AFRICOM

The Terror Industry (2)

“The FBI isn’t nabbing would-be terrorists so much as setting up mentally ill or economically desperate people to commit crimes they could never have accomplished on their own”

– Trevor Aaronson: The Sting: How the FBI Created a Terrorist


US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg

The Seal of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Politics of Entrapment explored US, British and European sting operations against sex offenders and would-be terrorists. We re-visit the subject from the standpoint of  global terrorism in order to take a more detailed look at the FBI’s role and the historical basis of a strategy of tension, a formula which has been a standard tactic for as long as the State has existed. Indeed, one cannot exist without the other it seems. The American public remains ill-informed about the billions of dollars taken from tax payers to keep the treadmill of the perpetual war on terror and security framework operational. Perhaps this is no surprise, since the censorship in the mainstream media reached No.4 on Project Censored’s most under-reported stories of 2012.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is sitting astride a network of 15,000 spies, most of whom are criminals who have infiltrated a cross-section of ethnic communities in an attempt to uncover terrorist plots. Rather than foiling potential terrorism  – most of which would have been as a direct result of American foreign policy in the first place i.e. “blowback” – these agents provocateurs are responsible for encouraging crimes against civilians and government with a substantial cash reward should they deliver. Since 9/11, over 150 men have been caught in FBI terrorism entrapment operations receiving a sentence of 25 years or more in prison. These unhappy young men had their lives ruined whilst providing essential PR for the FBI and substantial profits for security firms, law enforcement, weapons manufacturers and the US military, justifying the flow of tax dollars, funnelled from a treasury that continues to print money out of thin air.

Although there are many books that cover the complex history of state-sponsored terrorism today, award-winning journalist Trevor Aaronson was one of the first to fully document the FBI’s endeavours in fake terror plots in his 2013 book The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. [1] Interviewing case officers and FBI Task Force leaders as well as informants themselves, he documents case after case of undercover agents groomed for entrapment operations. One of these was Quazi Nafis who received 30 years for planning to bomb the New York Stock Exchange in 2012. A fake Al-Qaeda operative and informant known as “Kareem,” was instrumental in his grooming and subsequent capture.

Nafis didn’t have any explosives nor the finances or contacts to acquire it, he was merely a disaffected youth of meagre intelligence, burning with understandable hatred for Western imperialism. Through Kareem, the FBI would provide him with all he needed to carry out the attack which included: “… not only the storage facility and supposed explosives, but also the detonator and the van that Nafis believed would deliver the bomb. …” But it was not to be: “On the morning of October 17, Nafis and Kareem drove the van to Lower Manhattan and parked it in front of the Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street. Then they walked to a nearby hotel room, where Nafis dialed on his cellphone the number he believed would trigger the bomb, but nothing happened. He dialed again, and again. The only result was Nafis’ apprehension by federal agents.” [2]

dreamstime_s_17720730

© Davidalary | Dreamstime.com – Fingerprint Photo

Some of the more high profile cases include the conviction of a group of young black men known as the Newburgh Four who were jailed in June of 2011 for an alleged 2009 terrorist plot to fire a Stinger missile at US military planes. Career FBI informant and petty criminal Shahed Hussain was responsible for putting them there, offering enormous financial inducements to carry out the plot. The sum of money amounted to $250,000 for one man, free holidays and top of the range cars. He cruised the mosques looking for likely men with radical chips on their shoulders and who could be groomed accordingly. Yet, the men that he managed to find were not radical Islamists bent on terrorist atrocities but, as Paul Harris described, writing for The Guardian, on December 12, 2011, these were: “… impoverished individuals struggling with Newburgh’s grim epidemic of crack, drug crime and poverty. One had mental issues so severe his apartment contained bottles of his own urine. He also believed Florida was a foreign country.” The report stated further: “As defence lawyers poured through the evidence, the Newburgh Four came to represent the most extreme form of a controversial FBI policy to use invented terrorist plots to lure targets.” Professor Karen Greenberg, a terrorism expert at Fordham University observed: ‘There has been no case as egregious as this. It is unique in the incentive the government provided…” [3]

Now, “unique” has become pedestrian.

The case of the Fort Dix Five also deserves a mention. Arrested in May of 2007, on charges of plotting to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, a DOJ press report from June 5 read: “The five defendants are charged with conspiracy and other charges related to their plans to kill as many soldiers at the Army base as possible. A sixth man was indicted for aiding and abetting the illegal possession of firearms by three members of the group.” Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer (an ethnic Jordanian) and Albanians Dritan Duka, and Eljvir Duka, Serdar Tatar (a Turk) and were charged with: “conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services” along with the “unlawful possession of machine guns” and “illegal alien” status. The fifth member, Agron Abdullahu an ethnic Kosovar was charged with “aiding and abetting the Duka brothers’ illegal possession of weapons.”

The Jewish Anti Deformation League (ADL), the right-wing evangelist Pat Robertson and a coterie of authoritarian organisations displayed a vengeful glee at what were clearly trumped up charges. Referring to the ADL’s gloating of the defendants sentences of life imprisonment in 2008, geopolitical analyst Stephen Lendmen commented: “Imagine their comments if five Israeli Jews had been convicted on the same charges instead of Muslims: “No plot, No crime, so the FBI invents guilt with an entrapment sting operation – its usual modus operandi to ensnare the innocent.”

In his 2008 article on the Fort Dix Five he describes the entrapment narrative which trapped the men:

At a Cherry Hill, NJ Circuit City store in January 2006, Mohamad Shnewer innocently wanted a home video transfered to DVD. It showed men shooting weapons at a Pocono Mountains firing range, playing paintball (an innocent game in which opposing teams try to eliminate opponents by marking them with water-soluble dye shot in capsules from air guns), and repeating Arabic phrases like Allah Akbar (meaning God is Greatest). The store clerk called the police. They notified the FBI. They began investigating and recruited two dubious informants to help.

Each knew nothing about the other. One was Besnik Bakalli, an ethnic Albanian, who falsely told defendants he was a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) veteran – the US/Germany supported terrorist group recruited to destabilize Kosovo/Serbia in the 1990s. At trial, however, he testified that he fought for no group and knew nothing about Islam or extremists calling for jihad.

Mahmoud Omar was the other informant, an Egyptian-born used car salesman/mechanic on probation for bank fraud. He and Bakalli entered the US illegally and faced likely deportation or worse. They were easily recruited, so cooperated, and were well compensated for their efforts – thousands of dollars a month, and according to defense lawyers, Omar (from when recruited in March 2006) will have earned $238,000 for his efforts. NewJersey.com believes more – over $240,000 plus rent and other expenses, and, of course, leniency in handling their charges. Bakalli was used for a shorter period and reportedly was paid about $150,000. The FBI also relocated his parents to America as an added incentive to cooperate. [4]

Perusing the trial evidence it was clear that there was no plot except what the FBI could dig out of their bag of tricks to justify their entrapment program and the subsequent arrests. Though hostile to America’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and an obvious faith in the religion of Islam, all five maintained their innocence, a certainty that remained throughout their arrest and trial.

fbi-entrapment

It seems the FBI can disrupt service utilities to a house and pretend to be helpful technicians in order to gain entry and covertly search the premises in order to “find” evidence that might later justify a search warrant. [5]

Five black US citizens and two Haitian nationals from Liberty City one of the poorest sections of Miami were arrested in 2006 and accused by the FBI of attempting to blow up the Sears Tower and several federal buildings. Known as the Liberty City Seven, two mistrials from 2007 – 2008 was followed by a third trial which ended on May 12, 2009. Naudimar Herrera was acquitted but the five remaining defendants Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Burson, Augustin and Rothschild Augustine all received prison sentences between from 6-14 years and lengthy supervised release orders. Yet, it was perhaps one of the most blatant cases of corrupt entrapment practices yet seen.

Announced with the usual triumphant propaganda from government sponsored media lackeys and commentators, the foiled plot was hailed as a triumph against an attack which could have been “bigger than September 11th.” As the prime mover in the alleged cell was an FBI informant posing as an Al-Qaeda go-between, the “evidence” was likely concocted by FBI informants rather than the existence of any tangible threat.

According to the press release ‘Transcript of Press Conference Announcing Florida Terrorism Indictments’ from the Department of Justice on 23 June 2006, payments for services rendered by four informants amounted to over $160,000. Deputy Director John Pistole even admitted that the so-called plot was: “… more aspirational than operational.” The accused did not have any genuine contact with Al-Qaeda, nor did they have explosives or weapons since the only source would have been through the FBI’s informant. The director assured the press that the individuals posed no danger. After the indictments two local community activists were interviewed by Democracy Now! Online news and summarised the ludicrous nature of the charges:

“a lot of show has been made about the militaristic boots that they had… [I]t turns out… the FBI bought them the boots. If you look at the indictment, the biggest piece of evidence… is that the group ,may have taken pictures of a bunch of targets in South Florida. But the guys couldn’t afford their own cameras, so the federal government bought them the cameras… The federal government rented them the cars that they needed to get downtown in order to take the pictures. In addition… the men provided the FBI informant with a list of things they needed in order to blow up these buildings, but in the list they didn’t include any explosives or any materials which could be used to make explosives. So now everyone in Liberty City is joking that the guys were going to kick down the FBI building with their new boots, because they didn’t have any devices which could have been used to explode…” [6]

As many of the informants are illegal immigrants waiting on their entry status or criminals given immunity in return for working for the FBI, there is a ready and willing supply for identifying potential terrorists and as Trevor Aaronson explains: “… in some cases even planting specific ideas for attacks.” He also poses questions that politicians, many academics and the majority of mainstream journalists have not seen fit to ask, namely: “How many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them? Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?” And most importantly: “Federal officials say they are protecting Americans with these operations—but from whom? Real terrorists, or dupes like Nafis, who appear unlikely to have the capacity for terrorism were it not for FBI agents providing the opportunity and means?” [7]

Occupy Wall Street© unknown

Even the Occupy Wall Street Movement has been embroiled in the same entrapment procedures. The FBI has blew its own its own trumpet all over the media and claimed it had once again foiled a terrorist plot, this time, to blow up a Cleveland bridge. Five members of Occupy Cleveland: Douglas Wright, 26, Brandon Baxter, 20, Connor Stevens, 20, Anthony Hayne, 35, and Joshua Skelly 24, were each sentenced to between 6-11 years charged with conspiracy and the use of explosive materials. Despite cooperating with plea deals given by three of the men, so-called “terrorism enhancements” were used by the presiding judge to increase sentences. Douglas, Brandon and Connor’s appeals were denied. Skelly rejected a plea bargain and chose to take it to trail. Consequently, he was found guilty on all counts and received a ten year sentence. As of early 2015, he is still waiting for his appeal.

As with so many similar “plots” the usual paid FBI informant featured heavily.  Shaquille Azir had a criminal history (leverage for bargaining) and was placed undercover within the Occupy Movement for several months. He eventually delivered the defendants to the FBI as ready-made “terrorists” all of whom had at one time been homeless or without work. Not only had the FBI provided alcohol, drugs and accommodation for the young men, through Azir, but they told the informant to create a sense of dependency within the group with various promises of assistance tailored to their individual needs. It seems Azir had his job cut out to get them interested.  According to the website:  www.cleveland4solidarity.org set up as a campaign to free the men: “They all continue to fight against the government’s attempt to brand them as terrorists and to expose the techniques of entrapment employed by the FBI and their informants.”  The case of one of many, all of which follow the same patterns. [8]

occupycleveland5L-R: Connor Stevens, Brandon Baxter, Douglas Wright, Anthony Hayne (now released) and Joshua Stafford

There are many other cases popping up in America and Europe. One of the most important was the April 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings which saw the entrapment and framing of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – a classic false flag operation designed to dupe the public and engender maximum reaction for domestic and geopolitical ends. [9]

So, how did it come to this? Like most ponerological symptoms they infect the body politik very quickly.

Stemming from the 1970’s and 80’s sting operations of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) the FBI gradually came under its jurisdiction in the face of increasing trade in illicit drugs. The terrorist sting is based on these drug raids with certain differences that make the practice highly controversial. Briefcases full of cocaine or heroin were substituted with empty ones in front of hidden surveillance cameras after which the agents would pounce on their unsuspecting criminals. This defined raids for decades and which were faithfully reproduced in Hollywood cinemas. Now, the terrorist sting generally involves faulty guns and dud bombs. Aaronson points out the fundamental flaw in terrorist stings compared to drugs raids and that which leads to a progressive corruption of the already faulty principles on which they are based:

“In drug stings, federal law enforcement officials assume that any buyer caught in a sting would have been able to buy or sell drugs elsewhere had they not fallen into the FBI trap. The numbers support this assumption. In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, the DEA seized 29,179 kilograms, or 64,328 pounds, of cocaine in the United States.

In terrorism stings, however, federal law enforcement officials assume that any would-be terrorists caught would have been able to acquire the means elsewhere to carry out their violent plans had they not been ensnared by the FBI. The problem with this assumption is that no data exists to support it—and in fact what data is available often suggests the opposite.

Few of the more than 150 defendants indicted and convicted this way since 9/11 had any connection to terrorists, evidence showed, and those that did have connections, however tangential, lacked the capacity to launch attacks on their own. Of the more that 150 defendants, an FBI informant not only led one of every three terrorist plots, but also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.

The informant goaded them on the whole time, encouraging the pair with lines like: ‘We will teach these bastards a good lesson.” For his work on the case, he received $100,000 from the FBI.’ ” [10]

Indeed, with an annual budget of $3 billion the FBI has both an ideological and financial incentive for keeping the war on terror mythology entrenched in the American public’s psyche. In order to find out how many of these “terrorists” would have acted without the entrapment ruse, Aaronson, with the help of a research assistant: “… built a database of more than 500 terrorism prosecutions since 9/11, looking closely and critically at every terrorism case brought into federal courts during the past decade.” Thousands of pages of court records were carefully analysed until a coherent pattern emerged. They found that: “… nearly half of all terrorism cases since 9/11 involved informants, many of them paid as much as $100,000 per assignment by the FBI.” The research team also found that: “… 49 defendants had participated in plots led by an FBI agent provocateur, and that number has continued to rise since.” What is more, as Muslim targets held particular personality types so too the informants. A typical pattern and profile of each were matched together.

The following typifies the patterns and personality profiles involved:

The Gold digger: Pattern: Target is broke and thinks he can make big money by catering to informant’s suggestions.

The Convert: Pattern: Target is a newcomer to Islam with only a rudimentary understanding of the religion; often also broke and/or homeless.

The Oath Taker: Pattern: Target swears a fictitious Al Qaeda oath made up by informant; is charged and convicted based on that oath

The Car Bomber: Pattern: Target and informant hatch plot together; FBI supplies vehicle, “explosives,” and phone to trigger the supposed bomb.

The Trainee: Pattern: FBI agent or informant offers to train target as a jihadist, most often via weapons instruction and bodybuilding.

The Subway Bomber: Pattern: With the exception of one attempt to bomb the New York City subway, all the headline-grabbing subway “plots” you’ve heard of were FBI-led nonstarters. [11]

The New York Times in 2012 reiterated the suspicion that it is highly unlikely that these young men would have had the means to execute terrorist plots “… without substantial assistance from the government.” [12] 

Just like the sexual predators in society, from occult ritual abuse to inter-generational abuse the idea promoted is that the lone paedophile and child rapist generally act alone. So too with the “lone wolf” terrorist as a useful asset to keep the cogs turning. Dupes or patsies need to found and groomed which is why the FBI uses its vast network of spies and the NSA’s surveillance to identify locate and monitor tomorrow’s disenfranchised Muslims with chips on their shoulders. Spies are embedded in every Mosque in the US are paid to profile those young men with anti-American views and ripe for radicalisation, thus suitable for sting operations. This is also occurring online across the breadth of social networks (See: Police State Amerika I: Facebook Thought Police…)

Under President Barack Obama’s National Security and Surveillance State, entrapment continues to grow, with a very wide definition as to who exactly is a terrorist. During the tail-end of the George W. Bush’s tenure the number of operations markedly decreased but since Obama’s presidency in January 2009, sting operations have not only resumed but increased in frequency. During Obama’s first term in office, the Justice Department prosecuted more than 75 targets of terrorism stings. Trevor Aaronson discovered that as an adjunct to Obama’s extrajudicial assassination teams, arrests from terrorism stings occur: “… at a rate of about one every 60 days, suggesting either that there are a lot of ineffective terrorists in the United States, or that the FBI has become effective at creating the very enemy it is hunting.”

worldmap1

Global Terrorism 2013. Red hotspots are combinations of incidents, fatalities and injuries. Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are the primary countries exhibiting terrorism hotspots. | Source: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2013). Global Terrorism Database [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd

Even if we were to believe that somehow the history of terrorism is defined purely in terms of religious extremism seeking to enforce its will, we’d be barking up the wrong tree on this one too. Religious fundamentalism does not spontaneously arrive. In the vast majority of historical cases a vacuum emerges out of the chaos of economic depression, famine and most frequently from the influence of invading forces. In the last forty years British and American invasions have increased the likelihood of religious fundamentalism and the rise of terrorist groups simply through their neo-colonial ambitions. Consequently. these terrorist groups have been indirectly or directly created and further encouraged by Western powers.

It is foreign occupation which fuels terrorism not the perceived spectre of Islamism or any other extremist grouping; they are secondary results of policies which destabilise, balkanise and create collective trauma. These conclusions have been stated by researchers across the political divide for some years but only recently has it been shown beyond any doubt, that engaging in drone strikes and so-called interventionist polices in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism, without exception. At higher levels of Pathocracy this is fully understood and required while at the lower levels of their followers’ greed and ignorance is enough to maintain these destructive dynamics. Factor in geopolitical plans stretching back many decades to claim the Middle East for ideological aims, to exploit resources such as natural gas, oil and minerals and you have all the reasons you need for the continuance of civilian atrocities, year after year.

Taking into account the presence of intelligence operatives and informants responsible for encouraging suicide attacks and those which occur “spontaneously”, extensive research published by the University of Chicago prove that over 95 percent of all attacks are in response to foreign occupation. [13]  The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) the Global Terrorism Database hosted at the University of Maryland has precise statistical data which supports the University of Chicago’s own findings. It is the most comprehensive open source terrorism database available to journalists and civilians alike. The results are a clear indictment of US and NATO foreign policy, all of which show a massive increase in terrorism since the Global War on Terror began 14 years ago. These charts below show the number of terrorist attacks recorded in the following countries:

alqaedaincidentsovertime_iraqIraq

terrorism_in_Afghanistan_since_2004Afghanistan

terrorism_in_the_Middle-EastMiddle East

terrorism_in_SouthAsiaAsia

su_saharanAfrica_terrorismovertimeAfrica

terrorism_worldwideSharp rise in Global terrorism since 2004

Notice the sharp peak in each region. For the Middle East and predominantly Iraq, so-called terrorism shot up during 2002-2003, the year of the Invasion by US and coalition forces. Afghanistan saw a sharp ascent from 2001 and another rapid incline in 2010 following the large-scale increases in military operations against the Taliban by the Afghan and US coalition forces. Obama sent a further 30,000 troops in that year. Asia and Africa in 2004 both saw massive geo-strategic grab for resources by US-NATO under cover of humanitarian pretexts and false flag events. United States Africa Command, (U.S. AFRICOM) was operational by 2007 and established as cover for strategic control of the Continent. It is in this year we see a huge spike lasting until 2013. This has obviously excluded the horror of ISIL – the latest creation of Western Intelligence black operations. Judging by the events of 2014 we can only summise that we will see a huge corresponding spike when the new data is in.

All the charts show a parallel increase in terrorism and / or insurgency. Have a look at the following chart which illustrates just how false flag terrorism and grassroots insurgency follows the US and NATO forces around and directly related to power plays for their resources. Cause and effect?

terrorism_iraq_afgh_1974_2013

Source: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2013). Global Terrorism Database [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd

alqaeda_incidentsovertimeGlobal Al-Qaeda attacks since 1990s – 2012

isis attacks2007_2013ISIS/ISIL attacks in Iraq 2006 -2012

alqaedaincidentsovertime_iraqAl-Qaeda attacks in Iraq from September 2001-2013

privatecitizensAttacks on Private Citizens & Property  (Most attacks in Pakistan and Iraq)

In these set of charts we can see a similar trajectory. As Al-Qaeda has outlived its usefulness in the region, covert funding by Western governments’ military intelligence and private outsourcing were stepped up for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) taking over the mantle of the Global Terror demon. Just as Al-Qaeda begins to wane, ISIL begins its rapid ascent with billions of dollars seemingly arriving from nowhere in 2006, to reach a peak in 2009 with the subsequent tales of horror and atrocity, all of which is entirely authentic, though not the methods of media propagation. This is designed to ramp up the emotional response which military powers can use to ride their imperial desires. The sharp dip in incidents was merely a re-fuelling prior to another sharp increase in terror across the Middle East and Africa in 2014-2015. Through all this, carefully designed civilian attacks and the loss of property has suffered an exponential rise for several decades. Once again, this took off in 2004 as the West and its banks launched their quest for perpetual war.The Global population bears the brunt of these crimes. | Source: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2013). Global Terrorism Database [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd


Now that Al-Qaeda, as America’s primary outsourced terror collective has been transferred to ISIL it seems the war hawks at the Council on Foreign Relations want to let bygones be bygones and make the terrorist organisation a firm friend so that things aren’t too complicated for us all. Barek Mendelsohn writing in CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs that due understanding should be exercised since Al-Qaeda is after all the “enemy of our enemy” and that:

“… the instability in the Middle East following the Arab revolutions and the meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) require that Washington rethink its policy toward al Qaeda, particularly its targeting of Zawahiri. Destabilizing al Qaeda at this time may in fact work against U.S. efforts to defeat ISIS … [America’s] interests would be better served by keeping the terrorist organization afloat and Zawahiri alive.” [14]

The irony is so pathological you just couldn’t make it up.

Foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism. It is expedient for invading powers to keep populations back home locked in fear and seeking revenge while the youth of both domestic and foreign populations become open to radicalisation, similarly encouraged by entrapment plots by the FBI and world intelligence agencies. Regimes with suitably strategic dividends are destabilised and plunged into civil war so that resources can be extracted. Selling these invasions under humanitarian interventions or seeking retribution for a perceived atrocity against “democracy” are the usual pretexts.

This is the state of the world we live in. It is a direct result of the Grand-Daddy of false-flag attacks which took place on September 11th, 2001 and which re-ordered the world according to pathocratic principles of paranoia, greed, separation and asymmetric warfare. Thanks to the Israel and its Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden administrations, the constitution and Bill of Rights have been shredded, where inverted totalitarianism is becoming normalised.

The next post will see, in graphic detail, how the United States of America is sliding into a full-blown police state.

 


Notes

[1]Terror Factory, The: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism By Trevor Aaronson, IG Publishing (2015 edition)| ISBN-10: 1935439960.
[2] ‘Inside the Terror Factory’ By Trevor Aaronson, January 11, 2013, Mother Jones| http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/terror-factory-fbi-trevor-aaronson-book
[3] ‘Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI ‘entrapment’ tactics’ By Paul Harris, The Guardian, December 12, 20013. | http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/12/newburgh-four-fbi-entrapment-terror
[4] ‘It’s the Wrong Time to be a Muslim in America – The Troubling Case of the Fort Dix Five’ by Stephen Lendman, Counterpunch, December 31 2008.
[5]’Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home?’ October 29, 2014. NPR News. http://www.npr.org/
[6]‘Aspirational Rather than Operational’ – 7 Arrested in Miami Terror Plot. Democracy Now! 2007.
[7]op.cit. Aaronson.
[8]’Did the FBI Use Occupy Cleveland Case to Equate Activism with Terrorism?’ By Kris Hermes, Alternet, September 12, 2012.]
[9]The event demands a book in itself and due to brevity, it will not be covered in this present series. Suffice to say, if you wish follow up and research this subject yourself the following books and articles are recommended: Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks by Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley; ‘False flag theater: Boston bombing involves clearly staged carnage’ By Shelia Casey, May 8, 2013| ‘Boston Bombings ‘set-up’: Mother of patsies says sons groomed by FBI ‘Russia Today, 20 Apr 2013. | “False-flag” meme goes mainstream with Boston Marathon bombing, Kevin Barrett, Veteran’s Today/Press TV, 17 Apr 2013 | ‘Boston Bombings: The most obvious staged event since 9/11’, The Caterpillar Flys, 29 Apr 2013. | ‘Were The Boston Marathon Bombers ‘Mind Controlled’?’ By Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 11 Jan 2014.
[10] p.32; Aaronson; The Terror Factory.
[11] ‘The Best Terrorists Money Can Buy’ – Broke-ass losers. Big talkers. Ninja wannabes. How dangerous are the FBI’s sting targets?’ By Trevor Aaronson, Mother Jones, September/October 2011 Issue.
[12] ‘Man Is Charged With Plotting to Bomb Federal Reserve Bank in Manhattan’ By MOSI SECRET and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUMOCT.The New York Times 2012. October 17, 2012.
[13]Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010) by Robert A. Pape and James K. Feldman, Chicago University press.
[14] ‘Accepting Al Qaeda’ The Enemy of the United States’ Enemy’ By Barak Mendelsohn, Foreign Affairs, March 9, 2015.

World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

“If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.”

– Henry Kissinger


henrykissinger“Food is power! We use it to change behaviour. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.” So said past Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, Catherine Bertini.

One can imagine that humility may be very low down on the list of qualities for a person voted “the most powerful woman in the world” by The Times of London newspaper in 1996. And by a spooky quirk of fate, Bertini is also a member of the Advisory Council at Rockefeller College on Public Affairs and Policy, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Fellow of the Rockefeller supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. If her Elite membership doesn’t tell you all you need to know from the outset then her mentor Henry Kissinger will place her remarks in context.

One of a number of Elite pensioners who seem to live forever while avoiding any kind of accountability for their crimes, Kissinger is one of the most reviled and revered elder Statesman who has never left the political game. CEO of Kissinger Associates, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and a long-time Bilderberger, he is the public face of those who prefer to remain out of the spotlight. He has strong ties to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), JP Morgan Chase Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and is international advisor to the Hollinger Group. He has held many public office positions including Head of the State Department and National Security Council under Nixon in the late 1960s and early 70s. He received the Noble Peace Prize in 1973 despite being instrumental in creating the Vietnam and Yom Kippur war between Egypt / Syria and Israel.

henry_kissinger

Kissinger 1971 (wikipedia)

Kissinger’s presence has been around like a persistent stain on the carpet of US geo-politics since the 1950s and no matter what truth rises to the surface, the old man still appears on T.V. shows and gives authoritative interviews despite volumes of evidence for his crimes including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, alleged child rape and torture. He encouraged the Kurds to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75 and then abandoned them to a slow death; his participation in the promotion of South African apartheid; the destabilisation of Angola; the whitewashing of Central American death-squads; political protection for the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran and its system of torture and repression; the genocide of civilian populations in Indochina; the planning of the coup in Chile and the assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende and many other crimes extending to Bangladesh, Cyprus, East Timor, and Washington, D.C.

So, it was fitting that Kissinger would continue his crimes undetected by coming up with the policy to use food as a weapon. [1]

On Dec. 10, 1974, a 200 page classified study (later de-classified in the 1990s) was completed by the US National Security Council called: “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Overseen by Kissinger, it landed on his desk for review and then on to President General Ford to be adopted as official policy in 1975.  The basic thrust of the study followed the same Malthusian line that population growth in developing countries was a threat to US National Security and therefore had to be curbed by overt and covert means. The former was to be birth control and the latter, the creation of war and famine. It just happened to neatly coincide with political and strategic interests which were underway in countries that were chosen for depopulation. These included: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. The power status of each of these countries could not be allowed to exceed the level that would put US interests at risk. The report stated: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” [2] Which certainly wouldn’t do since America had grand plans for an unimpeded resource grab. US economic dominance and population control strategies converge in the following paragraph:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States [3] [Emphasis mine]

Many, if not most of the problems now experienced in the developing world are a direct result of Western economic policy. Rockefeller Foundation, Planned Parenthood International and others were still busy in India pushing through birth control policies under threat of economic sanctions just as Kissinger was suggesting to withhold food supplies unless mass birth control became standard practice:

“There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” [4]

Spoken like a true Machiavellian. He continued:

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” adding: “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” [5]

It was only in the late 1980’s that the Brazilian Ministry of Health began investigating reports of systematic sterilisation of Brazilian women and was amazed to find that: “… an estimated 44 percent of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized,” while older women had been sterilized fourteen years before at the start of the program. As they pursued their investigations various American and some Brazilian organisations and agencies were found to be involved including the US Pathfinder Fund, International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Family Health International – all under the guiding hand of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). [6]

The NSSM 200 study allowed what was essentially a eugenics-based National Security policy for depopulation to secretly develop in third world countries enhancing and expanding the work already carried out by Rockefeller minions twenty years before. Using euphemisms such as “family planning” and “population explosion” the propaganda of imminent population growth tied to the availability of strategic minerals could advance world Establishment designs in a way that had not been possible before the Nixon-Kissinger double act.

Author on geopolitics F. William Engdahl wrote from his 2007 book Seeds of Destruction:

While arguing for reducing global population growth by 500 million people by the year 2000, Kissinger noted elsewhere in his report that the population problem was already causing 10 million deaths yearly. In short he advocated doubling the death rate to at least 20 million, in the name of addressing the problem of deaths due to lack of sufficient food. The public would be led to believe that the new policy, at least what would be made public, was a positive one. In the strict definition of the UN Convention of 1948, it was genocide. […]

Kissinger was, in effect, a hired hand within the Government, but not hired by a mere President of the United States. He was hired to act and negotiate on behalf of the most powerful family within the post-war US establishment at the time — the Rockefellers. [7]

The Rockefeller Foundation had already established itself as part of the factions behind post war Washington policy where oil, defence and global agriculture were all integral to the expansion of American hegemony. Or in Kissinger’s words: “If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.” [8]

Food as a weapon is nothing new but the consolidation of this tactic has reached a degree of technological sophistication not seen for hundreds of years. By 1974, the biggest six companies controlling 95 percent of world food were (and still are) Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge, André, and Archer Daniels, Midland / Töpfer all of whom are spawned from an Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, though all based in the US.

Under the rationale of “efficiency” and “maximizing profit ratios” US agriculture policy drove hundreds of thousands of family farmers into bankruptcy in order to pave the way for the monolithic machine of agribusiness, where the remaining farmers would exist only as serfs to trans-national corporations’ production methods. William Pearce, Cargill’s vice-president of Public Affairs was instrumental in this domination. He was on President Nixon’s 1974 Committee for Economic Development and made sure that US trade policy would leave a clear run for American agrichemical business to monopolize the world market in seeds, pesticides and most importantly, genetically modified plants. From that moment on, corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels would not only reorganize farming policy but work to create a new one.

cargill

Cargill food giant logo

All legislation regarding family farm protections were phased out in favour of a rapidly deregulated “free market.” Just like the 2008 financial warfare perpetrated by Goldman Sacs et al and the federally mandated use of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in bailouts, so too Nixon’s farming policy was to change the face of America and the very nature of food. Wall St. only saw dollar signs as the social fabric of farming was torn apart.

The net result of such a systematic grab for power meant that Third World countries were especially vulnerable to these predator corporations who wanted to divert all self-sufficient and sustainable operations into a long-distance relationship of dependency where only fruits, sugar, coffee and vegetables would feature. US grains and other products were offered in return for payment by exporting their fruit and vegetables. This was to be the open door to massive worker exploitation and the loss of domestic food production. It was to signal the arrival of huge fields with cheaper yields dependent on a host of chemical products while the local and often ancient farming practices either instantly died or were absorbed into mechanised and synthetic “efficiency.”

Rather than ensuring that local farmers could provide for their communities by planting high-protein/high calorie crops and even sell the excess abroad at competitive prices, corporations oversaw the rise of a New World of poverty and its underclass, comprehensively denying them the assistance and ability to become self-sufficient in a monopoly that was both ecologically damaging as it was extraordinarily myopic. Cheap imports devalued their economies whilst access to their land was denied. Ensuring healthy, local economies could prosper was never the objective of American agri-business. Exploitation and ruthless stripping of the land, culture and people was the only way forward to ensure maximum profits divorced from limitations, morals and values.

The infamous General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) underwent several incarnations before finally being replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1993, fully operational by 1995. During President Richard Nixon’s tenure and through the auspices of the GATT Toyko round he was able to give carte blanche to the new global agribusiness export agenda while ensuring that developing countries would never gain their own independent food production. Nixon proposed to Congress a new way of managing trade negotiations which were termed “fast track”, for which Congress had to vote “yes” or “no” on a particular trade agreement. All changes to U.S. law had to conform to its terms – without any amendments. This was typical of the Kissinger-Nixon tag team. Under fast track, not only had Congress to conduct a vote within a brief 60 to 90 days of the President’s submission of the agreement, but the subsequent debate had to be limited to 20 hours.

As Congress was effectively removed from the negotiation process this opened the way for Nixon’s idea for a system of advisory groups and think-tanks drawn from the private sector. These appointed groups have enormous power and influence. Closed to public scrutiny, the documents are confidential with security clearances in operation for representatives. Indeed, the documents themselves are virtually unreadable to any but the initiated. Independent presidential candidate and social activist Ralph Nader wrote: “Once the agreements are completed – or on those rare occasions when a draft of the agreements is “liberated” – any person who wants to figure out what the agreements say faces a Herculean task. The agreements are very complex and written in arcane, almost impenetrable technical jargon that bears only a passing resemblance to the English language.” [9]

richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-1972

Puppets & players on a mission: Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger 1972

This obfuscation is intentional. The last thing the high priests of unfettered corporatism want is for the public, media or any democratic body casting a curious eye over agreements which are inherently anti-human. The big transnational food corporations intend to keep the public ignorant of trade agreements and excluded from the approval process as they know full well that if they were cross-examined the practices would be seen for what they are – a product of unrestrained, cartel capitalism.

What is perhaps the most dangerous development is the use of genetically modified foodstuffs under the pretext of feeding the world’s poor which were made poor by the very same entities and for that very same purpose.

The success of the WTO was mainly down to the Cargill Corporation’s aggressive lobbying of Congress (otherwise known as mass-bribing) through the auspices of the influential Business Round Table group (An off-shoot of the Round Table of European Industrialists) which is an alliance of corporatists pushing for total deregulation of trade. In other words, limitless exploitation of the world’s resources without national borders or bureaucracy. This lobbying took the form of a WTO paper entitled: “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture” which was penned by a gaggle of corporate plunderers such as Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Nestlé, Unilever, and others. [10]Most of these companies had many thousands of patents on new trans-genic plants. It was to be a perfect platform for GMO companies like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta to merge their monocultures towards the 4Cs: commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation leading to absolute control of the world’s food and its destiny.

The WTO’s remit was to be primarily a global free trade enforcer, a supranational entity fuelled by the insatiable drive of agribusiness and therefore answerable only to private agribusiness companies. Lip-service was paid to the plaintive cries for accountability because it had real power compared to the less efficient GATT agreements of the past. That usually means if the socio-economic and GMO order is not adhered to, the WTO can levy financial penalties to keep countries in line with the agribusiness agenda. For that reason, the WTO was designed to be above the laws of nations, answerable to no public body beyond its own walls. As we shall see presently, this organisation was to be used as the primary means by which genetically modified food and crops would become dominant in the world agriculture market.

By the time the 1986 Uruguay round of GATT talks had arrived and after a successful dismantling of public health and safety provisions in the US and the onset of rapid financial deregulation care of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, agribusiness was primed to road test its new WTO toy. World cereals and grain supplies, meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, sugar, fruits and vegetables and all forms of spices are controlled by these corporations which operate as a food cartel working in tandem with the various principles of World State visionaries. They can apply enormous pressure to the West and developing countries. In combination with financial warfare and the “shock doctrine”of the World Bank and IMF, infrastructure support and capital goods are routinely denied and so too the possibility for self-reliance and self-sufficiency if a country doesn’t wish to play the game of cartel economics.

Thanks to historic monopolies forged in the dim and distant past these corporations have had a progressively ruthless stranglehold on much of the third world. Most countries don’t have any choice but to import from the food cartel’s export regions or see their populations starve. The shocking disappearance of thousands of global farmers is testament to the power of the food cartel and the crucial part they play in the 4Cs.  $90 million in grants for molecular biology and genetic research were dispensed by the Rockefeller Foundation between 1932 -1957, excited at the prospect of seeing their passion for social engineering bolstered by these new fields of science. For the Rockefellers, eugenics was about to become turbo-charged with much greater advances in manipulating the human mind and body.

GMOslabelling

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

With the Rockefeller Foundation’s well-established web of micro-biologists and bio-technicians spanning the globe the next war against natural food and human health of the most vulnerable was to proceed. On December 9, 1959, with some extra support from the Ford Foundation and the Philippines government, the Rockefeller’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established. The Institute’s research headquarters are located on the University of the Philippines campus in Los Baos, south of the Philippine capital, Manila, the largest non-profit agricultural research centre in Asia. With offices in 11 other countries, agricultural research institutes, international development agencies, and philanthropic organisations recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with much back slapping and congratulations by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have continued to support its work with hefty donations.

With close ties to business, government and biotech industries in the Philippines, the Manila bulletin gushes about the influence of the Institute and lays out the philanthropic Rockefeller script we’ve come to know so well: “In the 50 years of IRRI, the institute’s work has helped feed much of the world’s population, reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure that rice production is environmentally sustainable. IRRI’s high-yielding rice varieties have helped significantly increase world rice production, especially in Asia, saving millions from famine while protecting the environment and training thousands of researchers.” [11]

In fact, the above quote is a woeful misrepresentation of the big picture riding on the assumption that global monoculture farming methods have been a grand success for all concerned, rather than the obvious ecological and social disaster they truly are. Yet, still the Rockefeller Foundation and its enormous corporate and civil society connections thrives on its perceived innovation and philanthropy. The IRRI is major player in the corporate take-over of Asia and its food. Sustainability and assisting sections of the population living in poverty is just another cynical ruse, though many of those employed by these companies no doubt want to believe the fantasy.

Over several decades IRRI has genetically modified over 300 High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) and as Dr Richard Hindmarsh of the University of Queensland points out, prior to such attempts to improve on nature over 100,000 different rice varieties thrived in farmers’ fields. [12] Yet once agribusiness technology tore into natural crop diversity and the ecological balance which existed then it was not long before the natural varieties became extinct, often without seed documentation or collection. Once a monoculture dominates, their genetic uniformity is inherently weaker with increasing vulnerability to disease, pest invasions, biological stress and weed proliferation due to intensive fertiliser use. Intensive farming becomes a false economy since it cannot exist without the inflow of high quantities of pesticides, herbicides and the deployment of massive irrigation projects, all of which destroy communities and eventually the land.

riceRegarding the PR of high yields of rice, with expanding irrigated land and large-scale chemical fertiliser use, IRRI claims that there was significant increase from 2.3 percent per annum before 1964 to 4.5 percent between 1965 and 1980. However, as the Food Security Fact Sheet states, IRRI rice yields at their research farm actually decreased: “… at a rate of 1.25 percent per year from 1966 to 1987, a decline of 27.5 percent in 21 years. From 1966 to 1980, the yield from a variety named IR8 fell from 9.5 tons per hectare to about 2 tons per hectare while still receiving 120 kilograms of pure nitrogen fertilizer per hectare. Yet by 1990, IR8 and similar varieties were planted on about 80 percent of Philippine rice crop area.” [13]

Foundations and NGOs lay the groundwork for a new colonisation under the mantle of philanthropy, which is why IRRI’s annual reports from 1963-1982 show grants from a multitude of US and European chemical corporations from such as Monsanto, Shell Chemical, Union Carbide Asia, Bayer Philippines, Eli Lilly, Occidental Chemical, Ciba Geigy (later part of Novartis Seeds / Syngenta), Chevron Chemical, Upjohn, Hoechst, and Cyanamid Far East. [14] With bio-safety and regulatory frameworks still to be implemented or reinstated, this new form of monopoly is set to continue regardless of the consequences to ordinary people on the ground. Even IRRI’s host country the Philippines, has been importing increasing amounts of rice every year despite following IRRI’s programs with religious conviction. This is in part caused by geography and climate but the heavy use of insecticide and the resultant poor soil content also caused financial and health-related health problems for farmers, the effects of which were inevitably passed onto consumers.

Marketed and promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their bid to gain control over the world’s rice supply and replace it with GM varieties, the IRRI was a big player in riding the mythological wave of this “Green Revolution” and the tag-line of “solving the world’s hunger problem.” A concentrated effort to neglect indigenous rice varieties with a proven high yield was put into action as the start of a multi-pronged campaign to push the developing world into the palm of biotechnology. [15] The IRRI; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; UN development Program; the World Bank and several other environmental and agribusiness organisations formed a global steering Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) established in 1972. The much vaunted “success” of this Green Revolution was given a major thumb’s down by Philippines’ famers during a CGIAR Annual General Meeting in 2002 near the offices of IRRI. Demonstrations and street protests called for both institutions to be dismantled with statements decrying the record of the IRRI and CGIAR believing them to be “failed research institutions.” Farmers made it clear that they believed: “… a genuine, farmer-centred research institution should develop technologies that shall liberate farmers from dependence on any agro-chemical TNC [Trans-National Corp.] promote sustainable agriculture, conserve the environment, and protect the health of farmers.” [16]

One of the world’s leading experts on rice science Dr. R.H. Richaria, has been warning of the real nature of the “Green Revolution” since the 1980s. His concern over the severe disturbance of the agro-ecological balance has led to: “… intensive use of inputs such as genetically uniform seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and water and energy, [which] certainly resulted in major environmental degradation, including salinity, soil erosion, desertification, chemical pollution of land and waterways, die-back, loss of crop diversity, and the turning of renewable resources, such as soil and water, into non-renewable resources.” [17]

gmoratios

Source: Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) Products’ by Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine, Portland, Oregon

The global farming revolution was part of an ambitious strategy to steer the world from agriculture towards agribusiness, with an exclusively GM-centred production line. A global concentration of hybrid seed patents would be in the hands of just a few seed companies. The in-built sell-by-date of these GM seeds meant that farmers were forced into a modern-day form of bonded labour from which it is almost impossible to escape.

The creation of vast tracts of land for the planting GM crops displaced many peasant families and communities who wound up in in the poorest parts of cities and therefore vulnerable to exploitation by those same companies who were always on the look-out for cheap labour. Moreover, developing nations were forced into debt to pay for the expensive technology that produced initially high yields only to rapidly fade in the middle to long-term thus becoming the hook to purchase more and more “add-ons” to sustain the fertility of soil and crops. Those who could not afford it had to borrow the money but with interest rates so high many peasant farmers lost their farms (and generations of farming history) to larger land-owners sponsored by trans-national companies. World Bank loans were easily extended while the banking cartels quite literally, had a field day.

The main task of CGIAR was to achieve excellence in the field of agronomy and agricultural science in general and to apply monoculture production back in the US and the developing world. From that blitzkrieg it laid the foundation for the “Green Revolution” which was in fact the pretext for the “Gene Revolution” and the distribution of GMO-based farming, riding on the wave of a deregulated free market. It followed the same 4Cs formula as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil where the once the seed was planted and in the right way, it was just a matter of time before the planter could monopolise the whole garden and control the parameters of production so that they serve multiple objectives benefiting only the “Master.” Once families like the Rockefellers controlled the food supply they were able to extend their reach over a hundreds of companies and their subsidiaries in the supply line, from petroleum and agrichemicals to irrigation projects and food aid.

Behind this façade of helping the world’s poor quite apart from the obvious ecological and health dangers Rockefellers’ remit is to introduce the science of eugenics (social biology, Planned Parenthood etc.) through as many of societies’ domains as it can. Genetic modification of food is one such important spoke in the wheel. The food chain would be under corporate control matching the aspirations underpinning the human genome program.

Using the banner of a Green Revolution, the agri-chemical business has expanded into Africa courtesy of the Rockefellers and Bill & Melinda Gates foundation’s innocently named ‘The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’ (AGRA). Its advisory board of directors is riddled with Rockefeller go-betweens such as Strive Masiyiwa, Board Chair (Rockefeller Foundation) Jeff Raikes, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee, (Rockefeller Foundation); Judith Rodin, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee (Rockefeller foundation); Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, (Rockefeller Foundation) Pamela K. Anderson, Director of the Agricultural Development Program, (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) [18]

Different name, same story.

Looking at the website you would be forgiven for thinking that so many happy, smiling faces denotes an agricultural future where all such agendas and drawbacks are fantasies of the pessimistic and deranged. Africans will be saved from their poverty by the goodness of a corporate West and their utopian world of hybrid seeds and high yields. That is, if you forget that a chemically saturated Africa and the diminishing returns of GM foods will mean that the long-term health and prosperity of Africa and its people is under question.

Amid the UN sex trafficking and abuse scandals Kofi Annan is no stranger to being used as an Establishment tool should the salary be sufficient. Annan’s job as Board Chair Emeritus of AGRA is to penetrate GM crops deep into the African heartland. Along with the geo-political shenanigans of AFRICOM, AGRA represents the same resource grabbing goals dressed up as agricultural emancipation. With the help of the World Bank, USAID, Monsanto, CGIAR member Syngenta AG of Switzerland, handsomely paid African scientists awash with sweeteners, incentives, sponsorships and initiatives, Africa’s governments are being seduced into accepting a New African Order of biotechnology.

logo

The GM crop leaders are presently the United States, Canada, India, Argentina, Brazil, and China. 1996 – 2006 saw the biggest leap in the production of genetically modified foodstuffs and crops with new countries signing up including South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay and Australia. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has stated that the world’s farmers planted 148m hectares of genetically modified crops in 29 countries in 2009. The USA is the leader in GM cultivation at 66.8m hectares over 2 million more than the previous year. [19]

Brazil’s economic boom (and inevitable bust sometime in the future) has meant that Genetically Modified Organisms have been included in the ascent with some 10m hectares planted since 2008 overtaking Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. By 2011, that had reached 303,000 km2. [20] 50 percent of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries, with the largest increase in Brazil in the same year. There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.

By 2004, global GM crop acreage had hit the 167 million mark. By 2010, Latin America had been breached with Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras and Costa Rica all yielding an average of 0.1 million hectares. Negligible but present nonetheless. Asia and Latin America are providing many hectares set aside for GM crops and associated biotechnology. The rise in GM farming is likely to increase year by year on these continents and in the developing world.

Agri-business makes the idea of choice a pipe dream. Soyabean crops have wreaked ecological destruction on much of Latin America producing huge profits for invested companies. Soya and herbicide resistant crops remain the most popular products that farmers ending up needing once stuck on the monoculture system. GM crop production is still not popular with Europeans due to an ethical and environmental reasoning which has expressed itself through an organised activist movement at local and national levels. Europe is also subject to clear restrictions on growing GM crops. Nevertheless, creeping acreage is appearing with GM maize production having taken place in Spain, Portugal, Germany and France and more recently in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, all with an average of 0.1 million hectares. [21]

As Africa is invaded by Chinese, European and American corporations, so too the potential for GMOs to hitch a ride. Burkino Faso and Egypt are the latest victims (or innovators depending on your position) with Pakistan, the newly and conveniently “liberated” Myanmar and the Philippines following closely behind. [22] Iran climbed aboard in 2005.

See also:

Redesigning Nature

Update: Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

 


Notes

[1] ‘The Case Against Henry Kissinger Part One The making of a war criminal’ by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001. | http://harpers.org/archive/2001/02/the-case-against-henry-kissinger-2/
[2] National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) 1974.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide,’ by Joseph Brewda, December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[5] Ibid.
[6] op. cit. Engdahl (p.53)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (p.41)
[9] ‘The Globalisation Agenda – Grave New World – The Democracy Grab’ by Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach from The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Towards the Local by E. Goldsmith and Jerry Mander – Sierra Club Books, 1991.
[10] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm
[11] ‘International Rice Research Institute celebrates its 50th Anniversary’ December 9, 2009, Manilla Bulletin.
[12] http://www.panap.net/docs/analysis/gerice.pdf
[13] Rice, Trade and Biotechnology in the Philippines by Steve Suppan Food Security Fact Sheet No. 5, September 1996.
[14] ‘Laying the Molecular Foundations of GM Rice Across Asia’
[15] IRRI powerbase.info.
[16] ‘Richaria’s study proves deliberate neglect of indigenous varieties’ by Bharat Dogra Leisa India Supplement December 1999.
[17] IRRI powerbase.info. dismantal IRRI / CGIAR.
[18] http://www.agra-alliance.org/
[19] Ibid.
[20] ‘The adoption of genetically modified crops – Growth areas’ Feb 23rd 2011, The Economist online.| ‘ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011’ By James C (2011). ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
[21] Op. cit. The Economist
[22] Ibid.