if a person who inherited a contract WANTS to discontinue the agreement with Monsanto when the contract expires, they are unable to do so unless they want to leave the land fallow for many, many, many years. Most farmers cannot afford to do this, as this would mean little to no income for their families for somewhere between 5 to 20 years, depending on how long it would take for the soil to renew itself.

I’ve always had enormous respect for Kofi Annan, I do not understand his participation in this and it bothers me a great deal. Even though I admire and respect him there are no free passes with a subject like this.
Genetically modified crops produce less, not more, than conventional crops.
Alexis Baden-Mayer points out in Dupont, Monsanto, and Obama Versus the World’s Family Farmers that AGRA is basing its programs on myth:

Most of the world’s food is not produced on industrial mega-farms. 1.5 billion family farmers produce 75 percent of the world’s food.
The hunger problem is not caused by low yields. The world has 6 billion people and produces enough food for 9 billion people.

And as I’ve discussed before, the smaller the farm the greater the yield.

There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield.
In some cases, the difference is enormous. A recent study of farming in Turkey, for example, found that farms of less than one hectare are twenty times as productive as farms of over ten hectares(3). Sen’s observation has been tested in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Malaysia, Thailand, Java, the Phillippines, Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay. It appears to hold almost everywhere. (Monbiot)

The key to true food security is food sovereignty, and the key to food sovereignty lies in who controls the land. The problems of both starvation and obesity stem from injustice in the way farmland and food are distributed. AGRA policies will poison the land and water, destroy local seeds and seed gene pools that provide the true hope for food sustainability. Local agriculture in most parts of the world has developed seeds that are tough and resistant to local pests, weeds, and local environmental dangers such as droughts or floods. AGRA wishes to replace these seeds with ones that need expensive, continuous, and ever expanding chemical coddling. These chemicals will poison the land, the water, and the people.
Additionally the Gates Foundation, Monsanto, and other corporate interests are investing in a doomsday seed bank, in which they will own the world’s agricultural gene pool. They are storing seeds from all over the world. In the event of genetic disaster, they will own the surviving gene pool.
Jonathan Weiner, in The Beak of the Finch describes how chemicals drive the destruction of land and the creation of super weeds and super insect pests:

Some of the greatest opposition to evolution comes from the farmers of the Cotton Belt, and that is where Taylor is seeing one of the most dramatic cases of evolution in action on this planet.
… in the year 1940, cotton farmers began spraying their fields with the chemical compound dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, better known as DDT. These first insecticidal sprays killed so many insects, and killed so many of the birds that ate the insects, that in biological terms the cotton fields were left standing virtually vacant, like an archipelago of newborn islands – and out of the woods and hedgerows fluttered [the cotton destroying moth] Heliothis virescens.
In the next few optimistic years, pesticide manufacturers assaulted Heliothis with bigger and bigger doses of DDT. They also brought out more poisons from the same chemical family: aldrin, chlordane. The aim was nothing less than the control of nature, and pesticide manufacturers believed that control was within their grasp. The annual introduction of new pesticides rose from the very first product, DDT, in 1940, to great waves of chemical invention in the 1960s and 1970s. In those decades, dozens of new herbicides and insecticides were brought to market each year. Heliothis became on of the most heavily sprayed species in what amounted to a biological world war. Through it all, the moths clung to the cotton.
… The moths have become almost absolutely resistant to all pesticides, from your cyclodienes to your organophosphates to your carbamates, and most of your pyrethroids. …
“Its an extraordinarily potent example of evolution going on under our eyes,” Taylor says. “Visible evolution.”
A pesticide applies selection pressure as surely as a drought or a flood. The poison selects against traits that make a species vulnerable to it, because the individuals that are most vulnerable are the ones that die first. The poison selects for any trait that makes the species less vulnerable, because the least vulnerable are the ones that survive longest and leave the most offspring. In this way the invention of pesticides in the twentieth century has driven waves of evolution in insects all over the planet. Heliothis is only one case in hundreds. (from pp 251-255)

In short, pesticides and herbicides destroy most of the insects, plants, and often other animals in those fields where they are used. But nature fights back. Those insects and weeds that can resist the chemicals initially, breed and grow stronger. They have no competition except from the chemicals, and they quickly evolve immunity, even as the chemicals become stronger and more toxic. Stronger and more toxic chemicals are needed to fight the new insects and weeds, and the destructive cycle continues. The chemicals wind up in the food, and run off into the land and the water, creating an ever increasingly toxic environment for humans and many other plants and animals.
For the growth of super weeds world wide, see the following charts:

The vertical axis shows the number of species of weeds that have become chemical resistant, the horizontal axis shows the years. You can see the exponential increase starting about 1970 when Monsanto introduced Roundup, and continuing into 2010. (click to enlarge)

You can see the distribution, North America, Western Europe, and Australia have already been severely impacted. Africa is a huge new market that has not yet been ruined. You can see why it is so desirable, it is a huge wide open opportunity to Monsanto and other greedy chemical corporations. Most countries in Africa have not yet been touched or biologically recolonized by GMOs and agricultural chemicals. South Africa, which has allowed GMOs, is the most severely impacted to date. (click to enlarge)

Genetically modified seeds, GMOs, are designed to be used as part of a program involving chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Their effect on farmers is usually to lock them into a cycle of debt, as described by Pearl above, and as experienced and protested in many countries including India and Brazil, as mentioned above. Terminator seeds, also known as suicide seeds or homicide seeds, will not regenerate, so instead of saving seeds, farmers have to buy new seeds each year, as well as investing in more, and more toxic chemicals each year that are necessary to make the GMO seeds grow. This cycle has created death and destruction in many places, including hundreds of farmer suicides in India.
I’ve heard that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and that is certainly the case for the insects and weeds targeted by chemical pesticides and herbicides. Those that don’t die become very much stronger. We have already have super bugs and super weeds, thanks to the efforts of companies such as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Evolution can move very fast, not just fast enough to observe, but fast enough to leave us humans struggling in its wake. Monsanto and the other agricultural chemical companies market each new product as though it is the end of some pest, that evolution stops at this point, and we can just relax. In fact each new chemical is the creator and the beginning of many more powerful threats. And the more powerful the chemical tools we use against these threats, the more those chemicals poison us and strengthen the insects and weeds we are fighting.
Although they have stopped talking much overtly about this, AGRA and the Gates Foundation speak about “land mobility” which means moving farmers off their farms so the land can be used for large scale mechanized agriculture. But there is no mention of where these people will go and live, and how they will be reemployed. What this means is thousands of displaced people moving to slums around the cities, which will grow and will be filled with unemployed people. This is politically and socially destabilizing. It breeds crime and political violence. This kind of policy also hits women particularly hard, because in western models such as corporate agriculture, their traditional rights to land are ignored. Women are the majority of agricultural workers, and will become even more impoverished and disenfranchised, not that it will bother AGRA or Gates or Monsanto, as they say:

Over time, this will require some degree of land mobility and a lower percentage of total employment involved in direct agricultural production.

Family farmers, who produce 75% of the worlds food, will gradually be displaced, driven off their land, and the land will be poisoned and ruined. There will be less food, less healthy food. More people will starve, while more corporations will get fat.
As Joan Baxter writes:

Back in the early 1990s when I was reporting from northern Ghana, an elderly woman farmer decided I would benefit from a bit of enlightenment. In a rather long lecture, she detailed for me the devastating effects that the Green Revolution – the first one that outside experts and donors launched in Africa in the 1960s and 1970s – had had on farmers’ crops, soils, trees and their lives. She said that the imported seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and tractors, the instructions to plant row after row of imported hybrid maize and cut down precious trees that protected the soils and nourished the people – even the invaluable sheanut trees – had ruined the diverse and productive farming systems that had always sustained her people. When she finished, she cocked an eye at me and asked, with a cagey grin, ‘Why do you bring your mistakes here?’

For more African farmers perspectives on this subject, see:
Africa: African Farmers and Environmentalists Speak Out Against A New Green Revolution In Africa PDF
www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voicesfromafrica_full.pdf
________
The first part of this article was published, text only, on GhanaWeb on September 13. You can read comments there.

See also:

Who Is AGRA In Ghana?

Why Kofi Annan's "Green Wash" In Africa Does Not Wash! Part One

Introduction:

"Father of GM Food" Receives a TKO on BBC's "One Planet"?

