The Agribusiness Empire and Iraq

I've been reading about a subject that seems far removed from the U. S. presence in the Middle East: the philosophy of unlimited and rapid economic growth, the effects of that philosophy on the environment and on communities, the limitations of that philosophy. In his book, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, Bill McKibben argues against America's secular religion of "More Means Better." He describes how a growth economy will ultimately meet its end in ecological disaster. Steady and rapid growth, as has occurred in the West since the discovery of fossil fuels, has led to increased consumption of natural resources. There are limits to those resources. McKibben suggests ways to ward off that disaster and to address the issues of decreased resources.

Americans have exported to the rest of the world the philosophy of "More Means Better," of the efficiency of the marketplace. The consequences, according to McKibben, will be astronomical. Every American, he writes, "uses 6 times as much as the average Mexican, 38 times as much as the average Indian, 531 times as much as the man in the Ethiopian street. That gives you," he continues, "some rough idea of what it would mean if most of the rest of the world even approached our level of consumption" (184).

The American dream these days seems not to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," so much as "buying stuff in all those malls and outlets." Go shopping, our president tells us in times of crisis. We're exporting the religion of consumption and corporate hegemony.

So I get to the last chapter in the book and see how even this subject connects to the war in Iraq. Here's the draw-dropping quote:

In Iraq, one of the first laws adopted by the U.S.-led transition government of 2003 protected the patenting of plants and seeds, even though 97 percent of Iraqi farmers used seeds saved from their own crops or from local markets to grow their food. "The new law is presented as being necessary to ensure the supply of good quality seeds in Iraq, and to facilitate Iraq's membership in the World Trade Organization," reported the GRAIN, an international organization promoting sustainable agriculture. "What it will actually do is facilitate the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow Chemical." Does this sound overly suspicious? Daniel Amstutz, the man named by the U.S. government to oversee agriculture reconstruction in Iraq, was a former Cargill executive. "It's like putting Saddam Hussein in the chair of a human rights commission," one observer said. "This guy is uniquely well-placed to...bust open the Iraqi market, but singularly ill-equipped to lead a reconstruction effort in a developing country." (193)

I'm no leftist, and I don't want to think that the war in Iraq was an excuse for American corporate hegemony. But when I read stuff such as this, I get mighty suspicious. My Republican father is an avid gardener and an heirloom seed saver. He is always railing against those huge agri-businesses that patent seeds and plants. Would he be surprised, I wonder, to see this connection between the war in Iraq and seed-patenting? I sure was.

Here's the link to the article McKibben quotes, on the website of GRAIN: "Iraq's new patent law: A declaration of war against farmers"

UPDATE:

In re-reading this post, I realize that I come across as more naive than I really am. Of course, the Iraq war is connected to the philosophy of unlimited growth and our dependence upon resources that are diminishing. There are plenty of dictators in the world who abuse their citizens and a few who pose a threat to our country, yet we have not invaded their country. Iraqi oil and Iraq's proximity to other Middle Eastern countries with oil resources factored into our invasion of that country. I'm not saying it's the only reason; I'm saying it's one important reason. But what surprises me is that as soon as the CPA is in place, the first laws that organization passes include seed-patenting laws, laws that benefit American agribusiness. When everything is going to hell in Iraq, when the Iraqis are being slaughtered and there's looting in the streets, our government has time to pass seed-patenting laws. That's what I find jaw-droppingly unbelievable. And so it goes.

When all else fails...

This Life

Now I sip this wine as red as the sky this morning
maroon, almost, just above the pines on these last
ridges of the Appalachians, where Georgia clay
soon gives way to the sand of ancient seas.
It's fall, and the maple trees are yellow,
so brilliant in the early sun against the longleaf green.
I wanted to take you out in that bright day,
along some ridge where I would park and point
to you the green horizon, the possibilities from which
I choose to fashion this calm life.

Did I say calm? Appearances are deceiving.
The steady way in which I learn the landscape,
the history of each place I've lived, the flora--
see the wild ginger there? tear that heart-
shaped leaf and sniff its clove-like scent--
is but a palliative for the vertigo of change.
But what I cannot place in some still center of earth or sky
is now subsumed by will into this smaller canvas.

poem by Anita D-G

Propeller trillium

Bird's Foot Violet

Photos by Tom G at Fort Mountain State Park, Georgia (April 2008)

"A Tempting Prize"

"In the 1830s almost the entire Cherokee Nation was forced west by state and federal troops on the infamous Trail of Tears. The Vann family lost their elegant home, rebuilding in the Cherokee Territory of Oklahoma."And so it goes.

"Message Force Multipliers"

I haven't written a post lately because I've been busy reading, gardening, and working, and national news is just so dispiriting to me. Right-wing pundits are fond of claiming that liberals have no "moral values," but I seem to have a surfeit. As my previous entries indicate, I'm disgusted by our leaders' willingness to scuttle the Geneva Conventions and to stretch and distort the definition of torture. Too many such decisions of the present administration have led to immoral, illiberal, and anti-democratic consequences. Having lowered the bar in governing behavior, will a new administration be capable of raising the bar sufficiently to restore America's standing in the world and to restore trust to the American public?

Yesterday, The New York Times published an investigative report on how the Pentagon successfully countered any negative criticism with well-orchestrated responses from military analysts who were courted by the Pentagon, many of whom also traded on their contacts with Pentagon officials to line their own pockets through military contracts. The link is here: "Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand."

And here are a few discouraging quotes from the article:

• "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.'"
• "Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary....The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda."
• "In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself."
• " Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads [retired
  Army lieutenant colonel, Fox analyst, vice-president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies] said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV."
• "Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air."

And so it goes.