Pakistan: Implications of Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto is today a global leader in the areas of agricultural production, pharmaceuticals and food and nutrition the world over. Based in St. Louis, USA, this $8.6 (US) billion Life Sciences Company has been responsible for many revolutionary products and technological breakthroughs in the agricultural sciences.

On October 01, 1998, Monsanto acquired Cargill hybrid seed business in Pakistan. Monsanto also acquired Dekalb Genetics and Asgrow business worldwide, giving Pakistan an access to wide range of superior genetics. Monsanto deals with proprietary Corn, Sunflower and Forage Sorghum hybrid seeds. As part of a commitment, Monsanto is the only multinational producing and marketing Wheat, Cotton and Rice certified seeds. Monsanto is the first company to invest in research, production, processing, quality assurance and developing a viable marketing infrastructure.

Article Monsanto Protection Act: A Post-Mortem for Our Legal System, written Clay Rossi and circulated by Information Clearing House should be an eye opener for the Government of Pakistan and Pakistanis.

It’s time for a brief postmortem on the events leading to the passage of the Monsanto Protection Act (MPA). Now that President Obama has signed the legislation which included the MPA into law, there are certain facts that need not be forgotten for the next time (and there will be a next time) big business buys itself judicial immunity from Congress.

As a refresher, the MPA prevents federal courts from interfering with the sale or planting of genetically modified seeds regardless of the evidence presented to the court about the health and safety effects of those seeds.

For starters, remember that Monsanto purchased bi-partisan support for this abomination. It was Missouri Senator Roy Blount, a Republican, who worked with Monsanto on crafting the legislation and Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat, who introduced the provision.

Moral of the story is that loyalty to rank-and-file party members or constituents concerns didn’t matter is the face of Monsanto dollars. Also the White House failed to stop the measure despite petitions and protests urging President Obama to stand up against the measure. This is a bleak fact.

Next, remember that the health concerns are real. Those who question the safety of GMO foods are not fringe luddites. How do we know that for sure? Because Monsanto itself refuses to serve GMO food in its company commissaries. When confronted with that troubling fact, the Monsanto position was that “We believe in choice.” How exactly the prohibition on GMO in the food it serves to its own employee is “choice” defies logic.

If Monsanto’s refusal to eat its own product is too circumstantial for your tastes, how about a French study from September which showed that Monsanto GMO corn led to tumors and sever organ damage in lab rats. This same company who is all about “choice” spent over $7 million last year to defeat California’s Proposition 37 which would have provided labeling so that consumers would have a “choice” to eat GMO or not eat GMO.

Finally, the danger of this precedent can be put simply: that “court challenges are a privilege, not a right.” 

Have we truly reached the point where irresponsible corporations can not only buy their way out of trouble, but also where they can buy the right to make trouble (or sickness or environmental devastation) with impunity beforehand? Regardless of whether it is proven that GMO foods are a health risk, Monsanto has already done great harm to our legal system with its efforts to shield itself in the fight against GMO.

Only the future can tell us what is in greater danger, GMO-corn-fed rats or our legal system.

 Democracy in Pakistan a Distant Dream

I am obliged to place this article on my blog because it is one of the Indian point of views pertaining to Pakistan’s forthcoming elections. It has been authored by Jagdish N. Singh and originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in). There is also a disclaimer ‘Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

In the just-completed tenure of an elected civilian government in Pakistan some well-meaning analysts have come to discern the seeds of democracy in the country. Their argument goes that it is for the first time that a civilian government has managed to complete its full tenure surviving a long tradition of the powerful Pakistan Army’s intrigues (for a coup) and a new trend of judicial over-activism. The government to be formed after the forthcoming parliamentary elections in May 2013 would therefore automatically feel far more confident to strengthen democracy.

One, however, finds that democracy continues to be a distant dream in Pakistan. The government that completed its tenure recently was democratic only in form. Like all its predecessors, it miserably failed to promote what a democratic state is supposed to first and foremost, namely, foster the multi-faceted development of all its citizens.

It is well documented that during its five years in office Pakistani citizens have continued to be denied their basic freedoms. There has been little improvement in the life of the minorities — Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, the Baha’is, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Ahmadis, Shias and Mohajirs, that is, both non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims. Pertinently, one of the most disastrous consequences of the continuing denial of freedoms to the minorities is that most of those affected have either resorted to exodus or religious conversion to skip their ordeal. This has altered Pakistan’s religious demography beyond recognition. According to authentic studies, in undivided British India, non-Muslims formed more than a quarter of the population in territories that later became Pakistan. On partition, they came to account for about 14 per cent of Pakistan’s population, albeit concentrated mainly in East Bengal. Today, in a population of 17,56,46,000, Sunni Muslims constitute 77 per cent and Shias 20 per cent. Non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians and others — are three per cent. Hindus constitute about 1.6 percent of the total population.

The predicament of Pakistani citizens can be attributed to the politics of Islamist radicalization in the country. Over the years a notorious Deobandi Sunni stream of the puritanical Wahabi-Salafi order, equipped with a distorted version of Islam, has expanded its social base in the country. In order to capture or retain political power, politicians of all hues as well as the ambitious Army have sought to cultivate or keep in good humour this Islamist social base by accommodating its agenda at the cost of the interests of all other segments of Pakistani society.

In 1956 General Ayub Khan had the constitution of Pakistan declared an “Islamic Republic.” In 1959 he circulated a paper defending the theoretical necessity of an “Islamic Ideology in Pakistan. He had a new course , ‘Islamiyat’ added to the school curriculum, according to which Pakistan was not but the culmination of a ‘dream’ that originated in AD 712, when the first Arab armies landed on the coast of Sind under Muhammad bin Qasim.”

His successor General Yahya Khan promised that the armed forces would be the guardian of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers. In the 1970s Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto encouraged the concept of pan-Islamism leading to a close linkage between Pakistan’s radical Deobandis and the Saudi Wahhabis. Bhutto gave Pakistan a constitution declaring Islam as the State religion. In September 1972 he had Christian schools and colleges nationalized. His 1973 constitution had the offices of President and Prime Minister reserved for Muslims, making minorities second class citizens. And Bhutto passed a resolution in 1974 declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

General Zia ul Haq aligned himself with the Jamaat-e-Islami and started Islamizing Pakistan in general and its army in particular. He introduced additional legislation for discrimination against religious minorities in military service, education and the civilian bureaucracy. General Zia also encouraged the madrassas run by Deobandi groups like the Jamaat-e-Islami and other such groups to start indoctrinating the youth. In 1979 the military regime replaced the existing penal codes with the Hudood Ordinance to implement the Islamic Shari’a law discriminatory to women and non-Muslims.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto created the Taliban in the 1990s. She protected al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. In 1996 she directed her Director General of Military Operations General Pervez Musharraf to rehabilitate bin Laden (who had then been expelled from Sudan) in the Pak-Afghan border area.

In 1998 her successor Nawaz Sharief directed Federal Information Minister Mushahid Hussain Saeed to call on Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed (Ahl al-Hadith orientation) at his headquarters in Muridke. During his second tenure as Prime Minister, Sharief repeatedly evaded US pressure to allow its special forces to mount an operation from Pakistani territory into Kandahar to kill or capture bin Laden.

The civilian government which has just completed its term conformed to the same pattern of behaviour. In order to cultivate the social base of the Islamists, it also preferred to be seen as backing their agenda here and there. For instance, then Prime Minister Gilani said on January 12, 2012 that there would be no amendment to the country’s anti-blasphemy laws. His Railway Minister Ghulam Mohammed Bilfour of the so-called moderate Awami National Party, headed by the grandson of the ‘Frontier Gandhi’ Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, announced that he would pay $100,000 to anyone who killed the California-based Egyptian Copt (the native Christians of Egypt) who posted his blasphemous film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ on YouTube.

Given all this, it is unlikely that the liberal, democratic forces — including in the media, academia and legal fraternity – will be able to assert themselves in the upcoming parliamentary elections and contribute to altering the present pattern of Pakistan’s leadership behaviour.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Establishing peace in Afghanistan

With the withdrawal of Nato forces from Afghanistan fears of another civil war in the country are being expressed. Ironically Hamid Karzai was installed and supported by the United Sates but now a scenario is being painted of growing distance between the two partners.

Has heart and mind of Karzai changed or he is trying to create an illusion that he is the best friend of Afghans?

One should never forget that Karzai’s rule is only because of the US support; else he rules only a small part of country. Some cynics even go to that extent of saying that he is President of Kabul not of Afghanistan.

One of the questions often asked is, can an Afghan think like a normal person? Most regrettably the reply is in negative because the country is persistently in the state of war for more than four decades.

Those born and brought up under the prevailing situation think about killing the enemy before he kills them. The level of mistrust is very high because of presence of double agents, working simultaneously for Taliban as well as Nato.

Since other sources of income have virtually vanished due to the horrendous war, loyalties can be purchased with money.

It is not a secret that Afghanistan has once again emerged as one of the largest producer of poppy; hundreds of labs are also operating in the country. For the safe transfer of drugs millions of dollars are paid as transit free to clan chiefs.

The rule is simple either you join the party or be prepared to die because the business has to continue as usual. Previously it was said that power corrupts people but the new term is you can corrupt anyone and everyone by paying money.

It is also on record that soldiers belonging to certain countries are hardly attacked because they take good care of people living in the area. They have help in building schools and hospitals, improving logistics and even generating electricity.

A question remains, why do Afghans hate Nato soldiers in general and US troops in particular?

The reply is simple ‘they consider Nato soldiers occupiers’ and also believe that the entire drama has been staged to get control over their resources.

Everyone knows that Afghanistan is reach in fossil oil, gas, minerals and above all precious metals. Afghans also believe that instead of creating job opportunities for people everyone is made to fight for his survival, just by killing others.

No doubt Afghans are simple Muslims and don’t like what the Americans have been trying to teach them. They have their own norms and anyone trying to violate these is disliked. The situation often gets real nasty because they are told to do certain things which their society doesn't approve.

In fact various groups have been created and are being supported by the neighboring countries. Oldest and the most amicable relationships have been between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iran.

People living in these three countries have been moving freely and conducting trade. One could still recall the days when Pak rupee was used as second currency in Afghanistan.

However, lately Indians are also trying to prove that they are friends of Afghans but also using them against Pakistan, the way United States has used Afghans against Iran.

In this race some of the Central Asian countries have also joined, especially using Afghans living in Northern areas against Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, establishing peace in Afghanistan will not be possible unless all these stakeholders join hands and also learn to differentiate between friends and foes.

Being a landlocked country Afghans has to come at terms with Pakistan rather than towing the Indian agenda of establishing its hegemony in the region. 

 Pakistan: Fear of terrorism during polls

Many quarters are expressing fear of terrorist attacks during forthcoming general elections. Terrorist has already issued a threat to ex-president Pervez Musharraf who has come back to Pakistan. Earlier some of the Baloch leaders had warned of bloodshed and even killing of clan leaders. The ex-interior minister has been issuing such warnings but often failed in rounding up the perpetrators. 

It has been highlighted repeatedly that Pakistan does face threat from external forces but the real cause of concern is 'embedded enemies' that often occupy key positions.

There are politicians who act as viceroy of regional and global super powers. No one can deny presence and support to the perpetrators by the personnel of law enforcing agencies. And above all the perpetrators develop their hide outs in areas having ethnic concentration and use people as human shields.

The proof of involvement of external forces can be gauged from the delay in installation of caretaker set up. This reminds one of the posts placed on Facebook. "There is so much concern about the names who will be there for 90 days, who would also not be allowed to make some of the strategic decisions as those are prerogative of elected assemblies but there has been least concern about those who will participate in the general elections".

Some of the critics may say, "We don't read every statement posted on Facebook" but these are people who also can't read 'writing on the wall'. When the attention of these elements is drawn towards writing on the wall, most of them ask, where is the wall?

In fact these self proclaimed experts suffer from the worst myopia and can't see beyond their nose. As against this, many of the external elements that have interest in the region are adamant at exploiting Pakistan's positions.

One can say only with great regret that Pakistan's strategic location has become its biggest enemy. All those who wish to establish their hegemony in the region want the rulers to remain subservient.

Among all the countries United States has the largest interest and one of its proofs is the statement of US Ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson. Ambassador has said lately that his country has no desired outcome from the May 11 elections in Pakistan but stressed on the need for strengthening democracy in the friendly nation.

In a discussion on US-Pakistan relations at a Washington think-tank, Olson observed that there has been a strategic shift in Pakistan's policies towards India and Afghanistan.

The ambassador said both the United States and Pakistan recognized that in the past they had a relationship that tended to go in cycles, "from periods of excessive enthusiasm to periods of neglect". But both sides now wanted to avoid this and take the relationship to a more stable footing and on an even keel.

 However, responding to another question on the region's energy needs, the US ambassador said, "What we would like to see is for the energy supply to run through Afghanistan and through Pakistan to the Indian market."

