Tag Archives: corporate

Wikileaks papers reveal TPP’s huge corporate giveaway Updated for 2026





A leaked secret dispute-settlement provision of a pending US trade deal with Asia is raising concerns among nonprofit groups which say it favors big companies over governments.

The classified document, released this week by WikiLeaks, deals with a controversial investor-state dispute settlement tool that is part of closed-door negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation free-trade agreement including Japan, Australia, Singapore and Vietnam.

According to the 20 January document, the US-led negotiating parties want to establish investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts where foreign firms can sue states and obtain taxpayer compensation for expected future profits, overruling national court systems.

ISDS tribunals are also part of the vast trade pact the US is negotiating with the European Union, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP.

The cover page of the leaked document said the document “is supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.”

US taxpayers would face huge liability claims

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the leaked document shows that the TPP would open up the United States to huge liability claims.

“Enactment of the leaked chapter would increase US ISDS liability to an unprecedented degree by newly empowering about 9,000 foreign-owned firms from Japan and other TPP nations operating in the United States to launch cases against the government over policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms”, the Washington-based organization said in a statement.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, added: “With the veil of secrecy ripped back, finally everyone can see for themselves that the TPP would give multinational corporations extraordinary new powers that undermine our sovereignty, expose US taxpayers to billions in new liability and privilege foreign firms operating here with special rights not available to US firms under US law.”

Environmental group Sierra Club said the leaked document confirms the threats of the TPP to clean air and water, because the provision “would expand a system of investor privileges.”

Last week an arbitration panel established under the North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA) ruled in favour of a US mining company, Bilcon, against Canada, after permission to mine basalt in Nova Scotia near a breeding ground for endangered whale and dolphin species was denied for environmental reasons. The company is now demanding $300 million ‘compensation’.

Obama seeks ‘fast track’ authorization

The TPP leak came as Congress plans to discuss next month the so-called ‘fast-track’ authority that President Barack Obama is seeking for trade negotiations.

Fast-track would allow the White House to agree to a trade deal and submit it in its entirety to Congress to ratify, without allowing lawmakers the power to make amendments.

“This leak is a disaster for the corporate lobbyists and administration officials trying to persuade Congress to delegate Fast Track authority to railroad the TPP through Congress”, said Wallach.

The US Trade Representative, the agency in charge of US trade negotiations, was not immediately available Thursday to comment on the leaked document.

Similar provisions in EU-US TTIP deal

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) also contains investor-state dispute-settlement (ISDS) clauses, but these have yet to be released into the public domain.

The European Union won’t decide whether to include them in the agreement until the “final phase of the negotiations” with the US, and is asking member states to submit their views.

ISDS is controversial because it allows investors to take governments to international arbitration tribunals rather than to domestic courts. It could be dropped, modified or kept in its current form, when the trade pact is finally sealed. The US wants ISDS included in the landmark free trade agreement.

Negotiations on investment in TTIP were suspended in January 2014. They will only resume once the Commission believes its new proposals guarantee, among other things, that the jurisdiction of national courts won’t be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes.

 


 

This article was originally published by EurActiv.

 




391660

Wikileaks papers reveal TPP’s huge corporate giveaway Updated for 2026





A leaked secret dispute-settlement provision of a pending US trade deal with Asia is raising concerns among nonprofit groups which say it favors big companies over governments.

The classified document, released this week by WikiLeaks, deals with a controversial investor-state dispute settlement tool that is part of closed-door negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation free-trade agreement including Japan, Australia, Singapore and Vietnam.

According to the 20 January document, the US-led negotiating parties want to establish investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts where foreign firms can sue states and obtain taxpayer compensation for expected future profits, overruling national court systems.

ISDS tribunals are also part of the vast trade pact the US is negotiating with the European Union, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP.

The cover page of the leaked document said the document “is supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.”

US taxpayers would face huge liability claims

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the leaked document shows that the TPP would open up the United States to huge liability claims.

“Enactment of the leaked chapter would increase US ISDS liability to an unprecedented degree by newly empowering about 9,000 foreign-owned firms from Japan and other TPP nations operating in the United States to launch cases against the government over policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms”, the Washington-based organization said in a statement.

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, added: “With the veil of secrecy ripped back, finally everyone can see for themselves that the TPP would give multinational corporations extraordinary new powers that undermine our sovereignty, expose US taxpayers to billions in new liability and privilege foreign firms operating here with special rights not available to US firms under US law.”

Environmental group Sierra Club said the leaked document confirms the threats of the TPP to clean air and water, because the provision “would expand a system of investor privileges.”

Obama seeks ‘fast track’ authorization

The TPP leak came as Congress plans to discuss next month the so-called ‘fast-track’ authority that President Barack Obama is seeking for trade negotiations.

Fast-track would allow the White House to agree to a trade deal and submit it in its entirety to Congress to ratify, without allowing lawmakers the power to make amendments.

“This leak is a disaster for the corporate lobbyists and administration officials trying to persuade Congress to delegate Fast Track authority to railroad the TPP through Congress”, said Wallach.

The US Trade Representative, the agency in charge of US trade negotiations, was not immediately available Thursday to comment on the leaked document.

Similar provisions in EU-US TTIP deal

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) also contains investor-state dispute-settlement (ISDS) clauses, but these have yet to be released into the public domain.

The European Union won’t decide whether to include them in the agreement until the “final phase of the negotiations” with the US, and is asking member states to submit their views.

ISDS is controversial because it allows investors to take governments to international arbitration tribunals rather than to domestic courts. It could be dropped, modified or kept in its current form, when the trade pact is finally sealed. The US wants ISDS included in the landmark free trade agreement.

Negotiations on investment in TTIP were suspended in January 2014. They will only resume once the Commission believes its new proposals guarantee, among other things, that the jurisdiction of national courts won’t be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes.

 


 

This article was originally published by EurActiv.

 




391660

Let them eat carbon! The corporate plan to cook Africa in its own fossil fuels Updated for 2026





If you have ever wondered about what is blocking action against climate change, consider this.

There’s an estimated £19 trillion GBP ($28 trillion) worth of fossil fuel reserves in the world. Only 20% of these can be extracted and burned if the world is to stay below a 2°C temperature rise from pre-industrial levels and avoid catastrophic climate change.

The sensible solution to tackling global warming is thus clear and simple: keep these fossil fuels underground. This means that £15 trillion ($22 trillion) worth of carbon must remain untouched. To burn it would be tantamount to committing global suicide!

So, why is no real action being taken to tackle global warming? Because it’s all about capital: profit, not people and planet. It’s about the insatiable appetite for financial accumulation by fossil fuel companies, their shareholders and their agents.

To avoid a catastrophic temperature rise, industrial economies must urgently decarbonise the way they travel, power and move things. Even a 2°C rise in global temperature would have huge impacts. In Africa, this ‘safe’ 2° will in effect translate to a 3°C increase. The current ‘business as usual’ fossil fuel path we are on is set to burn up and fossilise the African continent.

And yet, though the stakes could not be higher, rather than halting the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, corporations are digging deeper and using ever more extreme means of extraction. In this effort they are aided by their unprecedented political connections.

Papering over Africa’s scars

Chatham House’s Extractive Industries in Africa conference, which concludes today, has brought together miners and politicians to discuss strategies for exploiting Africa’s mineral resources. It is a clear indicator that the quest for profit does not consider the great harm inflicted on the continent and our shared climate.

Indeed, the damage done by the extractives sector goes beyond climate impacts and includes a wholesale disregard for human rights, the displacement of communities and unthinkable levels of pollution of land, water and the air.

The scars of mining in Africa are visible in the coal mines of South Africa, the gold mines of Ghana and Mali, as well as in the devastation caused by oil companies in the once verdant ecosystems of the Niger Delta. It is also well known that mining causes many of the persistent violent conflicts in Africa.

Sadly, however, ecological destruction for the purpose of appropriating ounces of minerals is often not seen as outright violence as it lays waste to the life support system that is our environment.

Designed to exclude civil society? That’s how it looks

By hosting this conference in London, not Africa, and charging exorbitant fees – £580 is the cheapest fee for non-member NGOs – Chatham House has effectively prevented the participation of African civil society and community members.

In doing so, the think tank has, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to silence the people best able to describe the true costs of the extractive industries and to contest Chatham House’s conservative development narrative of ‘resource extraction = growth’.

Fearing that this may well be another Berlin Conference (1880) aimed at carving up and appropriating the African continent’s resources, we delivered an open letter from African Civil Society to conference organisers and participants on the afternoon of Monday 16th March.

In it we raise the voices of African communities and civil society and call upon Chatham House to show genuine leadership of thought. They must recognise that now is the time to think of the future of people and planet, not the health of the extractive industries.

Not a land grab – a continent grab!

Mining companies have learned new strategies for pulling the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting members of the public who invest in their stocks and thus back up the atrocious actions of these companies.

Through public-private partnerships with mining and fossil fuel companies, governments and other public bodies are sucked into unequal partnerships.

For the companies these partnerships offer legitimacy, a better image and a social license to operate as supposed agents of development. For public bodies and governments the equality of these relationships is merely illusory. A few will benefit, most will not.

Chatham House’s conference directly promotes such joint initiatives to give the extractive industries further access to Africa’s wealth. Yet it is clear that tactics such as public-private partnerships, so-called corporate social responsibility, good governance and transparency are too often mere green washing initiatives.

Despite these token efforts, Africa is experiencing new levels of ecosystem destruction and the intensification of poverty in impacted communities as part of what the No REDD Africa Network have described as a continent grab.

The time has come to challenge out-dated gatherings like that at Chatham House that exclude the voices of the people. We must move into the present by envisioning a fossil free future, reimagining our systems of design, consumption and use.

This cannot happen whilst we continue to sugar-coat destructive, unsustainable mining. The level of destruction already inflicted on Africa is nothing short of ecocide.

Rather than finding underhand ways to exploit new mineral and fossil fuel reserves in Africa, extractive companies should be challenged to invest in clean-up and environmental restoration activities.

These companies must not be allowed to position themselves as saviours when they have been the abusers of the African continent. They must be held accountable.

 


 

Read the letter to Chatham House from African Civil Society groups and their supporters here.

Nnimmo Bassey is a published poet, head of Home of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria and former Chair of Friends of the Earth International. He also runs Oilwatch International. Bassey’s poetry collections include ‘We Thought It Was Oil But It Was Blood’ (2002) and ‘I will Not Dance to Your Beat’ (Kraft Books, 2011). His latest book, ‘To Cook a Continent’ (Pambazuka Press, 2012) deals with destructive fossil fuel industries and the climate crisis in Africa. He was listed as one of Time magazine’s Heroes of the Environment in 2009 and won the 2010-Right Livelihood Award also known as the ‘Alternative Noble Prize.’

Sheila Berry is a psychologist and long time environmental justice activist from South Africa. She is currently fighting alongside South African communities in KwaZulu Natal to protect the iMfolozi Wilderness Area from Ibutho Coal’s plans to build Fuleni open-cast coal mine just 40m from the park’s edge.

Both Nnimmo and Sheila are members of Yes to life, No to Mining, a global solidarity movement of and for communities who wish to say no to mining out of a shared commitment to protect Earth for future generations.

 




391374

MPs’ GMO report is a scandalous cave-in to corporate demands Updated for 2026





The House of Commons Science and Technology select committee has just this morning published the results of its inquiry into genetically modified crops and our attitude to them within the EU.

I was one of a number of contributors of evidence to the select committee. I felt compelled to do so, despite my fears (which I made clear at the time along with a number of colleagues), that the stated reasons for conducting the inquiry prejudged the result.

Today’s publication, which is making headline news across the entire press, has sadly shown that these fears were well founded.

The preamble to the terms of reference for the inquiry declares that “GM is one of several technologies necessary to foster a ‘vibrant sector’ in UK agriculture”, but is being held back by EU red tape.

What ought to have been at best a potential conclusion of the research was thus its guiding principle. Instead of an invitation to open and honest discussion of the merits of the EU’s precautious stance, what we got was a call to find ‘scientific’ reasons to prop up foregone and pre-judged economic logic.

Easy not to find what you’re not looking for!

The main bone of contention is the EU’s use of the ‘precautionary principle‘. According to this principle, where practices such as the growing of GM crops carry with them an unknown level of risk (which may be small, but is more than zero) of catastrophic harm, the burden of proof should lie in demonstrating that they are safe, rather than that they are harmful.

There are sound reasons, both ethical and practical, for adopting this stance. If we wait for evidence of harm, it follows that harm – potentially catastrophic – would already have been done before we can step in with legislation.

Given any potential for catastrophe, however small, we ought not to accept this on moral or on prudential grounds. From an economic perspective, the cost of funding research to prove the practice is safe is placed on the corporations who stand to gain from it. This lifts the burden from EU taxpayers who stand to suffer from harm.

The preamble to the select committee inquiry stated that “the ‘precautionary principle’ has been criticized for holding back development of the technology, despite European Commission reports finding no scientific evidence associating GM organisms with higher risks for the environment or food and feed safety.”

This was either a disingenuous misrepresentation of the very concept of the precautionary principle, or merely an expression of premature rejection of the principle before any evidence had been submitted.

It was irrelevant that the Commission thus far had no evidence of harm, because they were not looking for evidence of harm but evidence of safety.

Clear scientific evidence of ‘no more risk’, claims report

Distressingly, deeply-worryingly, the published report now claims that “The scientific evidence is clear that crops developed using genetic modification pose no more risk to humans, animals or the environment than equivalent crops developed using more ‘conventional’ techniques.”

Despite the now much stronger claim, the grounds for this conclusion do not move beyond the lack of evidence of harm already referred to in the preamble.

This was precisely the logical mistake that I warned against in my submitted evidence, in which I brought to the attention of the committee my work on GM and precaution co-authored with Nassim Taleb, author of ‘The Black Swan‘.

The bottom line of that work was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely that we arguably haven’t yet seen significant evidence of harm from GM food does nothing to support the claim that the potential for ruinous harm is not there.

And as reported on The Ecologist earlier this week, there is no scientific concensus that GM crops and food are safe, indeed: “The totality of research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has answered.”

A lack of conclusive evidence that GM poses a risk to us does not mean that we should give the big agro-tech firms free rein, turning Britain or Europe into a giant experiment from which there may be no going back.

A smoking gun?

A useful analogy here is the case of smoking. For years governments were prevented from instituting measures to curtail the sale of cigarettes, because the powerful tobacco companies blocked them at every turn by demanding incontrovertible evidence that cigarettes caused harm.

It took years before the medical profession had collected enough evidence to face up to the highly paid lawyers of the cigarette firms.

Challenges to advertising restrictions and proposals for plain packaging are being mounted even to this day, on the basis of a lack of evidence. Think how many lives could have been saved if we had adopted precautionary reasoning in this case, and required tobacco companies to prove their products were safe before we allowed them onto the market.

Did it ever make much sense to fill one’s lungs repeatedly with a cocktail of smoke and chemicals? Did we really have to wait for proof beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes lung cancer to justify action to rein in the cigarette companies, their advertising, etc.?

The stakes in the case of GM are even higher. Smoking caused an ‘epidemic’ of mortality and morbidity, but it never threatened to ruin us altogether. Where there is a threat of ruin – where there is a risk to our entire ecosystems and food-systems – then we should not have to wait for the ‘evidence’ to come in before we act. For, by the time it comes in, it would be too late.

This is when precautionary reasoning is decisive: in cases where there is a risk of ruin. This is what Taleb and I have shown. This is what the Select Committee have palpably refused to think about, and set their face against: thus putting us all at risk.

EU pen-pushers standing in the way of British enterprise?

Sadly, the government will now no-doubt use the results of this ‘inquiry’ as a stick with which to beat the EU, and to bolster the Tory narrative of the EU as nothing more than a gang of small-minded foreign pen-pushers standing in the way of the proud British spirit of free enterprise.

Their report’s conclusion that “decisions about access to and use of safe products should be made by national governments on behalf of the populations that elected them, not by the EU”, and their call on the EU “not to unjustifiably restrict the choices available to other elected governments and the citizens whom they represent” are a demand to let GMOs rip without further ado.

We should be glad that for the moment this report has no power actually to influence EU procedure. It is a worrying glimpse of what this country would look like without the modest protection EU legislation currently provides from some of the worst excesses of corporate domination.

 


 

The report:EU regulation on GMOs not ‘fit for purpose‘.

Dr. Rupert Read is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Chair of Green House, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist and to Resurgence. He is also the Green Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Cambridge in the 2015 general election.

More information:The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)‘ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam.

 




390789

MPs’ GMO report is a scandalous cave-in to corporate demands Updated for 2026





The House of Commons Science and Technology select committee has just this morning published the results of its inquiry into genetically modified crops and our attitude to them within the EU.

I was one of a number of contributors of evidence to the select committee. I felt compelled to do so, despite my fears (which I made clear at the time along with a number of colleagues), that the stated reasons for conducting the inquiry prejudged the result.

Today’s publication, which is making headline news across the entire press, has sadly shown that these fears were well founded.

The preamble to the terms of reference for the inquiry declares that “GM is one of several technologies necessary to foster a ‘vibrant sector’ in UK agriculture”, but is being held back by EU red tape.

What ought to have been at best a potential conclusion of the research was thus its guiding principle. Instead of an invitation to open and honest discussion of the merits of the EU’s precautious stance, what we got was a call to find ‘scientific’ reasons to prop up foregone and pre-judged economic logic.

Easy not to find what you’re not looking for!

The main bone of contention is the EU’s use of the ‘precautionary principle‘. According to this principle, where practices such as the growing of GM crops carry with them an unknown level of risk (which may be small, but is more than zero) of catastrophic harm, the burden of proof should lie in demonstrating that they are safe, rather than that they are harmful.

There are sound reasons, both ethical and practical, for adopting this stance. If we wait for evidence of harm, it follows that harm – potentially catastrophic – would already have been done before we can step in with legislation.

Given any potential for catastrophe, however small, we ought not to accept this on moral or on prudential grounds. From an economic perspective, the cost of funding research to prove the practice is safe is placed on the corporations who stand to gain from it. This lifts the burden from EU taxpayers who stand to suffer from harm.

The preamble to the select committee inquiry stated that “the ‘precautionary principle’ has been criticized for holding back development of the technology, despite European Commission reports finding no scientific evidence associating GM organisms with higher risks for the environment or food and feed safety.”

This was either a disingenuous misrepresentation of the very concept of the precautionary principle, or merely an expression of premature rejection of the principle before any evidence had been submitted.

It was irrelevant that the Commission thus far had no evidence of harm, because they were not looking for evidence of harm but evidence of safety.

Clear scientific evidence of ‘no more risk’, claims report

Distressingly, deeply-worryingly, the published report now claims that “The scientific evidence is clear that crops developed using genetic modification pose no more risk to humans, animals or the environment than equivalent crops developed using more ‘conventional’ techniques.”

Despite the now much stronger claim, the grounds for this conclusion do not move beyond the lack of evidence of harm already referred to in the preamble.

This was precisely the logical mistake that I warned against in my submitted evidence, in which I brought to the attention of the committee my work on GM and precaution co-authored with Nassim Taleb, author of ‘The Black Swan‘.

The bottom line of that work was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Merely that we arguably haven’t yet seen significant evidence of harm from GM food does nothing to support the claim that the potential for ruinous harm is not there.

And as reported on The Ecologist earlier this week, there is no scientific concensus that GM crops and food are safe, indeed: “The totality of research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced; complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has answered.”

A lack of conclusive evidence that GM poses a risk to us does not mean that we should give the big agro-tech firms free rein, turning Britain or Europe into a giant experiment from which there may be no going back.

A smoking gun?

A useful analogy here is the case of smoking. For years governments were prevented from instituting measures to curtail the sale of cigarettes, because the powerful tobacco companies blocked them at every turn by demanding incontrovertible evidence that cigarettes caused harm.

It took years before the medical profession had collected enough evidence to face up to the highly paid lawyers of the cigarette firms.

Challenges to advertising restrictions and proposals for plain packaging are being mounted even to this day, on the basis of a lack of evidence. Think how many lives could have been saved if we had adopted precautionary reasoning in this case, and required tobacco companies to prove their products were safe before we allowed them onto the market.

Did it ever make much sense to fill one’s lungs repeatedly with a cocktail of smoke and chemicals? Did we really have to wait for proof beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes lung cancer to justify action to rein in the cigarette companies, their advertising, etc.?

The stakes in the case of GM are even higher. Smoking caused an ‘epidemic’ of mortality and morbidity, but it never threatened to ruin us altogether. Where there is a threat of ruin – where there is a risk to our entire ecosystems and food-systems – then we should not have to wait for the ‘evidence’ to come in before we act. For, by the time it comes in, it would be too late.

This is when precautionary reasoning is decisive: in cases where there is a risk of ruin. This is what Taleb and I have shown. This is what the Select Committee have palpably refused to think about, and set their face against: thus putting us all at risk.

EU pen-pushers standing in the way of British enterprise?

Sadly, the government will now no-doubt use the results of this ‘inquiry’ as a stick with which to beat the EU, and to bolster the Tory narrative of the EU as nothing more than a gang of small-minded foreign pen-pushers standing in the way of the proud British spirit of free enterprise.

Their report’s conclusion that “decisions about access to and use of safe products should be made by national governments on behalf of the populations that elected them, not by the EU”, and their call on the EU “not to unjustifiably restrict the choices available to other elected governments and the citizens whom they represent” are a demand to let GMOs rip without further ado.

We should be glad that for the moment this report has no power actually to influence EU procedure. It is a worrying glimpse of what this country would look like without the modest protection EU legislation currently provides from some of the worst excesses of corporate domination.

 


 

The report:EU regulation on GMOs not ‘fit for purpose‘.

Dr. Rupert Read is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia, Chair of Green House, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist and to Resurgence. He is also the Green Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Cambridge in the 2015 general election.

More information:The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)‘ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam.

 




390789

Rifkind and Straw: Westminster is swimming in corporate influence Updated for 2026





For the right fee David Miliband will have dinner with you. A couple of years ago, that fee seems to have been around £20,000 + (substantial) expenses. These days, it seems he only asks for £10,000 to £15,000.

I raise this because two of the elder Miliband’s predecessors at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have got themselves into a bit of bother, having been caught red handed offering to use the influence bestowed on them by the British electorate to advance the interests of a fictional Chinese firm in exchange for a significant sum of money.

Jack Straw used the same defence as he did when the Guardian put to him serious questions about his involvement in torture: that he had done nothing which was against the law. I am sure this is true.

He may deserve to be in prison for his role in the Iraq War, but he’s not stupid enough to commit more minor offences. Unless you’re a fool, there are plenty of ways to amass a personal fortune from the office time and influence granted to you by your constituents without deviating one iota from the legislation you have a role in writing.

For me, though, these scandals are interesting not because they highlight a few bad apples, but because they are a window into a whole world. There is no suggestion, for example, that any of David Miliband’s dinner engagements have been with anyone particularly unsavoury, but yet they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

What are you really buying for a £26,000 speech?

I suppose part of my concern is that I’ve seen the man speak. Despite what the papers always said, he’s no more charismatic than his brother – by which I mean, he can tell a joke and string a sentence together, but it’s nothing special. He’s no Brown or Blair.

Given this, why would a company pay more than £26,000 in total to have him at their event? Is it for the jokes, or for something else? Who would they sit him next to during the dinner? What conversation would they have over their starters? What questions would they ask?

Influence is a complex business. It’s about knowing how to put things, and who to put them to. The corridors of power are a maze. Westminster and Whitehall are like the internet without any search engines. With no guide, it’s almost impossible to find what you need. Almost everyone gets lost. How much each of us can influence formal politics depends, therefore, partly on the access we have to those who know parliament best and so can give us a steer.

If you want to know who to talk to about this government policy, or how to get that detail of law changed, then sitting at dinner next to a former foreign secretary would be very useful. Of course, none of this information is secret. There is no reason he shouldn’t tell anyone who asks. It’s just, not everyone has the opportunity to pose their question. Most people can’t pay £20,000 to get to sit next to the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Snouts in the corporate trough

Of course, it’s unfair to pick on David Miliband. There are huge numbers of current and former politicians who will happily dine at your top table if you write them a vast cheque – Gordon Brown is said to charge £100,000 a night, though his office say (and I don’t doubt) that he doesn’t pocket a penny of it, that it all goes to charity.

And I’ve deliberately chosen the fluffy end of the scale. If we’re looking for deals which stink even more, then we’d be talking about former Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn cashing in on his own NHS privatisation schemes; those coalition MPs with connections to private healthcare companies; or the fact that Tory MP and former whip Brian Wiggin is being paid £5k a year by a company which got the contract to run privatised welfare benefits.

But the harder ways in which our democracy is being auctioned off are only a small part of the problem. Because what really matters are the softer mechanisms – the ways in which those with lots of money find guides to navigate the complexities of the British state, the web of gentle influence which quietly ensures that British public policy never crosses certain lines, that the voices heard first, the people whose language MPs become accustomed to speaking, are at a certain end of the income spectrum.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing when each of these stories breaks is that those who have done wrong seem not to understand where or that they have erred. Like toddlers being told off for putting their fingers in the chocolate spread, they simply don’t see what the issue is. This is because the story about Rifkind and Straw isn’t so much a one off scandal as a system. The walls of Westminster are papered with corporate logos.

Whether it’s a black-tie dinner or a seat on an advisory board, if access to power can be bought, the rich will always be at the front of the queue. Oxfam recently predicted that the UK will soon be the most unequal country in the developed world. Should we really be surprised?

 


 

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of OurKingdom and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. His e-book ‘42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence‘ is now available.

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/it%27s-no-surprise-rifkind-and-straw-don%27t-get-it-westminster%27s-swimming-in-cor

 




390765

Closing the gate on GMO and the criminal transatlantic trade agreement Updated for 2026





A determined effort by all of us, who care about real food and real farming, will be needed to stop one of the most insidious attempts yet to end Europe’s widespread resistance to genetically modified organisms.

In particular, the use of GM seeds in European agriculture, leading to genetically modified crops being grown in areas that have, up until now, successfully resisted the GM corporate invasion.

The EU has so far licenced just one GM maize variety (MON 810) to be grown within its territories, and one potato variety (Amflora) for industrial starch production.

Up until now, the EU has acted according to a largely restrictive trade practice concerning GM and other controversial food products due to major public pressure, as well as under a broad EU ruling termed ‘the precautionary principle’.

Goodbye to all that?

All that could be about to go out the window under current negotiations between the USA and the European Commission to ratify a new trade agreement known TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The objective of this ‘partnership’ is to facilitate far going corporate control of the international market place and to prize-open the mostly closed (but not locked) European door on GM crops and seeds.

While this corporate heist is being eased into place, replicas are being negotiated between Canada and the EU under the title ‘Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement’ CETA.

And as if that wasn’t enough, a further dismantling of trade tariffs is underway via the ‘Trade In Services Agreement’ TiSA: a wide ranging further liberalization of corporate trading conditions as a direct continuation of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) GATS agreement, with its highly onerous, corporate biased ‘Codex Alimentarius’ sanitary and hygiene rulings. Indigenous seeds and medicinal herbs are particularly under attack via Codex.

We can thus recognize, from the outset, that a very dangerous interference of the already leaky checks and balances that control the import/export market is underway here.

The thinly disguised under-text reveals plans for a massive corporate take-over of all negotiated quasi-democratic trade agreements and food quality controls that currently take place between the US and EU. It is clear that the major corporate concerns are determined to overcome or dilute, all resistance to their unfettered ‘free trade’ goals.

Corporations, not the people, hold governments to account

Where they are blocked, corporations are claiming the right to sue governments and institutions held to be “infringing the principle of international free trade”. Such litigation procedures are not new, but the idea of writing them into a major trading agreement has sparked major controversy.

For example in Germany, where one of the main Swedish nuclear power construction companies is attempting to sue the German government for billions of euros, with the intention of gaining full compensation for the ban on nuclear power enacted earlier by the Merkel government.

To add a further sinister twist to this already draconian exercise in power politics, the court hearings on such actions are slated to take place in secret, in a court house in Washington DC. Such secret courts are already operational in the UK, where ‘sensitive cases’ can be heard out of sight of public scrutiny with no reports or summaries of the proceedings released into the public domain.

Here we witness the Orwellian control system fully up and running, with its attendant undisguised destruction of many decades of hard won civil liberties.

The unremitting and relentless nature of this neo-capitalist and corporate centralization of power is causing significant resistance to manifest itself. Earlier this month, 1.1 million people across Europe signed a card for Commission President Juncker calling on him to ditch TTIP.

As John Hilary, a member of Stop TTIP‘s Citizens’ Committee commented: “Politicians are always calling for citizens to get actively involved in European politics, and here are more than a million people who have done just that. On his 60th birthday, Juncker should blow out the candles on these massively unpopular and undemocratic trade deals that are opposed by people across Europe.

But the truth is, we are all going to have to get involved to ensure a people led victory.

GMOs – the corporate attack is already under way

As an organic farmer myself, I’m concentrating on the food and farming implications. But it is very important not to loose sight of the true intention behind all aspects of these nefarious trade agreements.

As a precursor to TTIP, a major shift in GMO legislation was already voted in by the EU’s Environmental Council on 12 June 2014 (the final vote to be taken in the European Parliament, January 2015).

After many years of EU member state disagreement on GM issues – leading to negotiation stalemate – this controversial agreement devolved GMO decision making procedures from Brussels to EU member states.

In the process however, it gives the green light to pro GMO governments to allow the planting of GM crops in their countries, while anti GM member states can put forward economic and environmental health arguments to ban GM crops.

Under the first draft of this agreement, countries wishing to block GM plantings were called upon to seek permission to ban such crops from the very corporations that are proposing to introduce them! A proposal whose unprecidented arrogance echoes the corporate agenda of TTIP and CETA trade proposals.

Fortunately, after intensive public lobbying, this clause was dropped on 11th November 2014. Nevertheless, what we have in front of our eyes is a strong GMO warning light.

‘Mutual recognition’ is a race to the bottom

The TTIP agreement would allow GM crops and seeds currently banned in Europe – as well as various medicated animal products such as US hormone enriched beef – to have a largely unrestricted flow into the EU.

In the process they would by-pass the ‘precautionary principle’ and the European Food Safety Agency’s views (for what they are worth) on the efficacy of such products.

So it would, in effect, remove any differences in trade related legislation between the EU and US. Because in corporate speak, such differences are held up as being ‘trade distorting’.

TTIP could also be used to attack positive food related initiatives in the US, such as ‘local preference’ legislation at the state level. It calls for ‘mutual recognition’ between trading blocks: trade speak for lowering standards.

Consumer groups have already pointed out that mutual recognition of standards is not an acceptable approach since it will require at least one of the parties to accept food that is not of a currently acceptable standard.

To put it in simple terms: the pressure to lower standards in Europe to ‘resolve the inconsistencies’ will be strong, and far more likely to succeed than the other solution: to raise standards in the USA.

Phrases like ‘harmonization’ and ‘regulatory cooperation’ are a frequently occuring part of TTIP trade speak. But in the end it’s all going one way: downwards, to the lowest common denominator.

TTIP a ‘main priority for the year ahead’

According to Corporate Europe Observatory: “Under TTIP’s chapter on ‘regulatory cooperation’ any future measure that could lead us towards a more sustainable food system, could be deemed ‘a barrier to trade’ and thus refused before it sees the light of day.

“Big business groups like Business Europe and the US Chamber of Commerce have been pushing for this corporate lobby dream scenario before the US-EU negotiations ever began. What they want from regulatory cooperation is to essentially co-write legislation and to establish a permanent EU-US dialogue to work towards harmonizing standards long after TTIP has been signed.

“Despite earlier reservations, the Commission now seems to go along with with this corporate dream. Leaked EU proposals from December 2013 outline a new system of regulatory cooperation between the EU and US, that will enable decisions to be made without any public oversight or engagement.”

What this means is that new, highly controversial GM seed lines will have virtually no publicly scrutinized safety net to slow or halt their progress to the fields and dinner plates of Europe.

One of the most determined voices behind the realization of TTIP’s ambitions is ex Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk: As the Guardian tells us: “Taking office this week as the new president of the European Council, chairing summits and mediating between national leaders, Donald Tusk, Poland’s former prime minister, singled out TTIP as one of his main priorities for the year ahead.”

Tusk, as prime minister of Poland, had already displayed his bias towards big business, by backing strategies to sell tranches of Poland’s most productive farmland to the highest foreign bidders, while simultaneously cosying-up to the EU Commission’s big chiefs.

Tusk is complicit, if not a leading voice, in supporting the overt centralization of political power in Brussels and the steady dismantling of national sovereignty: the right for countries to decide and control their own futures.

The end of national sovereignty?

TTIP and CETA are perfect weapons for the long planned for destruction of national sovereignty. Trade negotiators, GM exponents, big farming unions, agrichemical businesses and food processing giants are all in on the game and have strong lobby groups backing TTIP.

Their view on what the word ‘cooperation’ means goes like this, according to Corporate Europe Observatory: “A system of regulatory cooperation would prevent ‘bad decisions’ – thereby avoiding having to take governments to court later.”

These ‘bad decisions’ to be avoided include any attempts by governments to rein-in the overt lust for power which is the hallmark of the corporate elite.

For example, biotech and pesticide giants Syngenta and Bayer, are taking the European Union to court over its partial ban on three insecticides from the Neonicotinoid family, because of their deadly impact on bees.

However let us be clear, the European Union is only acting this way because of intense public pressure to do so; left to its own devices there would be no discernible difference between it and the corporate elite who stalk the corridors of power at the European Commission and European Parliament.

The underlying goal of ‘regulatory cooperation’ between industry and the EU, is to have a continuous ‘on going’ dialogue (known as ‘living agreement’) that could ultimately render any final TTIP agreement largely meaningless.

Meaningless, because it could by-pass any failures of TTIP to gain concessions on food and environmental standards by focusing on altering ‘implementation rules’ – rather than taking the more arduous route of altering ‘the law’ itself.

Tinkering with ‘implementation rules’ simply offers another way for corporate friendly concessions to become enshrined in common trading rights.

Resisting the corporate takeover of the food chain

Reassurances from EU and US negotiators that “food standards will not be lowered” look highly suspect. Farmers should be alert to the fact that, because of TTIP, imports are highly likely be allowed that do not meet local standards, thus undermining national trading disciplines.

This applies across the spectrum and includes currently non-compliant GMO crops. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, “Regulatory convergence will fundamentally change the way politics is done in the future, with industry sitting right at the table, if they get their way.”

If they get their way.

All groups and organizations that care about retaining a largely GMO Free Europe and the consumption of genuine, healthy food – in tandem with the ecological farming methods that produce it – had better jump to the task of stopping TTIP, and its related trading blocks, from destroying the last line of defence against a complete corporate take-over of the food chain.

Join the resistance today!

 


 

Campaign: Stop TTIP!

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, international activist and author. He is currently the President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His most recent book ‘In Defence of Life – A Radical Reworking of Green wisdom’ is published by Earth Books. Julian’s website is www.julianrose.info.

 

 




388368

Corporate-smart greenwash: the Global Alliance on Climate-Smart Agriculture Updated for 2026





We, the undersigned civil society organisations, hereby manifest our rejection of the proposed Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture launched at the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Change Leaders’ Summit.

This proposed alliance is a deceptive and deeply contradictory initiative.

Food producers and providers – farmers, fisherfolk, and pastoralists – together with our food systems, are on the front lines of climate change.

We know that urgent action must be taken to cool the planet, to help farming systems – and particularly small-scale farmers – adapt to a changing climate, and to revive and reclaim the agroecological systems on which future sustainable food production depends.

The Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, however, will not deliver the solutions that we so urgently need. Instead, ‘climate-smart’ agriculture provides a dangerous platform for corporations to implement the very activities we oppose.

Our concerns have been ignored

By endorsing the activities of the planet’s worst climate offenders in agribusiness and industrial agriculture, the Alliance will undermine the very objectives that it claims to aim for.

Some organizations have constructively engaged in good faith for several months with the Alliance to express serious concerns through a number of different routes – including a sign-on letter signed by over 80 organisations, participation in the Friends of the Alliance conference calls, and attending a meeting of the Alliance in the Hague in July 2014.

But the concerns have been ignored. Instead, the Alliance is clearly being structured to serve big business interests, not to address the climate crisis.

We reject ‘climate-smart’ agriculture and the Global Alliance for a number of reasons already articulated in previous efforts to interface with the promoters, including:

1. No environmental or social criteria

The final framework of the Alliance does not contain any criteria or definitions for what can – or cannot – be considered ‘climate-smart agriculture’.

Industrial approaches that increase greenhouse gas emissions and farmers’ vulnerability by driving deforestation, using genetically modified (GM) seeds, increasing synthetic fertiliser use or intensifying industrial livestock production, are all apparently welcome to use the ‘climate-smart’ label to promote their practices as solutions to climate change.

2. Carbon trading

The originators of ‘climate-smart’ agriculture – the FAO and the World Bank – have a vision that ‘climate-smart’ projects will be funded in part by carbon offset schemes.

Many of our groups question the environmental and social integrity of carbon offsetting. Carbon sequestration in soils is not permanent and is easily reversible, and should be especially excluded from schemes to offset emissions.

Carbon offset schemes in agriculture will create one more driver of land dispossession of smallholder farmers, particularly in the Global South, and unfairly place the burden of mitigation on those who are most vulnerable to, but have least contributed to, the climate crisis.

3. A new space for promoting agribusiness and industrial agriculture

Companies with activities resulting in dire social impacts on farmers and communities, such as those driving land grabbing or promoting GM seeds, already claim that they are ‘climate-smart’.

Yara (the world’s largest fertilizer manufacturer), Syngenta (GM seeds), McDonald’s and Walmart are all at the ‘climate-smart’ table. Climate-smart agriculture will serve as a new promotional space for the planet’s worst social and environmental offenders in agriculture.

The proposed Global Alliance on Climate-Smart Agriculture seems to be yet another strategy by powerful players to prop up industrial agriculture, which undermines the basic human right to food. It is nothing new, nothing innovative, and not what we need.

A covert promotion of industrial agriculture

We do urgently need climate action! Unfortunately, the Alliance seriously misses the mark. Real climate solutions are already out there in farmers’ fields – based on agroecological practices and the relocalisation of food systems to effectively fight hunger.

Instead of creating one more body for business-as-usual, governments, funding agencies, and international organizations should be taking bold action: committing to shift resources away from climate-damaging practices of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and meat production and towards investment in and commitment to agroecology, food sovereignty, and support to small-scale food producers.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concluded in 2008 that business-as-usual in agriculture is not an option. Instead, a thorough and radical overhaul of present international and agricultural policies is essential to meet the challenges of the future.

We reject the Global Alliance as one more step by a small percentage of the UN’s total membership to promote industrial agriculture against all the evidence of its destructive impacts on people, biodiversity, seed, water, soils, and climate.

It is merely one more attempt to block the real change needed to fix our broken food systems and our broken climate – change which instead must be based on food sovereignty and agroecological approaches for agriculture and food production and the effective reduction of greenhouse gases.

 


 

Source: Climate Smart Ag Concerns. This article is a minimally edited version of the original letter. Signatories are listed below:

International Organisations & Farmers’ Movements

ActionAid International
Centro de Estudios Internacionales y de Agricultura Internacional (CERAI)
CIDSE
Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Genetique African (COPAGEN)
Corporate Europe Observatory
Earth in Brackets
Foro Rural Mundial (FRM)
Friends of the Earth International
IBON International
Inades-Formation
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
International-Lawyers.Org (INTLawyers)
GRET
LDC Watch
Mesa de Coordinación Latinoamericana de Comercio Justo
Send a Cow
South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)
South Asia Peasants Coalition
Third World Network

National Organisations & Farmers’ Movements

Abalimi Bezekhaya (Farmers of Hope), South Africa
ACRA-CCS Foundation, Italy
Action Contre la Faim, France
Africa Europe Faith & Justice Network (AEFJN), Brussels
Agrosolidaria Federacion el Tambo Cauca, Colombia
Alliance International sur les OMD (AIOMD), Niger
All Nepal Peasants Federation (ANPFa), Nepal
Antenne Nationale du Niger (AAIOMD-Niger)
Asemblea Nacional Ambiental (ANA), República Dominicana
Asociacion de Prosumidores Agroecologicos “Agrosolidaria Seccional Viani” Colombia
Asociacion Nacional de Produtores Ecologistas del Peru (ANPE)
Asociacion Viva Amazonica de San Martin, Peru
Association Malienne pour la Sécurité et la Souverainté Alimentaires (AMASSA)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
Beyond Copenhagen, India
Biofuelwatch, UK
Biowatch South Africa
Bolivian Platform on Climate Change, Bolivia
Campaign for Climate Justice Nepal (CCJN)
Carbon Market Watch, Belgium
CCFD-Terre Solidaire, France
Centre for community economics and development consultants society (CECOEDECON), India
Cecosesola, Barquisimeto, Venezuela
Centre d’Actions et de Réalisations Internationales (CARI), France
Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), the Netherlands
Community Development Association (CDA), Bangladesh
Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO), South Sudan
CONCEPT ONG, Sénégal
EcoFrut, Colombia
EcoNexus, UK
Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD).
Family Farmers’ Association, UK
Farm & Garden Trust, South Africa
Farms Not Factories, UK
Féderation des Eglises Evangéliques des Frères (FEEF), the Central African Republic
Federacion Nacional de Cooperativas Agropecuarias y Agroindustriales de Nicaragua (FENACOOP)
Find Your Feet, UK
Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN) Nepal
Forum des Femmes Africaines pour l’Education (FAWECOM), Comoros
Friends of Siberian Forests, Russia
Friends of the Earth – England, Wales & Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth – Latvia
Fundación Caminos de Indentidad (FUCAI) Colombia
Fundación Lonxanet para la Pesca Sostenible, Spain
Fundación Solidaridad, Bolivia
Harvest of Hope, South Africa
Gramya Resource Centre for Women, India
Groupe d’Action de Paix et de Formation pour la Transformation (GAPAFOT), Central African Republic
Human Rights (HR) Alliance, Nepal
Human Rights Organisation of Bhutan (HUROB)
INHURED International, Nepal
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA
Instituto de Cultura Popular, Argentina
Jagaran Nepal
Jubilee South Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (JSAPMDD), Philippines
Karnataka State Red Gram Growers Association, India
Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre, Nigeria
L’Association des Jeunes Filles Pour la Promotion de l’Espace Francophone (Membre du CNOSCG), Republic of Guinea
MADGE Australia
MASIPAG, Philippines
National Civic Forum, Sudan
National Federation of Youth Organisations in Bangladesh
National Network on Right to Food, Nepal (RtFN)
Organización Casa de Semillas Criollas Atenas, Costa Rica
Pakistan Fisher Folk Forum (PFF), Pakistan
Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples (PLANT), USA
People’s Alliance of Central-East India (PACE-India)
PHE Ethiopia Consortium
Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (PAPDA), Haïti
Plateforme pour le Commerce Equitable, France
Public Advocacy Initiatives for Rights and Values in India (PAIRVI)
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México
Red Nicaraguense de Comercio Comunitario (RENICC)
Red Peruana de Comercio Justo y Consumo Ético, Perú
Rural Reconstruction Nepal (RRN)
SADF ONG, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sanayee Development Organisation, Afghanistan
Secours Catholique (Caritas), France
SOCDA (Somali Organization for Community Development Activities)
Sudan Peace and Education Development Program (SPEDP), South Sudan
Texas Drought Project, USA
Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Nicaragua (UNAG)
Unión LatinoAmerica de Technicos Rurales y Agrarios, Argentina
UK Food Group, UK
Vicaria del Sur, Diócesis de Florencia, Colombia
Voluntary Action for the fight against climate change and the adverse effects of Sulfur Diesel, (AVOCHACLISD), Burundi
World Development Movement, UK
Youth Network for MDGs, Madagascar

 

 




375955