Month: January, 2016
Bernie Sanders: 17 things the Democratic socialist believes
| January 24, 2016 | 6:29 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35364868

Bernie Sanders in Birmingham, Alabama, on Martin Luther King DayImage copyright Getty Images

1. He is a socialist. Sanders is running as a “Democratic socialist”, but in his long political career he became comfortable with just “socialist” (“I am a socialist and everyone knows it,” he once said.) He frames his political ideology this way: “Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.” His fight for equal treatment of the poor and middle class and against the “billionaire class” is a central tenet of his campaign, and the socialist mantle has positioned him further left of centre than Clinton.

2. Climate change is real. After the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marked 2015 as the hottest year on record, Sanders tweeted: “The debate is over. Climate change is real and caused by human activity.” He wants to tax carbon emissions, repeal fossil fuel subsidies and invest in clean energy technology. He has opposed the Bakken and Keystone XL oil pipelines.

Sanders hugs one of his grandchildren onstageImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders often speaks of his grandchildren’s generation when he talks about climate change

3. College should be free. “A college degree is the new high school diploma,” Sanders wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece, arguing that class equality is impossible if a majority of Americans don’t have access to a college education. He has introduced a plan to make tuition at public universities and colleges free by taxing Wall Street speculators.

4. Gun ownership is a “lifestyle that should not be condemned”. Sanders’ record on gun control has been mixed which he says is due to the fact that his constituents in Vermont are pro-gun and “99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people”. He supports universal background checks, but prefers to talk about reaching “common ground” when it comes to gun policies rather than sweeping new gun control regulation.

5. Black lives matter. Though Sanders was shouted down at his own campaign event by members of the Black Lives Matter group, he has since met activists and agrees that the high rate of unemployment and incarceration for African Americans is evidence of systemic racism in the US. He touts criminal justice reform as the answer to some of these issues.

6. He will not accept super PAC money. Sanders prides himself on the fact that his donors are mostly individuals and the average contribution to his campaign in the most recent quarter was just $27. He characterises the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision as “disastrous” and blames it for flooding the US political system with cash from special interest groups. “I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians,” he told the Washington Post.

Sanders speaks to supporters through a bullhornImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders sometimes prefers a bullhorn over taking the dais

7. The minimum wage should be $15 (£10.59) per hour, up from $7.25. Sanders argues that no one who works 40 hours a week should be impoverished, however, some economists from both sides of the political spectrum are concerned that such a dramatic increase could have unintended consequences for poorer cities and struggling businesses.

8. Americans are tired of the two-party system. For decades, Sanders has railed against both the Democratic and Republican parties, saying they are too beholden to corporate money. Sanders was elected to the Senate as an independent, and some have said his rejection of both parties left him bereft of allies and ineffectual. Sanders argues his outsider status is what has driven his grassroots campaign.

9. He prefers to fly economy. Pictures of Sanders flying in the rear of regular commercial airline flights have gone viral and supporters have seized on the practice with hashtags like #SandersOnAPlane to show that Sanders is a humble everyman who would safeguard taxpayer money. Some of the candid shots of Sanders working in the middle seat have inspired memes juxtaposed with Clinton or Donald Trump boarding private aircrafts.

Sanders sitting on a flight in coachImage copyright Twitter

10. The US should adopt universal healthcare paid for by the federal government. Sanders has often spoken of his admiration for government-run healthcare systems in Canada and Scandinavian countries. “Bernie’s plan means no more co-pays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges,” his website promises. He means to finance it mostly from a payroll tax hike.

11. $1 trillion should be spent on infrastructure. Sanders wants to create jobs by investing heavily in new infrastructure projects that he says will create 13 million jobs over the course of five years. His “Rebuild America Act” would put that money into roads, bridges, water treatment systems, railways and airport projects – and comes with a $1 trillion price tag.

12. Tax the rich. Sanders wants to pay for his most sweeping proposals with a series of tax hikes and fees, mostly levelled at the wealthiest of Americans: hedge fund managers, Wall Street speculators and big businesses.

13. There should never have been a US-led war in Iraq. Sanders voted against the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and says today that he stands by that decision. He calls it the “worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country”.

14. No boots on the ground in Syria or to fight IS. Sanders has a diplomacy-first attitude towards foreign policy and believes that Middle Eastern countries must lead the fight in their own region against the self-styled Islamic State group.

Sanders supporter with white hair T-shirtImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Sanders supporters celebrate his famously disheveled hair

15. Personal style is a waste of time. While the Obamas are said to be the most stylish presidential couple since the Kennedys, a Sanders White House will be decidedly more frumpy. Sanders’ wife Jane O’Meara once quipped that if he has “seven sweaters, that’s three too many for him”. When questioned about his frequently-rumpled hair, Sanders was brusque: “The media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people.”

16. He likes to go by “Bernie”. While campaigning in his home state of Vermont, Sanders’ bumper stickers just said “Bernie”. “You have to reach a certain exulted status in politics to be referred to only by your first name,” Senator Patrick Leahy told the New York Times in 2007.

17. He would love to run against Donald Trump. “I have to tell you,” he said at a recent news conference, “on a very personal level, it would give me a great deal of satisfaction to run against Donald Trump”.

Assembled by Jessica Lussenhop.

Repost: Reply to an attempt to critically analyze the Houston Communist Party club
| January 20, 2016 | 8:47 pm | About the CPUSA, Party Voices, political struggle | Comments closed
| July 14, 2012 | 10:13 pm | Action
http://houstoncommunistparty.com/reply-to-an-attempt-to-critically-analyze-the-houston-communist-party-club/

By James Thompson

Dave Adkinson writes in his critical analysis of the Houston CP club:

“If those you criticise are as malicious as you say the i wonder why i cant find anything on the web where ‘they’ sling mud at you and your former club.”

We applaud Mr. Adkinson’s efforts to provide some critical analysis of our club, but his arguments fall a bit short. Here is a posting from our Texas district leadership about our website which was posted on 11/28/11. The link is: http://tx.cpusa.org/houstonweb.htm .

We recently received the following statement from CPUSA leadership:

Statement on Houston Phony Web Site

The web page calling itself the Houston Communist Party (http://houstoncommunistparty.com/ ) and the associated Facebook page and Twitter feed are not affiliated with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The person or persons behind the web site know full well that the site does not reflect the views and positions of our party. By undemocratically and falsely identifying the site as affiliated with the CPUSA they are deliberately sowing confusion and misinformation.

The Texas Communist Party web site at (http://tx.cpusa.org/ ) is a web site of the CPUSA that is endorsed and supported by the party membership in Texas and the National Committee of the CPUSA.

National Board CPUSA

It should be explained that the reason Houston put up its own website was that the Texas District leadership repeatedly refused to send us the names of people from Houston who contacted the national website. I spoke directly to Sam Webb, Jarvis Tyner and many others and made the simple request that the names of people who contacted the national website or state website from Houston be provided to us so that we could attempt to recruit them into our club. This was at a time when I was writing many articles for the PWW and PW. At this time, I was also invited to and was attending party conferences at various locations around the country to include the conference on African American equality in St. Louis, Missouri, and regional conferences in El Paso, Texas and Oakland, California. I spoke to Sam Webb at the meeting in Oakland and to Jarvis Tyner at the march on Wall Street in NYC. I also made up the slogans for the signs used in the march on Wall Street as requested by Libero della Piana. I was also a delegate to the 2005 convention in Chicago and wrote the front page article for the PWW about the CPUSA support of the strike against the Congress Hotel in Chicago. We elected a delegate from Houston to the 2008 CPUSA convention. This individual is an accomplished journalist and could have put various party leaders on the Pacifica network. In fact, I suggested this to leadership and it was ignored.

The reason for putting up the website was simple. We wanted people in Houston to be able to contact us.

One of our current members attempted to contact us through the national website and state website within the last year and a half. He was ignored by the national office. When he contacted the state directly, he was told that our club in Houston did not exist. He found us by our website.

When we put up our website, we were told by district leadership in Dallas that we should take it down and that the party should file a lawsuit against us for putting up the website.

I wonder how many people in the party really think that these actions by party leadership represent a real desire to build the party and fully support one of its most active clubs. Instead of expressing appreciation for the hard work of comrades in Houston, leadership has chosen to split and divide our original club and fecklessly attempt to depose its elected leader.

Nevertheless, we continue to survive and thrive. We will continue to fight for the working class no matter what CPUSA leadership does to us. We will not surrender. We will not back down. We will continue to build our club since we believe the Communists will take up their historical role as the vanguard party of the working class. We believe that once again the CPUSA will fight for peace, civil rights and will return to an anti-imperialist stance. We believe the CPUSA will fight once again to enact legislation for working people such as single payer health care or a national health care system and the employee free choice act. We believe the CPUSA can and will fight anti-communist laws and other forms of voter suppression. We believe the CPUSA can and will field candidates for public office on its own ticket. We believe the CPUSA can and will be a fully democratic organization and operate from the bottom up rather than the top down.

More congresspeople sign on as CoSponsors of single payer healthcare
| January 20, 2016 | 12:41 pm | Health Care, political struggle | Comments closed
More in Congress Sign On As CoSponsors of HR 676, Single Payer Healthcare Bill

In December six representatives, Danny Davis (IL), Grace Napolitano (CA), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Jerry McNerney (CA), Robin Kelly (IL), and Alan Lowenthal (CA), added their names as cosponsors on HR 676, Congressman John Conyers' Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, the national single payer legislation. 

The total number of cosponsors is now 59, not including chief sponsor Conyers. 

The more cosponsors that are added, the more quickly this real solution becomes politically viable. The more representatives who speak boldly for HR 676, the higher single payer advances on the nation's agenda.  

Call your representative and ask her or him to sign on to HR 676. The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.  Ask to speak to your representative by name. If you need to look up a representative, you can do
so here.

When talking with representatives who have already signed on, encourage them to speak up for HR 676 on the House floor, to the press, in town hall meetings, and to put their support for HR 676 on their website. If they
need further information, spend the time to bring the facts about HR 676 to their attention. This clear and simple statement of Dr. Marcia Angell may help. 

The list of representatives who have already signed on to HR 676 is here.

The list of representatives who were cosponsors of HR 676 in earlier Congresses but have not yet signed on in the 114th is below. This is a good place to start. 

Rep. Xavier Becerra, California 34th
Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Georgia 2nd
Rep. Corrine Brown, Florida 5th 
Rep. G. K. Butterfield, North Carolina 1st 
Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana 7th, 
Rep. Marcia Fudge, Ohio 11th, 
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas 30th, 
Rep. David Loebsack, Iowa 2d 
Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York 17th 
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico 3d 
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 8th 
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, New York 5th 
Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey 10th 
Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado 2nd 
Rep. David Scott, Georgia 13th 
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi 2nd 
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York 7th 
Rep. Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana 1st  
Rep. Maxine Waters, California 43rd   

"According to myth…a single-payer system is a good idea, but unrealistic.... What is truly unrealistic is anything else."

--Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief, New England Journal of Medicine, June 10, 2009 


#30# 

 HR 676 would institute a single payer health care system by expanding a greatly improved Medicare to everyone residing in the U. S. Patients will choose their own physicians and hospitals.

 HR 676 would cover every person for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental (including oral surgery, periodontics, endodontics), mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care and correction, hearing services including hearing aids, chiropractic, durable medical equipment, palliative care, podiatric care, and long term care.

 HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

 In the current Congress, HR 676 has 59 co-sponsors in addition to Congressman Conyers.

 HR 676 has been endorsed by 622 union organizations including 151 Central Labor Councils/Area Labor Federations and 44 state AFL-CIO's (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO, MN, ME, AR, MD-DC, TX, IA, AZ, TN, OR, GA, OK, KS, CO, IN, AL, CA, AK, MI, MT, NE, NJ, NY, NV, MA, RI, NH, ID. 

For a list of union endorsers, or a sample endorsement resolution, contact:

Kay Tillow 

All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217

(502) 636 1551 

Email: nursenpo@aol.com   
http://unionsforsinglepayer.org
https://www.facebook.com/unionsforsinglepayer 
AfricaFocus Bulletin 1/19/2016
| January 20, 2016 | 12:39 pm | Africa, Analysis, political struggle | Comments closed

Africa: Stealth Assault on African Seeds

AfricaFocus Bulletin
January 19, 2016 (160119)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“There is a renewed and stronger assault on seed … based on legal
systems that permit exclusive rights over seeds on the spurious
contention that plant varieties were ‘discovered’ and improved on.
But these ‘discovered’ varieties are the product of the whole
history of collective human improvements and maintenance carried out
by peasants. To assert exclusive rights over the whole on the basis
of small adjustments is nothing short of outright theft.” – South-
South Dialogue, Durban, South Africa, November 2015

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs16/seed1601.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=
http://www.africafocus.org/docs16/seed1601.php

In rich countries, debate about industrialized agriculture often
focuses on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and the safety and
transparency consequences for consumers. In developing countries
with large sectors of peasant farmers, this is only a small part of
a larger debate on the future of agriculture, pitting multinational
companies and large-scale investors against the autonomy and rights
of peasant farmers.

Land grabbing is highly visible, and has attracted much international attention. Less visible, and potentially even more damaging, is the appropriation of rights to seeds, fueled not only by the companies themselves but also by a concerted campaign to erode farmers’ traditional rights to seeds in favor of patents by multinational corporations. This is a issue not only for GMOs, but also for other seeds produced by other breeding technologies.

The debate is filled with acronyms, as well as the claim that
“scientific” agriculture will provide food and development
benefiting the peasants as well. And the campaign to change laws and
erode traditional rights is unrelenting. It is based on the
Universal Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV
91), which works for the privatization of seeds by imposing
intellectual property rights on plant varieties.

In recent years a drive to extend these laws on “plant variety
protection” in African and other developing countries has rapidly
accelerated.

This Africa Focus Bulletin contains a recent declaration by groups
resisting this drive, and excerpts from a brief article by Dr. Carol
Thompson, noting the apartheid-like differential effect of these
laws. Also included (just below) are linked to other essential
resources on this issue.

For a recent series of short articles featuring interviews with
African grassroots leaders (mainly women), visit
http://otherworldsarepossible.org / direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/hjhe756

For global overviews of the issue, see

* The Berne Declaration. Owning Seeds, Accessing Food. 2014.
https://www.bernedeclaration.ch – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/zcryou5

* GRAIN. UPOV 91 and other seed laws: A basic primer. October 2015.
http://www.grain.org / direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/hlvztp8

Two longer related reports with additional background specifically
on African seeds include:

* African Centre for Biodiversity. The expansion of the commercial
seed sector in sub-Saharan Africa: Major players, key issues and
trends. December 2015. http://www.acbio.org.za – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qy382hc

* African Centre for Biodiversity. Profiting from the Climate
Crisis, Undermining Resilience in Africa. Gates and Monsanto’s Water
Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) Project. May 2015.
http://www.acbio.org.za – direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/zk32nlu

For talking points and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on
agriculture, food sovereignty, and related issues, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/intro-ag.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Declaration on Plant Variety Protection and Seed Laws from the
South-South Dialogue

Durban, South Africa

29 November 2015

http://www.acbio.org.za – direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/j5uxvkc

We, participants at the South-South Dialogue, are members of peasant
and civil society organisations and concerned individuals from
Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe working on issues of food and
seed sovereignty, peasants’ control of seed production and exchange,
and biodiversity. We gathered in Durban, South Africa 27-29 November
2015 to share information and knowledge, and to come to a common
understanding on seed and plant variety protection (PVP) policy and
laws and strategies for resistance and alternatives in the global
South.

We are working in our countries and regions to advance the ongoing
global struggle for socially just and ecologically sustainable
societies, in which farming households and communities have control
and decision-making power over the production and distribution of
food and seed.

Human societies and the seeds we use to produce the food that
sustains us have grown symbiotically over millennia. Seeds emerged
from nature and have been diversified, conserved, nurtured and
enhanced through processes of human experimentation, discovery and
innovation throughout this time. Seeds have been improved by means
of traditional and cultural knowledge transmitted from generation to
generation. Seeds are therefore the collective heritage for people
serving humanity. Peasants and indigenous peoples have always been
the custodians and guardians of the collective knowledge embedded in
the wide diversity of seed that has enabled the development of
humankind as a species.

However, today capitalist greed poses fundamental threats to the
continued conservation, reproduction and use of the biological
diversity nurtured for all this time. The forced enclosure of land
and other natural resources and its capture and conversion into
private property was one disastrous step. This has caused and
continues to cause social dislocation and displacement, damaging the
social fabric of human societies, severing the connection between
people and the land, and consolidating social, collectively-produced
wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

There is a renewed and stronger assault on seed, agricultural
biodiversity heritage and the knowledge associated with these.
Related law and policy making processes are already far advanced in
Europe, the United States and other parts of the world and are being
imposed on our countries in the South through multilateral and
bilateral trade and investment agreements. They are based on legal
systems that permit exclusive rights over seeds on the spurious
contention that plant varieties were ‘discovered’ and improved on.
But these ‘discovered’ varieties are the product of the whole
history of collective human improvements and maintenance carried out
by peasants. To assert exclusive rights over the whole on the basis
of small adjustments is nothing short of outright theft.

Efforts to expand this expropriation to the global South are being
pursued aggressively by multinational seed and life sciences
corporations and their cohorts in state and multilateral
institutions. This takes the form of a coordinated political and
technocratic crusade to impose uniform and draconian laws and
regulations in favour of intellectual property (IP) rights such as
plant variety protection (PVP) for private interests, the
proliferation of genetically modified (GM) seeds, and exclusive
recognition and marketing of seed and plant varieties that pass
through breeding and production systems tightly controlled by
economic elites.

There are no benefits for peasant and farming households and
communities, or for society in general, from these developments. In
a few short decades – just a small fraction of the time humans have
been engaged in industrial agriculture – this enclosure of the
collective seed heritage has spread virulently across the globe. The
historical practices of context-specific peasant-managed seed
systems we have relied on are vilified, denigrated as being backward
and obsolete, and criminalised. Farmers are taken to court and
imprisoned for maintaining the biological base as a living system
while seed and food corporations make huge profits legitimised by
seed and IP laws.

The result is the alarming erosion of agricultural biodiversity and
related knowledge, and a deepening threat to the sustainable use of
the genetic base, and consequently to food production and ecological
balance, and to humanity. Current seed and IP laws violate the ethos
of sharing between farmers, which is the backbone of peasant farming
systems, seed and people’s sovereignty and the basic human right to
food.

We cannot stand by passively and watch this legalised dispossession
and destruction. We are compelled to resist. We declare our
commitment to work in alliance with one another, with peasant and
indigenous peoples’ movements, and with other likeminded civil
society organisations and individuals, to fight the spread of this
aggressive and violent system of domination on the basis of
autonomy, collective self-organisation, cooperation, sharing,
solidarity and mutual respect.

We declare our principled opposition to any form of IP on life
forms, seeds and related information or exclusive rights to their
use. We reject genetic modification and other current and emerging
proprietary technologies in agriculture as these technologies are
built on the disintegration of holistic farming systems, the
exclusion of farmers from processes of plant breeding and natural
resource management, and the control of seeds and planting material
in the hands of corporate and political elites.

We reject the imposition of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on
its country members, through the Trade Related aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, to adopt rules
allowing the privatization of seeds and related knowledge. We reject
the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants (UPOV) type laws and other intellectual property regulation
on seeds and plant varieties. It is also unacceptable that bilateral
free trade agreements impose on Southern countries intellectual
property measures that go beyond the provisions of the WTO.

We are opposed to laws dealing with the marketing and certification
of seed. These new seed laws undermine peasant seed systems that
have been developed locally over generations of farmers and are
geared towards creating massively increased private sector
participation in seed trade. In addition, these laws promote only
one type of seed breeding. The entire orientation of these seed laws
is geared towards genetically uniform, commercially bred varieties
in terms of seed quality control and variety registration. What is
very clear is that these laws criminalise the marketing of farmers’
varieties. The ultimate aim of these laws is to facilitate new
markets for commercial seed companies and the occupation by
multinationals in the seed sector in the global south and displace
and criminalise peasant seed systems.

We oppose the fragmentation of genetic information and the divorce
of this information from physical resources through the Global
Information Systems (GIS) such as DivSeek (a global information
system on genetic sequencing and related knowledge for seed,
proposed by the World Bank), since there is the possibility of the
use of this information expediting the further privatisation of
seeds through international legal systems.

We will fight for laws, policies and public programmes that support
and strengthen peasants and communities to continue with their
diverse and context-specific practices of plant breeding, selection,
production and distribution. We will fight for a more responsible
role for public sector activities based on ongoing democratic,
participatory and transparent processes of engagement with citizens
and inhabitants of our countries and regions. We will continue to
defend our rights to produce, use, exchange and sell all seed and
planting material. We will work to recover, maintain and expand the
use of native and local seed, and the revival of diverse food
cultures as the most effective routes to protect biodiversity. We
recognise the irreducible diversity that can only be managed through
peasant seed production systems and maintained by peasants as
breeders and users of seed.

We believe seeds are the people’s heritage in the service of
humanity that should be managed collectively, democratically and
sustainably. We reaffirm the centrality of agricultural producers as
the primary stewards of our collective genetic resources, especially
women peasants who continue to play a direct role in the maintenance
and enhancement of these resources. We commit to supporting peasant
households and communities in their stewardship, and to building
links with allies, wherever we may find them, to advance the cause
of food and seed sovereignty.

Organisations:

Acción Ecológica – Ecuador, Acción por la Biodiversidad – Argentina,
African Centre for Biodiversity – South Africa, Articulación
Nacional de Agroecología/Grupo de Trabajo en Biodiversidad,
Asociación Nacional para el Fomento de la Agricultura Ecológica –
ANAFAE- Honduras, Commons for EcoJustice – Malawi, Earthlife Africa
Durban, Fahamu Africa, Farmers’ Seed Network – China, GRAIN, Growth
Partners Africa, Grupo Semillas – Colombia, JINUKUN – COPAGEN,
Cotonou, Benin, Kenya Food Rights Alliance, Movimiento de Pequeños
Agricultores (MPA) – Brasil, Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana,
PELUM Association Zimbabwe, Red de Agrobiodiversidad en la Zona
Semiárida de Minas Gerais – Brasil, Red de Coordinación en
Biodiversidad – Costa Rica, Red Nacional para la defensa de la
Soberanía Alimentaria en Guatemala, REDSAG – Guatemala, Red por una
América Latina Libre de Transgénicos Swissaid Guinea-Bissau Zimbabwe
Smallholder Organic Farmers Forum (ZIMSOFF)

South-South Dialogue Participants (list available in original
document)

********************************************************

Apartheid Seed Law

Carol B. Thompson

Pambazuka News, June 3, 2015

[Excerpts only: for full text and references with explicit
comparisons to apartheid laws, see the original text at
http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category.php/features/94834]

[Carol Thompson is a professor emerita at Northern Arizona
University, a member of AGRA-Watch in Seattle, Washington, and co-
author with Andrew Mushita of Biopiracy of Biodiversity: Global
Exchange as Enclosure, which was featured in AfricaFocus after its
publication in 2007.]

Although political apartheid was dismantled by the 1994 election of
President Nelson Mandela, a new form of economic apartheid is now
stalking the entire African continent.

This new economic apartheid refers to the seed convention known as
UPOV91 (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants), advanced by the European Union, the United States, and the
World Bank presuming to protect plant breeders’ rights under the
World Trade Organization. The EU is requiring its implementation by
African governments as a prerequisite for trading under the Economic
Partnership Agreements (EPAs), scheduled for 2016.

UPOV91 gives exclusive proprietary rights to plant breeders, who
work in modern laboratories full of expensive equipment. The
convention gives these breeders, or their corporate sponsors,
private ownership over a new strain, extending property rights
beyond the seed, to the full plant, and to “essentially derived”
products (e.g., flour from wheat).

To obtain this legal ownership, the new variety must be distinct,
uniform, and stable (DUS), characteristics not found in farmers’
newly bred varieties after their experimentation in the fields. It
means that farmers’ new varieties are not protected by the UPOV
convention and remain free for the taking.

Farmer breeders do not desire seed traits that are highly stable,
for they are looking for nuances in traits in order to choose the
next seeds for breeding. As one farmer asked, “what do they mean by
‘heritage seed’? Aren’t the seeds changing all the time?”

During the 20 years of proprietary rights for breeders of DUS
varieties, no one can exchange, use, experiment or save the seed
without permission, a prohibition eradicating farmers’ rights to
work with any seeds. Because farmers have cultivated diverse food
crops over millennia, two international laws protect farmers’ rights
(International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture and the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological
Diversity). For African governments to incorporate UPOV91 into
national laws, they would have to violate these two treaties.

Farmers’ experimentation and freely sharing involve not only seeds
but the indigenous knowledge embedded in them. African farmers, for
example, know the hundreds of varieties of millets and sorghums or
teff, grains more nutritious than maize or rice or wheat, and ones
that are regaining interest on the continent because they grow well
in semi-arid conditions, while the more familiar maize varieties are
not standing up to climate change aridity. Smallholder African
farmers grow 20-25 crops on one hectare, sharing knowledge—sometimes
formally in farmer field schools but also daily in informal
ways—about which variety grows best under another crop, where to
place the various crops in terms of moisture percolation in the
small field, and especially, variable planting times in case the
rains come late, or start early. Farmers know the nutrition value of
their biodiverse crops, encouraging children and mothers to partake
more of one (e.g., pearl and finger millets) than of another
(cassava). And nutrition includes feeding the living soil with
leguminous plants rotated with grain crops.

Why would anyone want to destroy farmers’ experimentation and
knowledge? For the same reason apartheid reigned too long: it is
profitable. UPOV 91 offers another way to privatize a living
organism, accomplished more easily than the difficult job of
enforcing a patent across the globe.

[The following comparisons make clear the parallel to apartheid
laws, in establishing unequal rights to access to resources that are
essential for human survival.]

Segregation with inferiority

UPOV91 is trying to establish, by law, the inferior status of
smallholder farmers who breed and do scientific experiments in the
field. It legitimizes the corporate plant breeders’ entitlement and
presumed superiority. The normative law translates back into profit
for the corporations benefiting from PVP – plant variety protection.
This constructed distinction between two different types of breeding
becomes a “ritual of truth”.

Aesthetics of segregation

UPOV91 legitimizes the view that “real plant breeders” wear white
coats and work in a sparkling laboratory with the latest
instruments, while projecting that farmer breeders working in the
soil are inferior. Because they cannot produce DUS (distinct,
uniform, stable) seeds, they are not breeders. The Gates
Foundation’s Program for African Seed Systems (PASS) call farmers’
seeds “weak” and “recycled”, “used for decades”. Like apartheid
benches “for whites only” in the parks and on the beaches, only a
breeder of DUS seeds can sit on the laboratory stool as a recogn1zed
seed breeder; farmer breeders do not qualify.

Legal enforcement of apartheid

The pass laws, restricting the movement of Africans at all times,
became a core impetus for organ1zing against apartheid from the
Defiance Campaign (1952) through “making the townships ungovernable”
(1980s). Any “non-white” without a pass could be detained for 90
days, or more, without trial or notification of any lawyer.

Farmer breeders will not be summarily detained, but Canada has
already made violation of its UPOV-based law a criminal act, not a
civil offense. The U.S. courts have upheld Monsanto’s allegations
against hundreds of farmers that they stole a “Monsanto gene”, when
most often, pollen carried by wind fertilized the farmers’ crops.
With these precedents, the economic apartheid of UPOV91 will most
likely be strictly enforced by the courts.

Resistance

Civil society and farmers across the African continent are
organizing against UPOV91, but the threat of the looming European
trade agreements (EPAs) remains. Just as civil society resistance in
the North changed the context for domestic apartheid, the
international community needs to voice and organize rejection of
this apartheid seed law.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization recognizes two seed
systems: the formal one and farmers’, because all breeders are
essential to cultivate new food varieties in this time of climate
change. Further, farmers are more advanced breeders because their
new seeds are already “field tested”, whereas laboratory-bred seeds
often fail during field trials, not expressing the traits desired.
Let us not allow UPOV to gain any “sensibility of normalcy” in
segregating and denigrating farmer seed breeders:

The international community’s vociferous and sustained rejection of
this new economic apartheid would protect the future of food for us
all.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

The racist history of the 2nd amendment and why it matters today

Entrevista a Gerardo Hernandez, antiterrorista cubano
| January 18, 2016 | 8:21 pm | Cuban Five | Comments closed

Reply to: Elena Mora resigns from the CPUSA
| January 18, 2016 | 8:12 pm | About the CPUSA, Party Voices, political struggle | 1 Comment

By a CPC member

This letter was depressing to read.  How did she expect anyone to join the CPUSA after Webb and his crew started dismantling the party, ceased running candidates, liquidated the PW and became cheerleaders for the Democrats.  And how about all the loyal comrades they expelled or pushed out.  Even if the party does change its name, people will still know, or find out that it is the old CP.  The media will certainly let people know that.  And this new organization she wants to launch, will it only function at election time to back the democrats ?