Monday, January 5, 2015
Heather Callaghan
It appears that the EU is both vulnerable and sought after - economically and geopolitically.
Russia is making no bones about an open proposal to the EU. Essentially, dump the U.S. - don't join the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but join the Eurasian Economic Union, which went into effect January 1st. It's a call to join other members at the "cool table" - a promise of a better trading table.
Western sanctions led Russia to ban food imports from the West. Russia has consistently rejected GMOs and went even further to tighten GMO sanctions. Is it any wonder why they have a valid card to use sway with the EU? Meanwhile, the EU can ostensibly continue keeping its patrons happy with consumer freedom regarding GMOs (yet is has been heavily tempted to give that power right back to GE corporate interests). If the EU chooses America, then that means the import of GE foods. They are straddling some fences.
Russia has multiple ploys to "close the deal" with the E.U. One is to show them their bleak economic outlook. But another, no less, is to point to the bleak American food supply, even the non-GMO parts.
A free trade report in yesterday's Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (reported by Zero Hedge) states:
Russia has presented a startling proposal to overcome the tensions with the EU: The EU should renounce the free trade agreement with the United States TTIP and enter into a partnership with the newly established Eurasian Economic Union instead. A free trade zone with the neighbors would make more sense than a deal with the US.
The Russian Ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, said to the EU Observer :
Do you think it is really wise to put so much political energy into a free trade zone with the United States, while much more natural partner had at his side, in the immediate neighborhood? We do not treat our chickens in any case with chlorine. [emphasis added]
Furthermore, Germany's Minister of Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, didn't make an EU/American trade deal sound appealing when he said, "we can't protect every sausage." GMOs were a part of that conversation, too; and, lo and behold, during negotiations U.S. officials considered for the first time - GMO labeling! This shows that the U.S. government will not pay heed to its own consumers' desire for transparency and safety, but will if there is geopolitical benefit.
Unfortunately, other countries have ample reasons to be leery of entering or staying in trade deals with the U.S. Aside from food contamination scares (both GMO and non-GMO), the U.S. has burned some countries with unreasonable demands that protect corporate interests while threatening that country's residents. Guatemala discovered a hidden agenda that read like the Monsanto Protection Act. Brazil didn't want to act as a personal fine enforcer and medium for both the U.S. and Monsanto. China has had to reject major shipments of unapproved genetically engineered corn.
When it comes to activism and trying to focus passionately on one issue at a time, sometimes there is a temporary knowledge gap. For instance, trying to grasp the entire geopolitical and global economic picture of this current development is beyond the scope of this article.
However, when it comes to swift moves across the geopolitical chessboard, a nation's food supply has never been a separate issue. To fill in some gaps, it might help to read books by F. William Engdahl, because his book on GMOs and the food supply actually fits another puzzle piece with his other works on oil, money and geopolitics.
A tainted and toppling food supply isn't helping the United States - or even tempting the rest of the world at this point.
Image by author
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment