|
| Volume 3, Issue 14 -- July 7, 2006 |
|
From the JPIC Office As promised, this week we share with you a reflection by our second summer intern on his experience in Washington, D.C.
An Intern’s Reflection My name is Michael Lane, I am a senior studying political science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. I work part time while in school at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Bellevue, Nebraska. Throughout high school I participated in numerous service-oriented mission projects, and during my first three years in college I spent time each summer working at the San Eugeno Parish in La Morita, Tijuana. After leaving Tijuana I paid close attention to many of the struggles that our brothers and sisters face in Mexico. During my two-week internship for the Columban JPIC Office in Washington, D.C., I hoped that I would focus on some of the issues facing our neighbors to the south. As it turned out, my focus for the entire two was migration and the struggles of workers in Mexican manufacturing plants known as maquiladoras. It wasn’t until I came to D.C. that I realized how truly uninformed I was. I spent a good portion of my time researching and attempting to educate myself on an issue I knew very little about. During my time in the Columban office, I had access to a great deal of information through research and also through attending meetings, lectures and working with many knowledgeable, dedicated social justice workers. I learned a great deal about trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and more facts on labor and human rights violations in the maquiladoras themselves than I would ever had thought possible. This experience has truly been eye opening, and I look forward to traveling home to Nebraska and doing everything I can through both my school and work with the church to help raise awareness on the important issues of our insufficient immigration and trade policies and the grave human rights violations that continue to take place every day. Besides increasing my own knowledge and concern, my time in Washington has also given me something else that I didn’t expect and wasn’t necessarily looking for: hope.
Since I got here, I have seen so many people of different faiths, backgrounds and ages working together on issues that could not be more pressing or important. I look forward with great anticipation to returning home, taking what I have learned and helping educate others who, like me, might be uninformed. Together we can all push for reform and attempt to make a better world where everyone is able to live with dignity. Migration This is the most-recent report in the Border Working Group’s summer Hill drop series. This week’s topic is NAFTA-CAFTA implications for migration flows to the United States.
At a time when the nation is embroiled in a debate over illegal immigration and when Congress is discussing proposals to build fences and militarize the border, it is important to consider the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the potential effects of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) on immigration to the United States. Some questions to keep in mind: who are the winners and losers of trade and what impact do the "losers" have on migration to the United States? How do the effects of free trade agreements inform policymakers about what U.S. border policy should be? It has been 12 years since NAFTA, a trade agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada, was implemented. In 2005, CAFTA was passed. But implementation of this trade agreement, which expands NAFTA to include Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, has been delayed. NAFTA eliminated many tariffs and removed non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between Mexico and the United States. CAFTA is expected to eliminate many tariffs on goods traded between the United States and the Central America countries listed above. The following facts about NAFTA address the questions posed above:
While the bulleted points above highlight the more serious effects of NAFTA on Mexico and on migration to the United States, it is expected that CAFTA will have similar repercussions. In addition, CAFTA will increase competition with Mexico and provide countries where it is cheaper to outsource jobs to, further decreasing employment opportunities in Mexico. U.S. border policies have not been effective. Rather than severely limiting the number of migrants who enter the United States, an increase in border patrol agents and policies like Operation Gatekeeper to secure parts of the Mexico-U.S. border have only pushed migrants into harsh and dangerous areas of the desert. As a result, thousands of migrants have died. As history demonstrates, as long as there are strong “push” factors, people will continue to risk their lives to come to the United States. Free trade allows the movement of goods, services and capital across borders, yet people are highly restricted in their ability to migrate despite their economic need. To be effective, U.S. border and immigration policies must address these “push factors,” which in part stem from U.S. trade policies such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Economic Justice The free-trade agreement between Peru and the United States was ratified last week in the Peruvian Congress. It is now up to the U.S. Congress to take a vote on the agreement. Many expect that the vote could happen in July before Congress’ summer recess. This week we share with you an update of the situation. Inside U.S. Trade, June 30, 2006 Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo this week signed legislation enacting the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, after Peru’s congress approved the legislation by a 79-14 vote earlier that same day, according to an official in the U.S. embassy in Peru. The Partido Aprista Peruano (APRA), the political party of incoming Peruvian President-elect Alan Garcia, voted as a bloc in favor of the agreement, as did Peru Posible, the political party of current President Toledo, the source said. In order to receive Congressional approval, the agreement had to first be approved by two committees charged with overseeing the deal, according to a Peruvian government official. Both the Foreign Relations Committee, the main Peruvian panel with jurisdiction on foreign trade, and the Congressional Foreign Trade Committee approved the deal last week, the Peruvian official said. In the United States, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the implementing legislation for the Peru FTA on June 29. Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) had requested to testify at the hearing, but was not allowed to do so, according to House Ways and Means Democratic staff and the spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee. In advance of the hearing, Ranking Member Max Baucus (D-MT) said he did not expect the approval of the Peru FTA to be easy in the Senate. The House Ways and Means Committee has announced that it will hold a hearing on the implementation of the Peru FTA on July 12 and Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) said on June 29 that it is possible the House will consider the Peru FTA in July. Business supporters of the deal have pressed for hearings in July in the hope that this will create an impression among members of Congress that the agreement is inevitably coming up. Without that sense of inevitability, members will not reveal their positions on the Peru FTA, both supporters and opponents say. The Toledo Administration remains hopeful that the U.S. Congress will approve legislation implementing the deal before it recesses in August, the Peruvian official said. The Prime Minister of Peru, Pedro Paulo Kuczynski, was in Washington this week to encourage that process. He met with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA). However, House Republican leaders have signaled wariness about moving forward with the Peru FTA, partly because it could be a tough vote for some Republicans in an election year. A Peru FTA is expected to have to pass with mostly Republican support because of Democratic opposition to the deal’s labor provisions. The Peruvian official also said there are no remaining investment disputes between U.S. companies and the Peruvian government that could lead to opposition to the FTA in Congress. However, U.S. private-sector sources are still seeking assurances that a fight over a controversial criminal lawsuit that had led to arrest warrants for 26 executives of General Electric is finally settled, according to informed sources. In January, Peru’s constitutional court issued a ruling that invalidated a controversial criminal lawsuit against the company, which was brought by a disgruntled distributor of GE. The constitutional court sent the case back to the original court essentially nullified, but it is still possible that the lower court would reopen the case, a private-sector source said. GE is now working to get the case completely dismissed, he said. Without resolution of this case, congressional opponents of the FTA would use it to question whether the United States should pursue an FTA with a country whose judiciary is out of control, sources said. A letter by business groups sent to Congress last week said Congress should insist that investment disputes are resolved before an FTA is agreed. However, the Peruvian official said the government settled a dispute with Texas-based LeTourneau a few months ago, and that this was the last outstanding investment dispute. LeTourneau had called for U.S. trade preferences for Peru to be eliminated because of a 1971 expropriation by the Peruvian government of land that was promised to LeTourneau as compensation for the construction of a highway. It argued that Peru was in violation of an eligibility rule requiring beneficiary countries in the Andean Trade Preferences Drug Enforcement Act not to nullify or repudiate contracts with U.S. citizens. According to a U.S. International Trade Commission report released earlier this month, the Peru FTA will result in U.S. imports from Peru increasing by an estimated $439 million, while U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion after full implementation. It also said U.S. GDP would increase by $2.1 billion, or about 0.02 percent, as a result of the deal. Genetic Engineering Churches around the world adopt an anti-genetically modified organisms (GMO) food policy in the case of emergencies. Below is a recent press release.
A matter of ethics: Action by Churches Together (ACT) International adopts policy on the use of GM food in emergencies GENEVA - The debate over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are also known, is one of the most polarising and controversial flash points related to food supply and its impact on social, economic, cultural and environmental welfare, often triggering passionate responses. Add the humanitarian imperative in disaster response to the discussion, and you end up with a double-edged sword: the non-acceptance of genetically modified food can lead to a deepening crisis, with more deaths as a result, but at the same time, accepting these foods can lead to changes in agricultural practices, pollute the environment and damage local food grain varieties. In April this year, the global alliance Action by Churches Together (ACT) International took a stand on the issue, adopting a policy on genetically modified organisms to guide its members when responding to humanitarian disasters. “As the debate continues on the harmful effects of GMOs, the ACT alliance could not just sit and watch from the sidelines without producing a policy to protect our food beneficiaries in emergencies,” says John Nduna, director of ACT International. Melton Luhanga of Churches Action in Relief and Development, a member of the global ACT alliance, believes that it’s important to have such a policy. “It will help guide us when we carry out our relief interventions,” he says.
Not enough conclusive information What concerns Luhanga, however, is that there is simply not enough conclusive information on GMOs—plants and animals that have been manipulated at the genetic level though a special set of technologies that alter living organisms. But he also acknowledges that blanket recommendations force people to make difficult choices: “Could you see people dying if there was food?” One of the eight guidelines that lie at the heart of ACT’s new policy on food distributions and GMOs during emergency operations addresses this troubling concern specifically. It recommends that if the distribution of donated genetically modified food is unavoidable, in order to alleviate a serious hunger situation if there is no other alternative and timely solution, ACT members will make sure that everyone benefiting from the distribution knows where the food comes from and whether the food has been genetically modified or not. And all beneficiaries will have the right to choose and decide if they want the food or not. Sibongile Baker, director of ACT member Lutheran Development Service (LDS) in Zimbabwe, says that education is crucial. “People need to know what this about,” she says, explaining that in emergencies “we have to address people’s immediate needs: hunger, in other words." “Our experience is that when people are hungry they will eat whatever food they can get. And if they can preserve anything [such as seeds], they will. Without the knowledge of the long-term effects it may have,” she says. “If the government says no to GMOs, it’s important for us to be able to explain why it’s a ‘no.’ If we do this, then people will understand. It is our responsibility.” Donna Derr, the director of the emergency response program of U.S.-based ACT member Church World Service, emphasises that “the ‘right to know’ is a critical aspect of the food aid debate.” “All those involved-food donors, organisations distributing food and recipients of food aid-must have full access to information that allows them to understand the implications of donating, distributing or accepting GMOs,” she believes.
A matter of principle “Of course, this is not the task of the ACT members,” says Rev. Cornelia Fllkrug-Weitzel, director of Diakonie Emergency Aid, the ACT member based in Germany. “But it obliges members of the ACT family to lobby their respective government concerning appropriate legislation,” she explains. The second principle is the right to food. Everyone has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and being undernourished. Realising this right requires not only equitable and sustainable food systems, but also clear entitlements such as the right to work, to land and to social security, with the understanding that the primary responsibility for this rest with the states. “Again, it is imperative that ACT members advocate their governments: in the North to provide enough finances to feed the people in emergencies; in the South to pay enough attention to the agricultural sector in general, to sustainable farming, and building and keeping stocks in particular,” Fllkrug-Weitzel says. The third principle is the right to know. All people have the right to know whether there are genetically modified ingredients in the food they buy or the seeds they sow. This also means that they have the right to have enough information to make responsible decisions. Rev. Forbes Matonga, national director of the Zimbabwean NGO (and member of the ACT alliance) Christian Care, believes that GMOs pose “a threat to food security in developing countries, precisely because the seeds are controlled by a few multi-nationals-the principle of a few having it all.” For him, as a member of the faith-based community, it is crucial that “as long as scientists are not telling us what the implications are for mother earth, then we should not simply accept it.” He explains that although the Zimbabwean government does not allow GMOs to enter the country in principle, it has allowed some consignments in during emergencies, but only milled grains. ACT’s director agrees that it is a “complex issue with some of the largest food companies in the world having an economic interest in promoting the production of genetically modified foods because of the huge profits they reap from selling these products.” The Lutheran World Federation’s (LWF) director and country representative in Zambia, Enos Moyo, argues that the issue of GMOs is about ethics and biodiversity that leads to a nasty catch-22 situation. “Poor people cannot afford to buy new seeds each season and cannot recycle hybrid seeds, which means that every season, they are forced to buy new seeds. But it’s a difficult issue.” Moyo, who contributed to the guidelines for the policy regulating the use of GMOs by LWF’s Department for World Service (DWS) that formed the basis for the ACT policy on the issue, describes how between 2001 and 2003 LWF found people eating a certain kind of poisonous root that they had to boil for at least 24 hours before they could eat it [as a result of the drought that had the country in its grip]. “Even then,” he says, “they still got diarrhea, although it was manageable.”
“But if people had a choice—GMOs or poisonous roots?” he asks, shrugging. “There's no real answer. It’s just a difficult issue.”
Is it safe? LWF’s Moyo agrees. “We understand that it’s safe, but this is based on the fact that rich people in the north are eating it. But are they eating it in large quantities? What if 100 percent of all your meals are made of GMO-based food? What is the effect then?” Sibongile Baker believes the scientific community should continue to research exactly this, saying that it’s hard to say a “blanket no” to food, if the only other option is no food. “Has the medical field done enough thorough analysis? What quantities need to be consumed to have a long-term effect?” “We work with humans,” says Melton Luhanga. “Are all the real facts known?” “When dealing with commercialisation, it’s sometimes difficult to find the truth,” he notes, then adds, “And the concern is, of course, that the truth will only be known when the damage is already done.” In Malawi, he explains, whenever and wherever possible, his organisation has and continues to buy non-GMO commodities: maize, rice, biscuits. He stops for a moment before asking, “But do we really know whether the biscuits don’t contain GMOs or not? We need to proactively go after the truth in this matter,” he says. It is exactly for this reason that ACT International’s director believes that the adoption of this policy was an important step. “It’s been four years in the making-four years of discussions and deliberations, and even though there is no conclusive evidence related to the products’ ‘safety’ either way,” Nduna says, adding that there is a belief that GMOs can be harmful to human consumers in the long term. A crucial point in the new ACT policy is that ACT members will in the future follow the guideline that they will not buy any genetically modified food with the resources administered by them, even if the food comes from local markets (given that in ACT’s procurement policy, members of the alliance are encouraged to, wherever possible, buy as much food aid locally, nationally, and in the region.) There is also the understanding that ACT members will comply with the relevant national legislation on biosafety (if it is in place), especially regarding the use of GMOs in food aid. And in the future, all ACT members will, in the event of having to distribute GMO crops as food aid, with no other option, do so only if the crops are milled. “Safety also applies to long-term food security. Genetic modification of food often includes the elimination of its potential to be used as seed. Because of this aspect, people remain dependent on foreign food aid in the upcoming seasons to the benefit of the world-wide agricultural industry,” says Fllkrug-Weitzel.
A question of ethics For her, several questions related to this controversial issue have not been fully answered. “Are marginalized and poor people and their perspective in the centre of the development and the investment? What will happen in the long-term perspective in terms of ecological, social and economic sustainability? It is of vital importance that poor people and countries are not pushed or forced to accept GMOs.” “While we know that in severe situations of food crises, people will accept any food they are given simply to survive. The policy calls for any GMO grain given in a food emergency to be milled. This is one way of reducing the risks that GMOs may have,” says Nduna. “This policy was long overdue and I am happy that we have it now.” To see a list of ACT members, visit www.act-intl.org/act_members.html Contact Us
We welcome submissions, comments and suggestions.
|