LISTEN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
"The father of GM foods, bolivian seeds and wildebeest
Dr Roger Beachy, the father of GM foods on scientific ignorance and our moral obligations
Read full summary, ListenDuration: 28 minutes"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b2rgn

By way of introduction, I would like very much to hurriedly draw your attention to this programme, and pray, you make it a point not to miss it, while it is available.The accuracy or otherwise of the following transcription is still verifiable. Currently running on the website of the BBC is an important humiliation of the arrogant "Monsanto scientists" President Obama seems to rely upon to take charge of US Department of Food and Agriculture. You may want to call it the most up-to-date public debate (last broadcast, Sun 10 Oct 2010, available to listen online for a few more days) on allowing genetically modified organisms into our food chain. Another claim one can successfully make about this debate is the fact that it brought together, some of the best brains on the opposing sides of the issue in a broadcast that was beamed to millions of people across the globe. I have decided to write about this as an introduction to a special focus on the threat of GMO invasion on the African continent. The reason why I urgently want to bring this out is because even though I have improvised a transcription, owing to the importance of the issue the debate covers, it is still possible to listen to the discussion online. It goes off forever after a few days!

On "One Planet", a BBC World Service "Factual and Science and Nature Programme", Dr. Roger Beachy, the man reputed to have made the first genetically food crop, also described by the presenter as "the father of GM Food", "the man appointed by Barack Obama to head the National Institute of Food and Agriculture" (www.csrees.usda.gov), answers the following question from BBC's Mike Williams. I like very much the style of the presenter. He takes his time to let his listeners know the experience and qualifications of the people he is interviewing. To Dr. Beachy he asks:

"You have been called 'the father of GM food' how does that feel like?", Dr. Beachy confirms with admirable humility, "But then so have a number of other people, I am one of the members of the club, I guess, of those of us who adopted the science nearly twenty five years ago. And I was privileged enough to be at the right place at the right time with the right idea."

"And with the help of the company, Monsanto, you made the first genetically modified food crop?" Mike wants us to know whom he is talking to,

"We did, successfully," Dr. Beachy's answer is in the affirmative, "and then had the first field trial of genetically engineered food plant, that was a tomato that was resistant to a virus disease. The field trial was held in 1987."

Then comes the long-awaited question:

"Does it bother you that there is resistance, people are scared, some people, are scared of this technology, concerned about it?"

Here is Dr. Beachy's answer:

"You know, there is a recent article that was published about why people make decisions about accepting cell-phone technology, or driving a fast car,, or GM crops, or having a vaccine for measles. And there are always some who will choose against all facts, against all knowledge, simply not to participate for some other reason, reason in their hearts, in their heads, in their souls, they choose not based on science. so, maybe you want to turn the question around. How have they taken those attitudes, where do those attitudes come from?

"If they hold those attitudes strongly and honestly," an obviously surprised Mike Williams would only mildly ask, "It's, I'm sure, you would accept that it's not your job, not trying to change that?"

"Exactly right," Dr. Beachy responds, "the job of the scientist is to discover new solutions. What we would hope is that decisions that are made by the public are based upon their knowledge and understanding of the science. And, clearly, we know that that is not happening in many cases. We know in the case of vaccines, that some people simply wont take vaccines for reasons that are not based on science but for something else."

"Forgive me, if I..." Mike tries to intervene without success.

"Then on the other hand, we know that people will not take new food, who will not accept a new food variety because they believe that it should be grown in a certain way. And I think those decision-making process is often in the absence of science. Now, one could say that, perhaps, we should have started fifty years ago, and maintained our level of science education, so that when new facts come along, it would be more understood and so forth, but we haven't done that."

At this stage, I simply can't wait to bring you with me to Mike, back in London, inside the laboratory of Dr. Michael Antoniou, as a molecular geneticist, surely a man no one can call a "scientific illiterate", whose opposition to GM food is not only "based on science", but also has a ring of credibility completely absent in Dr. Beachy's hocus pocus on the reasons why there is resistance to the attempts to impose GM crops on the world. What makes the rebuttal of Dr. Antoniou so sweet is not simply because he happens to be an expert in the field, but also the manner in which he tears the arguments of Dr. Roger Beachy and Mr. Jack Bobo, "Senior Advisor for Bio-Technology in the US Department of State.". So, I continue with the interview in Washington before we come back to London.

"Can I just bring you back to that reference to vaccines which the science shows to be beneficial to them? what you can then do is to put the vaccine in the water and I think one of those arguments people make about GM crops is that there are concerns that those genes would spread and end up ingesting genetically modified material. That is what they are concerned about."

"You know," Dr. Beachy replies, "I gave a talk in Dublin a number of years ago, and a young man was really, really concerned about potatoes. And we said we were mostly talking about corn and cotton. He said the corn pollen would contaminate the potato. He didn't know that the corn pollen couldn't pollinate potato. Which gets us back the issue of illiteracy about science. It is very easy to promote fear and distrust when there is lack of knowledge in those who are reading or listening. So in the case of cross-pollination as issue, if you had a guy who was exporting organic weet corn, and somebody next door is producing commercial corn for cows and other uses, the sweet corn has a different pollination time than does the commercial corn. So, the chances for contamination in that example are non-existent or can be managed very nicely. If the farmer, that is, one or the other, says I am going to plant my crop a little bit later, then, yes, there is no cross-pollination. My point is by knowing about the biology of organisms and how they are grown, one can find ways that side-by-side, we can have a safe organic production or commercial production and bio-tech,. It is straight science knowledge and the inability not to vilify but to get along with each other."

"Joining us here is Jack Bobo, Senior Advisor for Bio-Technology, US Department of State," Mike turns his attention to Jack Bobo, "Erm, Mr. Bobo," Mike asks, "can I just ask you about United States policy? I mean, it seems clear that the United States is interested in promoting genetically modified food world-wide, tell me why?"

"Actually, I would say that the United States is interested in promoting agriculture world-wide, and bio-technology just happens to be one of those. We promote organic agriculture, and bio-technology. But as an export issue and as a development issue, I think there is a particular importance though, trying to address the issue of acceptance of bio-technology both from a farmer perspective, and consumer perspective."

"I wonder whether you would agree", Mike fires, "that, we are, in the West, exporting Western consumerism to the rest of the world, and the GM crops is, perhaps, an attempt to export a solution to that particular problem?"

"The fact is, we need a double food production between now and 2050. that is a huge challenge." Mr. Bobo confidently explains, "Climate change means there is going to be a 27% decline in productivity. We need to double production and we have declining productivity. How are we going to do about that? And so we need all the technology that are available in order to do that, and so the developing world desperate need of technologies that are going to reduce the variability of yields, and that would allow them to produce their own food. this is not about exporting consumerism. This is about production and self-sufficiency."

"I would like to add," Dr. Beachy interjects, "that I think this is an area that the developed nations must collaborate on. This partnership in knowledge sharing and in building the ability of countries to feed themselves is our responsibility, it's your responsibility, and should be based on science. It should not be based on a demonization of technology per se. It should be based on the best science that meets the needs of the world. And I think that is a responsibility that goes beyond philosophy, whether it is GM, organic, or conventional. It becomes a moral obligation of not feeding people but educating them so that they can feed themselves."

"Do yo think that the technology has been demonized?" Mike asks.

"I think it has been, largely." Dr. Beachy replied. "In our country, it has been demonized because it is a way to value something else more. An organic product costs more than conventional product. That 20, 25, maybe even in a hundred per cent premium on an organic banana compared to conventional, allows somebody to make more money. It is about finances in that case. And I would like to see this come down to what is safer for the environment, safer for people, and more economic so that those who don't have as much as you and I have, sitting here around this table, with a biscuit and a cup of tea, can say that the woman who has less, has the same capabilities of feeding herself and her kids, as we do sitting around the table. And I think that's only going to come when we adopt the safest and best technologies of whatever type, to help to make things happen. And then we can put that responsibility behind."

"Some of the problems you are fighting to overcome through genetically modified food seem to many, to have come about because of monoculture and that monoculture has caused the problem and that GM monoculture isn't going to provide the solution."

"Modern agriculture is by definition a monoculture." Dr. Beachy would surrender no grounds, "You can drive around through - I love driving through - the southern parts of England and watching the fields of wheat. That is monoculture. Don't pretend it's not. But don't blame that on GM, blame it on modern, high output agriculture. The wheat is cheap because we grew them in the wheat fields. Our beef isn't expensive because they grow a lot of corn in large monoculture so that we can feed at lower cost than if we had it in small plots. So, it is agriculture that you are talking about. You are not talking about GMOs or conventional agriculture."

Thus it was that my hopes that this could be an opportunity to hear what I needed to know to understand the best and the most current argument making the case for GM food passed by in vain. Unfortunately, instead of squarely confronting the real issues surrounding the biology, politics, and the economics of GM technology the advocates only insult our intelligence. If I was looking for any insight or argument that would have effectively addressed my own apprehensions about GM crops, I was alarmingly disappointed. Dr. Beachy is no doubt a brilliant geneticist, but as an advocate of his wares, he is certainly not the best in town. The fundamental choice of ignoring the highly informed and science-based opposition to the current push to promote genetically modified organisms into our food chain with lower and lower restrictions, and the erosion of the precautionary measures installed to safeguard against possible hazards must be rightly considered a crime against humanity.

I call on all the people's of the world to uphold the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the "Rio Declaration on environment and Development" as relates to the current uncertainties surrounding GMOs. The principle states:

"Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of an LMO on biodiversity, taking into account risks to human health, shall not prevent a Party of import from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the LMO in question, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects." Annex III on risk assessment, which notes that "Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk." (Article 10.6 and 11.8).

I was expecting answers that go beyond questions raised by advocates of GMO particularly in Africa, such as summarized in the following abstract: "Even after more than 15 years of the emergence of modern biotechnology in agriculture, much of Africa remains reluctant if not hostile to it. Some view modern biotechnology as the new messiah to lift Africa from starvation and food insecurity while others hold the contrary view and advise Africa to stay away from the technology for reasons ranging from health and environmental concerns to economic considerations. They fear that the unfolding ‘gene revolution’ is destined to fail on its promises because of the existing complex economic, social, and political circumstances in Africa as was the case in the green revolution." (Presented at the SIEL 2010 Conference in Barcelona., Birhanu, Fikremarkos Merso, Biotechnology and the Future of Africa’s Agriculture (June 30, 2010). Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Second Biennial Global Conference, University of Barcelona, July 8-10, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1633009)

In his response to the question, "Does it not bother you that there is resistance, people are scared, some people, are scared of this technology, concerned about it?" Dr. Beachy chose to blame the resistance to what he calls "scientific illiteracy". Said Dr. Beachy:

"You know, there is a recent article that was published about why people make decisions about accepting cell phone technology, or driving a fast car, or GM crops,or having a vaccine for measles, and there are some who wil choose against all facts, against all knowledge, simply not to participate for some other reasons, reason in their hearts, in their heads, in their souls, they choose, not based on science. So maybe, you want to turn the question around. How have they taken those attitudes? Where do they come from?"

It is a pity that Dr. Beachy had clearly not read Crossed Crocodiles, "Why Is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? GMO Assault On Africa". If he had done that, he would have been ably to give a more intelligent response, or at least one that is not as stupid and insultingly arrogant, as as this one. I am not a geneticist, and I do not cease to be amazed by the brilliant contributions to knowledge particularly in fighting disease, but I bet I know where my concerns about GM food are coming from! These have nothing to do with "scientific illiteracy"! They are coming from the bitter experiences of over twenty five thousand farmers in India who committed suicide with Monsanto''s pesticides after being misled into the believing that genetically modified cotton was the key to higher yields and bigger profits.

They are coming from reports that scientists working for Monsanto refused to drink the milk that they themselves had helped to invent. As Jeffrey M. Smith puts it, "former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer." - Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit, Friday, July 30, 2010. http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_deception.html.

Our fears also come from the fact that GMOs remain inside of us. "The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories."

"Un-recallable contamination: In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don't have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste."

For Dr. Beachy to simply brush all these legitimate, and many more science-based concerns aside, with the ridiculous claim that opposition to the acceptance of GM crops in our food chain is largely based upon our ignorance is the cheapest way to avoid the hard questions which tip the debate against GMOs. What makes this particular programme very interesting is the fact that the "One Planet" also interviewed a molecular geneticist, Dr Michael Antoniou, Kings College London (www.kcl.ac.uk). The beauty of this lies in the fact that Dr. Antoniou is himself a genetic engineer and as such can not be deemed to be "scientifically illiterate".

"Dr. Antoniou, what is it do you do here?" The question was asked whilst inside a laboratory of King's College, where Dr. Antoniou works.

"What we do in my research group", Dr. Antoniou responds, "is to investigate fundamental mechanisms of how human gene systems are controlled, and then we exploit those discoveries to design safe and efficacious gene units to be used within a therapeutic context, within a human gene therapy context, for treating for example, inherited diseases such as immune deficiencies, thalassemia, sickle disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and so on."

"The people who create GM crops use very similar techniques to yours, different applications though, are you comfortable with that?"

"I am not comfortable at all with the way that GM is being used in agriculture". Dr. Antoniou answer categorically, "because compared to what we do in a clinical context, where not only research is done under contained genes, they are non-replicated. They can't reproduce and spread and cause harm. In agriculture the same technique is used in open fields, the organism can spread in an uncontrolled way and we suffer with the consequences of that forever."

"You use this technology to device medical therapy to help people to live longer and healthier lives, to keep more of us on the planet for longer, what is wrong with other scientists using these same techniques to fed those extra millions and billions? They say - you heard the argument - that there was a need, a moral moral obligation?", Dr. Antoniou responds:

"Indeed, the world has a moral obligation to feed itself. What is invariably ignored by advocates of GM crops in explaining why almost a billion of people in the world go to bed, each day, hungry, is that actually, we have more than enough food to feed everybody now. In fact, we have have doubled the amount of food to feed everybody in the world now, but people don't have access to food. And in terms of meeting future food needs, specifically in the face of climate change, then the latest United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation sponsored report clearly pointed that the future in meeting future food needs lie in applying agro-ecological methods. They said that genetic engineering would play little or no role in meeting immediate food needs of the world and future food needs of the world. Which is why the Americans were not signatory. But 62 other nations, actually signed up, including the UK, signed up to that report. We have to take on board, the report compiled by 400 independent scientists from around the world, in all manner of expertise and discipline, which said go forward with low-input, agro-ecological, sustainable agriculture, not GM, because GM simply does not fit the bill."

We shall be focusing on Bolivai and the GMO debate soon.

This is what I call, a "technical knock-out"!

And the winner is...

Bravo! Dr. Michael Antoniou!!!

Thanks, Mike, and the BBC for this eye-opener!

A Race to Introduce GM Corn Before Africa's Climate Worsens
31 March 2010 The New York Times
Molecular biologists and neutral policymakers expect genetically modified (GM) crops to occupy an important role in the future.

Africa Urged to Embrace Agro-Biotech
09 March 2010 The New Vision
Experts have urged African countries to embrace agro-biotechnology to address food insecurity on the continent.

Growing More Food for Less
04 March 2010 Health News Digest
"For instance, today's technology allows farmers to manage pests like weeds and bugs from the seed, address soil fertility by the square foot, and harvest top yields and superior-quality grain and fiber from combines that run off Global Positioning Systems."

Here are very important links if you want to have an idea of what this is all about:

What the enlightened public must drum down home into the ears of our leaders, including Mr. Kofi Annan may be found in the following links on the subject:

Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and
deceit<http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_deception.html>

Haiti: The Gifts of Death Burned | Black Agenda

Report<http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/haiti-gifts-death-burned>Pambazuka

Africa’s land and family farms – up for grabs?<http://farmlandgrab.org/11144>

*AGRA & Monsanto & Gates, Green Washing & Poor

Washing*<http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/agra-monsanto-gates-green-washing-poor-washing/>

Dupont, Monsanto, and Obama Versus the World's Family

Farmers<http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19665.cfm>

Very important:
*Voices From Africa: African Farmers and Environmentalists Speak Out Against
A New Green Revolution In Africa

PDF<http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/pdfs/voicesfromafrica_full.pdf>

*Terminator Seeds*<http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/terminator-seeds/>

**More than one way to colonize a continent<http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/more-than-one-way-to-colonize-a-continent/>

Genetically Manipulated Crops: The GMO Catastrophe in the USA. A Lesson for the World

- by F. William Engdahl - 2010-08-18

Mounting Opposition to GMO Crops: The World’s People Reject Genetic Pollution of Food and the Environment

- by Rady Ananda - 2010-08-17

• RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •

Food Sovereignty and Security/ Real and present dangers...

The Multifunctionality of Agriculture
WTO Agreement on Agriculture
GM Crops and Foods
Food Subsidy and local economies
Corporate, Foreign Government land grab
The Right To Water

Social

The Ecology

Health

Education

Peace and Security

The Wealth of Africa

• FACILITATING SELF-MOBILISATION •
CHALLENGING DOGMA AND PROPAGANDA

• EFFECTIVE NETWORK •
AMBUSHING AN IMMINENT CONJUNCTION

• THE ENDURING IMPERATIVES •
OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST STRUGGLE

• CONSOLIDATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY •

The Wealth of Africa/ Real and present dangers...

An Overview

Africa In Maps

Posted by xcroc under Africa, development The following maps provide an overview of Africa at present. The selection was put together by McKinsey Quarterly, discussing businees opportunities and the future in Africa. The information in the maps is by no means complete, but nevertheless worth a look. Click on each map to make it large enough to read.

11 million square miles and more than 50 countries

Capital cities

Population by country

Literacy rates by country

Major cities on the continent

Major minerals by location

Business climate by country

The maps above are from McKinsey Quarterly where there are slightly more interactive versions.
In view of the above maps, I thought I’d post the following map again, to help keep things in perspective.

Map of Africa's geographic size in relation to other countries (click to enlarge)

The map above comes from Strange Maps.
Something additional to keep in mind, Alwyn Young of the Department of Economics of the London School of Economics published the study The African Growth Miracle PDF in September 2009. As the abstract says:

Measures of real consumption based upon the ownership of durable goods, the quality of housing, the health and mortality of children, the education of youth and the allocation of female time in the household indicate that sub-Saharan living standards have, for the past two decades, been growing in excess of 3 percent per annum, i.e. more than three times the rate indicated in international data sets.

Mr. Young has made this survey based on the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS).

The DHS data on consumption of consumer durables and housing, children’s health and mortality, the schooling of youth and the allocation of women’s time between marriage & childbirth and market activity, indicate that since 1990 real material consumption in sub-Saharan Africa has been rising at a rate more than three times that recorded by international data sources such as the PWT, and on par with the growth taking place in other regions of the world. This is a miraculous achievement, given that the very real ravages of the AIDS epidemic have deprived families of prime working age adults, burdened them with medical and funeral expenses, orphaned their school age children and directly and adversely affected the health of their infants. And yet, the overall health and mortality of children is improving, their school attendance is rising, and family consumption of a variety of material goods is growing at a rapid rate. (p.58)

Much of this has gone unnoticed prior to his study.
For some further reading, Pambazuka has a number of recent stories well worth a look, including:

MDGs: How far we’ve come and what still has to be done
Charles Abugre (2010-09-22)
Africans must not rely on the so-called millennium goals
Cameron Duodu (2010-09-23)
African Women Writing Resistance
Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez, Pauline Dongala, Omotayo Jolaosho and Anne Serafin (2010-09-23)
World Bank land grab report: Beyond smoke and mirrors
GRAIN (2010-09-23)
The global capitalist crisis and Africa’s future
Dani W. Nabudere (2010-09-23)

Poverty in the midst of plenty
Child labour and slavery
Africa's Street Children
Poverty, Financial Crisis and Natural Disasters

Political Economy of Africa
Slavery, Colonialism, and Neo-colonialism
Reparations
Our Campaigns
The Jacobus Capitein Award of the Year
Neocolonialism and Underdevelopment

The International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The World Bank
The African Union (AU)
The Democratic Union of Africa, (DUA)
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, (AGRA)
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
The African Growth and Opportunity Act, (AGOA)
Carbon trading
Global Biopiracy
Atmospheric space
Corporate, Foreign Government land grab

In the news:

The Right To Water
GM Crops and Foods
Corporate, Foreign Government land grab
The United States Africa Command (US Africom)
Climate Reparations

• RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •

Food Sovereignty and Security

Social

The Ecology

Health

Education

Peace and Security

The Wealth of Africa

• FACILITATING SELF-MOBILISATION •
CHALLENGING DOGMA AND PROPAGANDA

• EFFECTIVE NETWORK •
AMBUSHING AN IMMINENT CONJUNCTION

• THE ENDURING IMPERATIVES •
OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST STRUGGLE

• CONSOLIDATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY •

Peace and Security/

A Song For Peace In The World!

"Peace"

by Winston McAnuff

The International Criminal Court
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
Africa's Sub-threshold conflicts
War on terror
The United States Africa Command (US Africom)
Post Civil-War Recovery
Peace and Reconciliation
Africa's Hot-Beds Of Tension

• RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •