MARCH 2004

French Intellectuals
Attack 'War On Intelligence'
By Jon Henley
The Guardian - UK
2-18-4

PARIS -- More than 20,000 French artists, thinkers, film-makers, scientists, lawyers, doctors and academics have signed a petition accusing the centre-right government of "waging war on intelligence" and instituting "a new state anti-intellectualism".

In a campaign bound to inflame passions in France, where penseurs are accorded the kind of respect most countries reserve for their rock stars, the signatories denounced a "coherent policy" to "pauperise and fragilise every field considered ... unproductive, useless or dissident".

Among the better-known names to have signed the document, published in today's issue of Les Inrockuptibles magazine, are the philosopher Jacques Derrida, film-makers Bertrand Tavernier and Claude Lanzmann, theatre director Ariane Mnouchkine, novelist Marie Darrieusecq, the former Socialist culture minister Jack Lang and Danny Cohn-Bendit, hero of the May 1968 student uprising.

The collected professions "of knowledge, thought and research" are under systematic attack from a state-sponsored philistinism intent on reducing the complexities of Gallic public debate to a series of "simplistic and terrifying" alternatives, the protesters say: "For or against Islamic veils? Left-leaning magistrates or too-tough cops? Artists - are they idlers or profiteers?"

The charge of anti-intellectualism is a highly damaging one in France, whose present-day Left Bank thinkers can draw on a rich tradition that includes the likes of Voltaire, Rousseau and Sartre.

Paris remains one of very few places in the world where postmodern structuralists or relativist post-structural modernists can harbour realistic hopes of making it in television.

Sylvain Bourmeau, a journalist at Les Inrockuptibles and one of the petition's organisers, said that at one stage last week, email signatures were coming in at the rate of 700 an hour. The magazine will publish the first 8,000 names over 17 pages this morning, he said.

"We are aiming to mobilise all those whose work involves some kind of mediation, which in turn demands a detour via comprehension - in other words, all that this government is currently short-circuiting in the name of political and PR efficiency," he added.

Perhaps unwisely, the blokeish prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who prides himself on his man-of-the-people touch, has never been shy about confessing his suspicion of thinkers, savaging "those who suppose themselves to be great intellectuals" as recently as last October. His centre-right government has enraged many of France's "intellectual professions" recently.

Moves to regulate the status of psychotherapists provoked the fury of a whole generation of analysts, while fully 40,000 scientists denounced swingeing cuts in state funding and the loss of some 550 postgraduate research jobs this year.

Lawyers, meanwhile, are up in arms at a bill passed last week which they say radically extends police and prosecutors' powers at the expense of justice and human rights, while magistrates are seething at the ruling UMP party's public criticism of the sentence handed down recently to its chairman, Alain JuppÈ.

Schoolteachers walked out several times last year over plans to reorganise the state education system and cut back on classroom assistants; university chancellors threatened not to sign budgets because of "catastrophic" shortfalls in funding; and actors, musicians and dancers are still furious at reforms to their unemployment insurance which they say put the performing arts sector at risk.

"Of course there are huge differences between all these groups," Mr Bourmeau said. "But the political job we are doing here is to bring them all together and underline the basic similarities of their situations."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1150451,00.html

Austrian Observations on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture 2004
Critical
Observations Regarding the
Use of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
and Food

By Josef Hoppichler, Federal Institute for Less-Favored and Mountainous Areas
2/2/2004 GAIN Report Number: AU4002

"Our knowledge of Biotechnology does not even amount to one pico-percent ..."

DID YOU KNOW ...

• ... that all in all, only 10 scientific (peer-reviewed) studies have been published on the health effects of GM-food and feed (4 articles among these publications were published by the group around Arpad Pusztai and S. Ewen)?

(Pryme I, 2003. In-vivo studies on possible health consequences of GM-Food a. Feed, Nutrition and Health, 2003, Vol. 17, pp. 1-8. Despite the fact that the world is full of scientific opinions on the non-hazardous nature of GM-food, "there is only very limited data on the safety of GM-food." (Domingo JL (2000), Health risks of genetically modified foods: many opinions but few data, Science, 288, 1748-1749)

• ... that in many cases, the form of integration of the various synthetic genetic constructions as well as their integration frequencies into the various different plant genomes are not exactly known, and that the stability of integration is more than questionable (e.g. jumping genes)?

(Mae-Wan Ho, Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TLPU.php Collonier C. et al., Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. www.crii-gen.org)

• ... that we do not know the exact composition of the new proteins, let alone their folding, and that feeding attempts or various allergenicity tests have been carried out on the basis of the bacterial proteins only?

(Cf. e.g. Kawata M., Pacific Ecologist, Nov. 2003: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/SOO113.htm)

• Regarding the evaluation of EU authorization dossiers: "Experimental toxicological investigations have only been carried out sporadically .... In none of the cases, potential toxicology-relevant effects of the insertion of genes were considered .... In none of the applications (for authorization) was the direct examination of the potentially allergenic properties of the genetically modified plant and/or the genetically modified plant product supported by experiments ...."

(SPÖK A., HOFER H., VALENTA R., KIENZL-PLOCHBERGER K., LEHNER P., GAUGITSCH H.: Toxikologie und Allergologie von GVO-Produkten (Toxicology and Allergology of GMO-products), Monographien Band 109, UBA (Federal Environment Agency), Wien (Vienna) 2002.

• ... that particularly in connection with the use of herbicide-resistant plants such as the Roundup Ready soybean, Roundup has a toxic effect upon sperm in mammals and has a potential of damaging the hormone balance?

(Yousef MI. et al., J Environ Sci Health B. 1995, July 30(4): 513-34; Walsh LP. et al., Roundup inhibits steroidogenesis by disrupting steroidogenic acute regulatory (StAR) protein expression, Environ Health Perspect. 2000, Aug. 108(8): 769-76)

• ... that 43 % of children reported by their parents as showing severe attention deficit disorders (ADD/ADHD) had fathers who applied "Phosphonamino" herbicide?

(Garry VF. et al, Birth Defects, Season of Conception, and Sex of Children Born to Pesticide Applicators Living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA, Environ Health Perspect. 2002, 110 Suppl. 3:441-9)

• ... that analyses of the Danish "Pesticide Leaching Assessment Programme" found glyphosate and its degradation products in groundwater above the warning concentration of 0.1µg/l? Denmark has thus restricted the application of Roundup.

GMOs cannot be contained - coexistence is impossible in small-scale farming structures!

DID YOU KNOW ...

• ... that in Western Canada, approximately 2.25 million hectares of Roundup oilseed rape (Canola) are cultivated randomly in terms of geographic distribution, and that on account of the broad application of Roundup by way of ploughless cultivation, the entire second growth as well as ruderal populations are extremely contaminated with GM-oilseed rape, and that double resistances (glyphosate, gluphosinate) are not uncommon?

(Cf. e.g. R.C. Van Acker et al, GM/non-GM what co-existence in Canada: Roundup Ready what as a case study. http://www.agrsci.dk/gmcc-03/gmcc_proceedings.pdf)

• If politics were to establish a threshold of 0.1% of GMO-contamination, coexistence of GM and non-GM cultivation would not be possible. The consumer is practically expected to accept a constant minimum GMO-share in food of up to 0.09% percent without being aware of it.

(Cf. e.g. AEBC (2003), Coexistence and Liability Report,

http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/coexistence_liability.shtml)

The Precautionary Principle:

• Open questions: Effects upon food: toxicology, nutritional physiology, immunology, allergenic potential, endocrine effect?

• Open questions: Effects upon the environment: e.g. outcrossings, non-target organisms?

• Result: There is no safe model of prognosis:

Scientific opinions are extremely weakly founded, "... there is no evidence to indicate that the placing on the market ... is (not) likely to cause adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment."

Even opinions of leading scientific bodies contain mistakes:

The opinion on T25 maize of the EU-SCP, for example, has been corrected:

"... and the herbicide tolerance trait should not transfer to any other varieties of cultivated maize" had to be removed, which is why the opinion was published twice. ("To err is human")

• Approaches: Rio Declaration of Principles, CBD, Biosafety Protocol, SPS Agreement

• Criteria contained also in the EU Treaty (Article 174) - Precaution and Prevention:

In developing its environmental policy, the Community takes into account

1. the available scientific and technical data;

2. the environmental conditions of the individual regions of the Community;

3. the economic and social development of the Community on the whole as well as the balanced development of its regions.

Further Demands: proportionate; non-discriminating; harmonized with measures previously taken; based on cost-benefit evaluations; constantly examined as to the scientific background; clear regulations regarding the burden of proof; questions as to reversibility.

• Backgrounds - other criteria:

Hormone administration to farm animals, rBST, BSE (mad cow disease), ... but also the multi-dimensional structure of European agriculture and the multi-functional requirements, i.e. strong overlapping of agricultural and living spaces.

Prospects for non-GM Areas

• Non-GM areas are necessary

1. in order to link the protection of biodiversity with sustainable agriculture (no release in nature protection zones; cf. FSE in GB)

2. in order to provide development areas for organic farming

3. in order to make available consolidated areas for non-GM seed production

4. in order to guarantee a non-GM preservation of plant genetic resources

5. as balancing and regeneration areas in case of unforeseen developments

• "Polluter Pays" Principle has to apply to GMO-contamination:

Letter by Tom Daschle (U.S. Senate Democratic Majority Leader, November, 2001) in the course of the ITPGR negotiations:

"Finally, any damages caused to farmers through lower prices, lost markets or contamination due to genetically modified products should be reimbursed by the company producing any such product."
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Austria.php

I HAVE RECEIVED COPY OF A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(jbraddell.ed.):
ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION (PATRIOTIC FRONT)-ZANU (PF)
EXTERNAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
06 February 2004

Mr. Patrick Cox MEP
The President
EU Parliament AEP
13G306 Rue Wietz
1047 Brussels

RESPONSE TO THE CONTINUED BRITISH ON-SLAUGHT ON ZIMBABWE IN THE EU PARLIAMENT

On Thursday, January 15, 2004 the British moved a resolution, in the European Union (EU) Parliament, for the renewal and tightening of sanctions against Zimbabwe. This resolution was adopted by a majority of members of the EU basing their decision on the falsehoods and lies peddled by the British.

We note, with the contempt it deserves, this continued British initiative to influence EU members to follow the racist and dictatorial footsteps of the Tony Blair regime. The British have gone to great lengths to influence, misinform and threaten some of the EU members who have been reluctant to follow their footsteps.

Through the resolution, mooted by the British, all black people of Zimbabwe, regardless of party affiliation, have become enemies of the European Union. This resolution has exposed the British for what they really are: racist liars; because the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are not selective. They hurt every innocent, ordinary person in Zimbabwe more than they do ZANU (PF) or Government leaders. This resolution was moved and supported by a group of people who purport to up-hold human rights. What is human or right in causing suffering to innocent people in Zimbabwe or in Iraq where no weapons of mass destruction were found?

The resolution has nothing to do with human rights because the indigenous people of Zimbabwe, that the resolution seeks to punish, are the only people in this world who have the right to their Zimbabwean land in the same way as the Germans, French and British have the right to land in their respective countries. This leads us to question: which human rights and whose human rights are the British seeking to uphold and protect?

It is evident that, to the British, upholding human rights means enshrining the old eighteenth century, tendencies and legacy of white domination practiced by the colonialists in Rhodesia. Because of the British desire to make the common people of Zimbabwe suffer from the effects of sanctions, we question whether the British classify all black people in Zimbabwe, as human beings with rights. In imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe the British and Europeans are behaving like saboteurs of our economy. Then, after doing that, they wonder why our economy is doing badly and blame us for mismanaging it. They become experts at blaming their victims. How else could our economy do better when Europe is imposing sanctions against it?

The EU Parliament expressed" disappointment that sanctions, in practice, have not worked". This is in-spite of the suffering that these sanctions have caused to the common man in Zimbabwe. And, so our people have to suffer because they did not vote for Morgan Tsvangirai in the 2002 Presidential Elections! That is how democracy functions for the British and Europeans: small countries have to do what the Europeans want or else sanctions are imposed against them.

The British concern is not for democracy. If it were so, they would have accepted that President Mugabe won the Presidential Elections better than Mr. George Bush did in the USA.

They would have been concerned about the application of democracy to the Australia Aborigines, the New Zealand Maoris,  the Red Indians in the USA and the Eskimos in Canada. The democratic representation of these groups of people leaves much to be desired but it does not matter to Europe because these indigenous people are not of European origin. These people live in former British colonies. Britain does not worry about them because they are not British. It worries about former Rhodesians because they are British. We can see through this blatant racism by people concerned about human rights.

What they term failure, on their part, is in reality, their failure to stop the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe. Well, there is no going back on this land programme! The British and Europeans should accept that black people are the rightful owners of the land in Zimbabwe and that colonialism is dead and buried. They should realize that Africans are living in the twenty-first and not in the eighteenth century. A new era of self- determination is unfolding.

We express our warm gratitude to those European countries that voted against the resolution for renewed and tougher sanctions against Zimbabwe. We appreciate their solidarity and respect for our sovereignty.

To those countries that voted for "death" of the ordinary Zimbabwean, we hope they too will see the light and the true facts of the Zimbabwean story. We also hope that the Europeans and the British will practice what they preach: that is, democracy, human rights, equality of all men, and the respect for law and other people's sovereignty.

We urge our brothers in the African Union and in Southern Africa to ignore the threats made against them by the British at the EU Parliament. As colonialists the British are determined to divide and rule us.

To fellow brothers and sisters within Zimbabwe, particularly those who have chosen to align themselves with British interests, we ask: must you betray your people and facilitate the re-colonization of your country? Are you true "sons of the soil?"
D.N.E. Mutasa
SECRETARY FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS

CC: EU Diplomats in Zimbabwe
        African Diplomats


Charity begins at home for African women and women of African descent.

UK and France to take new defence step

The UK and France are to join forces to create highly-trained, rapid-deployment units for combat in jungle, desert and mountain operations, according to the Financial Times.

The plan, which is to be unveiled this week, is part of general aim of Paris and London to strengthen European defence.

It sets out a detailed agenda and timetable describing how and where the new units will conduct missions, and at what level they will be trained. London and Paris want the units to work closely - but not exclusively - with the United Nations, says the FT.

The initiative is open to all EU states but the main criterion for other countries joining is "ultimately military effectiveness".

The UK and France are aiming to have the plan accepted by all member states by the end of June with troops available by 2007.

Press Articles  Yahoo France  Independent  Financial Times  

Big three want to reshuffle Commission

France, Germany and the UK want to see the European Commission revamped so that it is better able to pursue industry policy.

British prime minister Tony Blair, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French president Jacques Chirac will use their summit in Berlin tomorrow (18 February) to call for a "rebundling" of portfolios to give priority to industry and innovation policy, report German and UK media.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Berlin wants to see a "super-commissioner" created who would oversee the work of existing internal market, environment, trade and industry commissioners.

The proposed "restructuring" would create a hierarchy of commissioners, with prominence given to portfolios tasked with boosting the EU's competitiveness, reports the FT.

From November this year, there will be 25 Commissioners - currently there are 20 - leading to concern that small portfolios will be created just to give each commissioner something to do.

Commission President Romano Prodi has in the past argued that there should be teams of Commissioners concentrating on different areas.
(And will there be any Ombudsman investigating and preventing competitive and political strategies among EU Members, re. internet spying, corporate buy-overs etc.? In an old magazine today I read that industrialists sometime before the end of World War Two were already preparing a European Union.jb.editor)