In the same breath he reiterated that the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline is sanctionable under the Iran Act. "We've had a duty to warn our Pakistani friends that the pipeline that's under consideration is likely to be sanctionable under US law.

 Some of the cynics take this as a warning that if the rules go ahead with the pipeline. Pakistan could not only face economic sanctions but political turmoil, similar to the one faced by the Morsi government in Egypt.

Some even go to the extent that due to poor law and order election may be deferred up to three years, till Nato withdrawal is complete.

US and Israel accused of cyber attack on Iran

I am pleased to post here a story published in eurasiareview. This is one of the proofs that United States and Israel were involved in cyber attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant. The time has come to initiate investigations against these two countries for committing war crimes.

A group of 20 law and technology experts has unanimously agreed that the Stuxnet worm used against Iran in 2009-2010 was a cyber attack. The US and Israel have long been accused of collaborating on the virus in a bid to damage Iran’s nuclear program.

While those accusations against Washington and Tel Aviv have never been confirmed by either government, a NATO Commission has now confirmed it as an “act of force.”

Last year anonymous government officials came forward to tell The New York Times that researchers at the Idaho National Laboratory, which is overseen by the US Department of Energy, passed technical information to Israel regarding vulnerabilities in cascades and centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

That information, it is believed, was used to design the Stuxnet worm that set Iran’s nuclear program back an estimated two years.

“Acts that kill or injure persons or destroy or damage objects are unambiguously uses of force,” according to the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, which lead author Michael N. Schmitt said was written to outline “how does existing law apply to cyberspace.”

Schmitt told The Washington Times that “according to the UN charter, the use of force is prohibited, except in self-defense.” Under the guidelines detailed in the Manual, the concept of self-defense could include “anticipatory self-defense,” which would allow a nation an act of aggression in the event that it perceives a threat as imminent.

The 20 experts were drawn from around the world and took three years to complete the 300-page manuscript, which they were careful to note was not an official policy decision by NATO.

They disagreed over whether the Stuxnet attack qualified as an “armed attack,” which would constitute the beginning of wartime aggression that, under the Geneva Convention, could be followed by the use of force.

“We wrote it as an aid to legal advisers to governments and militaries, almost a textbook,” Schmitt told The New York Times. “We wanted to create a product that would be useful to states to help them decide what their position is. We were not making recommendations, we did not define best practice, we did not want to get into policy.”

US officials have continued to deny American involvement in the attack, but the timing specified by the anonymous sources coincides with an order from President Bush authorizing an increased information exchange with Israel over Iranian nuclear facilities.

During a 2009 conversation with The New York Times, an American official said any secret action against Iran would classify officially as “science experiments.”

US must accept its defeat in Syria

Some of the readers may find this particular blog a little different from those I have posted since June last year, around (80) eighty so far. As you can gather from my profile and other posts available on Google I am an economic analyst, who mostly covers Pakistan’s economy. This pushed me first to political economy then to geopolitics in the region and now to most horrendous imperialism of super powers.

The bottom line is that super powers create their hegemony by lodging and dislodging governments in countries which they consider important for enhancing their economic superiority, controlling energy and other mineral resources and above all creating conflicts so that their armament factories can operate over time.

They have been abusing the word democracy the most, because most of their ‘obedient servants’ are dictators; even though some of them claim to be elected representatives. These rulers can be termed ‘viceroys’ of the colonial era because of being subservient to external powers rather than looking after the interest of their own people.

Going through previous blogs one can also understand my point of view that United States has been fighting a proxy war in Syria. Rebels are improvised type of CIA agents and touts getting funds and arms from the United States. This fact also becomes evident when one reads US newspapers and listens to television networks.

The ongoing suggestions from elected US representatives, who own or have substantial stake in energy trade and armaments manufacturing, are the worst warmongers. They have sold the largest quantity of arms to Saudi Arabia and many other countries which even don’t have regular army or any face threat from any country.

Warmongers have completely brainwashed Saudis who now consider Iran a bigger threat as compared to Israel. The situation has not changed a bit from signing of Camp David agreement, which led to assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. However, some fears aroused when it was proved that Israeli army is no more invincible. That brought the change in US foreign policy and various uprisings were initiated in Arabian Peninsula, Middle East and North Africa, all aimed at installing new viceroys. 

Some of these may have yielded favorable results for the United States but many led to anti-US groups becoming the rulers. This led to second wave of toppling and installing in which Syria remains the biggest thorn, not because of its military might but because it is believed to be the first defence wall of Iran. In other words for demolish Iran, fragmentation of Syria is a must as all the attempts to create any uprising in Iran have failed.

And finally the cat has come out of the bag with the initiation of discussion regarding direct US air assault on Syria, this time once again the reason is ‘possible use of chemical weapons’. One can still recall that the prime reason for attack on Iraq was also ‘presence of weapons of mass destruction and allegations of use of chemicals weapons by Saddam Hussan, both of these allegation proved hoax calls.

Billions of dollars of tax payers have been used in these aimless wars and if one also adds Afghan, the amount runs into trillions of dollars. Despite spending this enormous amount, killing of hundreds and thousands of innocent men, women and children, sabotages are taking place everywhere in the world.

I am also concerned because of the hostilities growing in Pakistan’s neighborhood. Iran has been enduring economic sanction for more than three decades, war is being fought in Afghanistan for more than four decades and Pakistan and India are living in a constant state of war since independence.

Over the years India and Pakistan have spent trillions of dollars on accumulation of conventional, non-conventional arms and even atomic capabilities. It is true they can wipe out each other in seconds but what will they achieve? May be a huge piece of baron land and millions of crippled people but this is not the way of life. They should join hands and work for the prosperity of their people and if India has to grant independent status to Kashmir, it is worth doing as compared to accumulating arms.

Now I address my readers from United States directly and ask a question. Your country is the oldest democracy of the world. I strongly believe that you spend a lot on welfare of humanity and my mentor is Bill Gates. Have you ever asked your elected representatives why they are spending tax payers’ money on war rather than spending it on the welfare of US citizens?

Aren’t there any poor in the US? Is every US citizen one as rich as Cheney, Bush, Obama and other legislative members who are suggesting direct attack on Syria, because it is a threat for the US and the world?

Remember, no one is threat for the world except the war mongers. Please act before the world plunges into the third world war.

Celebrating Pakistan Day

Like every year the citizens are celebrating ‘Pakistan Day’ with great fervor. Politicians have issued loaded statements and tried to convince that the country is at crossroad and facing a bleak outlook.

In the alternate media all sorts of comments have already started appearing and regular media will print and broadcast all sorts of message today, which are customary.

However, the nation has a right to ask all, including themselves, are we behaving in the manner any patriotic citizen should behave?

The reply is simple but harsh; no one is behaving like a true patriotic Pakistani. At the best all of us are busy in achieving our selfish motives. The nation has reduced to highly fragmented groups and the sole motive remains how to maximize the wealth.

Majority of people belonging to lower strata is still patriotic but the higher one goes in the hierarchy, he/she becomes self centered and the only objective becomes, maximizing wealth, no matter how.

With due respect political leaders have failed in developing consensus on the name of caretaker prime minister, is it is not the height of apathy or self centeredness?

They have not been able to find a person who could assure that he/she would protect their interest in the best possible manner. If PML-N is never tired of saying PPP leadership is the most corrupt, it has supported this regime for five years only to remain in power in a province, which has 65% of total population of Pakistan.

In 1940 on this day Muslims of the subcontinent agreed to create a country where their rights would be protected, as they feared Hindus being in majority would exploit them.

Now most of the elites and even citizens are busy in looting and killing their own fellow citizens. This prompts a question, are the perpetrators Pakistanis? Unfortunately, the reply is no, else they should not be indulging in such activities.

Though, one hates to say it seems that agents of yesteryear East India Company have become active once again and are buying the soul and spirits of those who are ‘saleable commodities’.

This is not new such stories can be found in the history around the globe that foreign invaders have been doing this and they are once again active in Pakistan.

Many be the new generation does not have the slightest idea of what sort of sacrifices their forefathers had given in achieving independence from the British Raj.

Even after independence they have been giving scarifies but rulers have been accumulating wealth and transferring into foreign accounts.

It is often said that Pakistan’s accumulated debt exceeds US$50 billion but very few people may know that amounts kept in foreign banks is even ten times of this amount. If all this looted money is brought back into Pakistan it will be enough to give free education, medical care, building roads and bridges, power plants and dams and even the citizens will not have to pay any tax for rest of the lives.

This sounds like a fairy tale but it is the harsh reality on which every Pakistani has strong belief.

However, pulling out this money from foreign banks poses the real problem. At no stage these countries will be willing to give this money to Pakistan because, ultimately they will confiscate it. They have done this with many rulers, underworld kings and their own touts.