He admitted that 15 of them had been sent to facilities run by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), which comes in for the harshest criticism in this month’s UN report on the Afghan government’s treatment of “conflict-related” detainees. When interviewed by the UN half of those detained by the NDS said they had been tortured, most of them badly tortured. Mapp told the NZ Listener that “it appears” most of those 15 Afghans were sent to the NDS Kabul facility 17/40, which the UN says has torture allegations against it. The UN is following up these allegations.

Some of these 15 prisoners would likely have been transferred from 17/40 facility to most notorious NDS Kabul prison Department 90/124, which the UN says engages in systematic torture, including shock treatment and sexual assault. Department 90/124 specialises in interrogating “high value” suspects generally captures by special forces (including international forces)  –  and it seems the prime special forces unit operating in Kabul, targeting high value suspects, is the SAS/CRU unit.

There don’t appear to be any procedures to stop such transfers of prisoners. All our SAS does is note the names of the SAS/CRU prisoners and where they are first placed, and passes this information on to the NATO/ISAF office – which doesn’t have a system to follow up individual prisoners.

Most of the 58 prisoners taken by the SAS/CRU are presumably first detained in an Afghan National Police (ANP) facility. However, the UN reports significant transfer of prisoners between the ANP and the NDS, so several of these ANP prisoners probably ended up being tortured in the NDS 90/124 prison. If they had stayed in ANP custody they would have been better off – only 33 percent of ANP prisoners are tortured, according to the UN survey.

It is hard to see how our government can avoid contravening the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture by allowing our SAS to continue to operate in this environment.

Unfortunately, the resultant report, released this month, is far from adequate. It supports the Israeli view that the aid flotilla should never had taken place – calling it ‘reckless’ – and justifies the Israeli raid, with a qualification that the way the boarding took place was “excessive and unreasonable”. Israel is not even asked to apologise, only to issue “an appropriate statement of regret”.

Amazingly the Panel decided that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was legal and only about stopping gun runners. It conveniently ignored evidence that the blockade is primarily economic, aimed at collectively punishing the people of Gaza for continuing to support Hamas. Turkey disagrees with this finding and is going to the International Court of Justice to get a judgement on the legal status of the blockade.

The Panel report is a big step backwards from an earlier UN report, by the Human Rights Council, which found the Israeli commando action “betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality” and those responsible could be prosecuted. It also declared the blockade unlawful. Unlike the Palmer Panel, which simply relied on existing documentation, the HRC investigating body actually interviewed more than 100 witnesses to the raid.

This is a response to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression report, which I questioned Commerce Minister Simon Power on last week. He told me New Zealand had no response, however I wonder if he knew that our UN officials would be endorsing statements like “Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction” at the United Nations?

All in all, it’s a good speech by Sweden and I hope if we stand with other nations endorsing ‘strong protection of freedom of expression online in accordance with international human rights law’ at the UN, we can also apply those standards back home and ‘terminate’ internet termination from our law books.

Waihopai’s main task is to intercept global communications for the US National Security Agency (NSA). The Wikileaks documents inform us that the US has been blatantly violating international conventions with its detailed spying on UN figures, from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon down.

The information sought on UN leaders included personal passwords and encryption keys, credit card numbers, and “biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives”. Maybe Waihopai has helped the US get some of these details.

A lot of the information sought was clearly to advance American foreign policy aims, not New Zealand’s. One question posed is why should Waihopai be collecting information for the US on “plans by UN special rapporteurs to press for potentially embarrassing investigations into the US treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay”, to quote a Guardian summary of US directives contained in the documents.

The Guardian says the “operation targeted at the UN appears to have involved all of Washington’s main intelligence agencies”, presumably including our GCSB’s Big Brother, the NSA. The secret “national human intelligence collection directive” was sent by Hillary Clinton in July 2009 to 33 embassies and consulates, presumably including Wellington. We can assume it was implemented by the US Embassy staff here, particularly those with FBI, CIA and NSA assignments.

A lot of the documents are embarrassing governments, particularly in the Arab world, by showing they were more supportive of US foreign policy than they were admitting to their own people. I wonder if any of the Wikileaks documents shows this also applies in New Zealand? We’ll find out soon enough.

This fraud took place over seven years, from 2001 to 2008, with “a large number of NZDF employees” [Report, page 65] aware of the fraud, whereby the NZDF “topped” up the UN housing allowance those those officers seconded to the UN, in violation of the NZDF contract with the UN.

These NZDF employees included “Services directorate staff, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Air Force, Assistant Chief Strategic Commitments and Intelligence, Assistant Chief Personnel (A), Assistant Chief Personnel (B) and the Deputy Assistant Chief Personnel.”

Apart from the four staff seconded to the UN, only two unnamed staff have been censured, and we are not sure how severe the punishment was.

This means that “a large number of NZDF employees” including most of the senior members mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report, have got off scott free for knowingly condoning illegal activity by the NZDF.

This is not good enough.

It is all very well for the Chief of Defence Force, Jerry Mateparae to say that changes are underway. But how will we know there’s been a fundamental shift in what what the Auditor General calls a ‘command culture’ whereby staff are reluctant to criticise wrongdoing by their superiors. There’s a catch-22 for you.

There is rightly not much enthusiasm for our soldiers risking their lives for the Hamid Karzai regime. In April the UN Commissioner for Human Rights said that patronage, corruption and impunity have contributed to increased poverty. One third of the population lives in ‘absolute poverty’ and only 23% have access to safe drinking water. Aid is being diverted by ‘power-holders…to increase their personal gain and wealth.’ Province governors appointed by Karzai ‘rarely enjoy the support of their constituents.’

The sooner our SAS soldiers are home the better.

We consider it the minimum international standard for the protection of indigenous communities and their right to self determination.  The concept of self determination is protected in the UN Charter.  Indigenous communities are people too.

This battle has been going on for 20 years, and I would like acknowledge the Maori Party who have pressured the National Party into agreeing to adopt the Declaration.

The Declaration recognises and helps to protect the rights of Maori and it’s great that progress has at last been made

The struggle to have this declaration recognised has been a long time coming and I would like to pay tribute to all the people who have fought long and hard to see this day – including Moana Jackson, Aroha Mead, Nganeko Minhinnick to name only a few.

I would also like to pay my respects to Dr Erihapeti Rehu-Murchie, Alec Whiti-te-Ra Kaihau, and Dame Miraka Szaszy who fought for the recognition of the declaration and who are sadly no longer with us.

This is a particular achievement worthy of celebration – because John Key’s Government has been so hostile to the development of iwi and hapu rights.  We need only consider John Key’s opposition to Maori having seats in the Auckland supercity. 

National have only agreed to this because they continue to assert here at home that iwi and hapu interests remain subservient to their own, as we heard from Murray McCully this morning.

Placing restrictions or caveats on the Declaration is the wrong message to be sending, on what should be a day of celebration.  The Declaration was already watered down to meet the demands of nation States– it does not need to be watered down further by a National Government hostile to Maori interests.

One of the main objections to the signing of the Declaration, particularly by Labour has been the desire to amend the Declaration to make it consist with New Zealand domestic law.   One of the problems with this is that iwi and hapu rights under Te Tiriti do not have constitutional protection in New Zealand law, unlike in other countries.

We can see that failure in our domestic law in Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation and second in National’s foreshore proposal that simply mimics Labour’s.  

But today is a good day for iwi, Maori and for all New Zealanders. Our status as one of only three countries in the world not to sign the Declaration was an ongoing source of shame for us – both in the international community and at home.

We have an obligation to act as responsible global citizens.  New Zealand’s failure to support the Declaration has left many millions of indigenous people around the world without a framework for the protection of their human rights.  New Zealand has made a small step in favour of those vulnerable communities.

The Declaration gives our country another tool to work through the issues of colonisation and create a fair society based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Welcome to the Anthropocene, a new age of geological time – ScienceDaily

Panos ponders who will be the next UN climate chief

6 great environmental pranks comes from Mother Nature Network and not surprisingly features the Yes Men

Ms Fitzsimons, who retired from Parliament in February, was initially looking forward to spending more time at home on her Coromandel farm.

‘But Harry had everything under control really,’ she sighed. ‘And I was restless. I feel my talents are best put to use righting the world.’

Ms Fitzsimons denied that her primary motivation in seeking the job was so that she could be Helen Clark’s boss. ‘Although that is a very attractive prospect’, she giggled. ‘But seriously, I simply cannot sleep at night knowing that Helen is shovelling GE corn into the mouths of the world’s poor.’

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said that Ms Fitzsimons had the full support of the Green caucus. ‘We are delighted that our friend will be striding the halls of power in her flat shoes and cloth bag’, she said. ‘We need someone like her running the world!’

Mrs Turei also confirmed that Prime Minister John Key had been very supportive of the bid. ‘As far as he is concerned, one less greenie activist in the Coromandel has got to be a good thing right now!’ laughed Mrs Turei.

Ms Fitzsimons claimed that she wasn’t worried about the culture shock involved in swapping the farm for the frenetic pace of life in New York City. ‘The UN staff have assured me there will be room for my worm farm and herbal tea collection in the office’. Although she has concerns about how Harry will adjust. ‘He has been in a foul mood ever since I told him he can’t dig up Central Park to plant a vege garden.’

The Fitzsimons’ farm will be turned into the new campaign HQ for the Coromandel anti-mining movement. Ms Fitzsimons will take up her new role in June.

Last week (24 Sept) I questioned the Government in the House over its nuclear-free policy.

New Zealand Nat-Lab Governments have prided themselves in recent years over their pristine nuclear-free policy.  In the mid-1980s, we helped lead in the Pacific initiative to create the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone.  Then, unsatisfied with the weakness of the regional zone in allowing nuclear-armed warships to enter the harbours of treaty states, we legislated in Parliament against their entry into our own. 

New Zealand not only had rejected nuclear deterrence, foresworn the possession of nuclear weapons, and forbidden their deployment on our land, but had prohibited their existence in our harbours.

That was a Labour initiative. National opposed it bitterly at the time, swearing to reverse the policy and revive the ANZUS reliance on nuclear deterrence for our defence.  Back in power, they tore at their own caucus entrails through indecision before discovering that the nuclear-free policy enjoyed permanent majority support in the country.  Last week, PM John Key, beaming inclusively at everyone who moved, celebrated the policy as a child of National worldview.

ACT remains characteristically unrepentant.  Deputy leader Heather Roy last week in Taranaki, perhaps assuming no-one elsewhere was listening, lamented the absence of nuclear warships.  But then, the erstwhile representatives of consumers and taxpayers, ever the méchants, believe that climate change is a hoax.  At least up until 8 November 2008. 

The problem with Nat-Lab is the distinction they draw between the domestic and international dimensions of our nuclear-free policy.  At home we stand firm on banning nuclear weapons and repudiating nuclear deterrence, and calling for a nuclear-free world.  At the UN, we politically pick and choose between resolutions that reflect those goals. 

So we support resolutions, sponsored by Malaysia and Costa Rica, calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would introduce a global ban.  Yet we vote against India’s resolutions calling for similar goals. 

-       63/47 calling for a reduction in nuclear danger through revising nuclear strategic doctrines;

-       63/75 calling for a convention on the prohibition of use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. 

This was the issue I asked questions about in the House, asking if the Government would reverse its policy and support these resolutions this year.  After all, the Prime Minister had, on 8 April, assured me during Question Time that New Zealand always supports all nuclear-free resolutions at the UN. 

But no, was the reply last week.  We shall not support those resolutions since we do not wish to accord India any ‘nuclear disarmament credentials’, given it has refused to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What the Government fails to acknowledge is that India’s resolutions are consistent with our nuclear-free policy.  We are therefore voting, not on the basis of logical consistency of our policy but on a political judgement that second-guesses the sponsor’s motives. 

If we were to do that to all countries we would not support anyone or anything.

India is not perfect but neither is it nefarious.  In its complacent way, the NZ Government fails to acknowledge that India, for some 30 years (1960s to ’90s) had called for a nuclear-free world, criticising the nuclear-weapon retention of the major powers for their failure to meet their obligations.  These are:

-          Their binding legal obligation under the NPT to negotiate in good faith nuclear disarmament measures leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons from their national arsenals;

-          Their obligation under the UN Charter to formulate a global arms regulatory system. 

To assist them in these goals, India had formulated in the 1980s a 20-year phase-out plan for the global elimination of nuclear weapons.  The major powers steadfastly ignored it. 

In the ‘80s, I used to work within MFAT on our nuclear-free policy, being part of the negotiating team for the South Pacific Zone and defending our policy in Geneva and New York. We worked closely with India then and engaged in the same critique of the nuclear powers.  In those days we believed what we said.

India always explained that its forbearance of nuclear weapons for itself was not unlimited.  By 1998, it moved concurrently with Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons, some 24 years after its first nuclear test.  Bilateral nuclear deterrence has prevailed in South Asia since then, just as it did between the US and USSR for 40 years, justified by the US as the only stable way of securing global security.

So, India has effectively remained consistent with its national security policy for the past 40 years – foreswearing the nuclear weapon option for the first half and acquiring them during the second half.   

This is not to defend or rationalise Indian strategic policy.  We all aspire to a nuclear-free world – or at least say we do.  It is simply to explain that India’s policy is as normal and (un)justifiable as US strategic policy.  Being ‘refused the status of a nuclear weapon state under the terms of the NPT’, as the major powers have insisted, rests fairly lightly on India’s and Pakistan’s shoulders.  Of course, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is not allowed to be discussed in the Security Council at all.

So, when we apply our nuclear-free policy, we should be applying our policy with logical consistency, not with self-serving political considerations of voting with NATO when we think it is politically expedient.

And so, when the PM trumpets our nuclear-free policy as if he has just recently discovered its merits and as if we are leading the world, just point out to him that he should apply his considerable intellect to ensuing a logical consistency and a healthy political balance.

If he is going to be a world leader, he needs to understand the global village.

Dr Ken Graham launching the Bill, July 2009  - image courtesy Scoop

My International Non-Aggression Bill met its Maker last Members’ Day (23 Sept.) in the House.  While that was disappointing, it was not all doom and gloom.

First off, the vote was a respectable one  – 64 against (National-ACT) 58 for (Greens, Labour, Maori Party).

Secondly, the Bill has generated considerable interest around the world, being distributed to MPs in about 100 countries and being emulated by some colleagues in the Argentine Senate.  Consideration is being given to some comparable work in the UK Parliament.

I always knew it would be a big ‘ask’ of this Government to criminalise international aggression (in violation of the UN Charter) in domestic criminal law.  And so it proved.

They want the freedom to circumvent any veto in the Security Council, in the name of the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine.

I have never been in need of advice about ‘Responsibility to Protect’, having addressed this issue as a consultant to Kofi Annan’s UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change back in ‘04.  But where I differ from the Government is that we cannot have it both ways.

You cannot insist on the freedom accorded by that doctrine to use force that is not sanctioned by the UN and deny the same freedoms to other major powers (Russia, China).  Not, at least, if you apply minimal standards of logic and political integrity.  The freedom for the West to intervene in Kosovo, which our Defence Minister unctuously cited would have to be married with the freedom of another major power to intervene militarily on behalf of, say, Palestine against Israel.

So, as long as we insist on, or acquiesce in, retaining the veto, we must accept the consequences.  My Bill never sought to change international law on non-aggression – it simply held up the mirror to all countries about transforming our state responsibility for non-aggression under the UN Charter into an individual legal obligation in domestic criminal law.  In other words, putting our criminal liability where our mouth is.

As it happens, ‘aggression’ is likely to become an international crime as part of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction within the next year.

That is, three core crimes are already part of the ICC jurisdiction (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity).  These are already crimes in NZ domestic law.  Aggression is likely to be added next year.  Then, this Government will be obliged to address the issue of translating it into domestic criminal law.

It is a shame they could not take the step this year, but likely they will be required to do so, next year or shortly thereafter.

Meanwhile, the Government could also have accepted the other part of my Bill – requiring it to obtain a written legal opinion of the Attorney-General affirming the legality of any proposed deployment of our troops overseas – and table it in Parliament for deliberation at least seven days in advance of an executive decision.

Its refusal to do that displays a 19^th-century mindset.  The message to the public and to Parliament is – don’t worry your pretty little heads on these great issues of state.  International law is too arcane for you to understand.  It is best left to the high-priesthood – international lawyers closeted in the Foreign and Defence Ministries.  We, the Government, assure you that anything New Zealand does is always in accord with international law.  Now, no more questions – it is time for bed.

That doesn’t wash in the 21^st century.  The public, including many international lawyers outside government, know about international law and global security.  They can follow matters as closely as diplomats and politicians.  And it will no longer be fobbed off on that score.

The public has a right to know the precise legal basis on which our armed forces operate overseas.  It is unpatriotic, and self-demeaning, for any NZ Government to talk down to the public on matters of such high importance.

The ‘non-aggression’ issue is not about to go away.  I expect to remain active on this for some time to come.  And it will be the Government undertaking policy change over the next few years, not the Green Party.

The Yes Men, Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonann, have done it again! Ahead of a UN summit on climate change, they distributed nearly one million spoof copies of the New York Post. Having come out brazenly as climate change deniers, New Yorkers were surprised to see the right wing rag emphatically change its tune.

The full on line version can be found here.

Images courtesy of Radio Live

*****

The three Kiwi soldiers in Afghanistan might have seen it as a bit of harmless fun. To help a drink promotion they slapped a Demon sticker reading “No Limits, No Laws” on a 2000 lb bomb attached to the undercarriage of a [presumably] American plane at [presumably] Bagram airbase. The NZ Defence Force has logistics liaison personnel at Bagram.

All very funny, except that Bagram base is notorious for torturing Afghan prisoners under a “No Limits, No Laws” principle. In fact, American soldiers tortured several Afghans to death. This is now being looked in to.

Some of the prisoners mistreated at Bagram may have come from an earlier Kiwi SAS contingent. It is known that in 2002 our SAS handed over to the American forces 70 prisoners, without any follow-up about what happened to them.

It’s true that the treatment of prisoners might have improved under Obama, but I haven’t yet seen that Bagram prison has been given a clean bill of health.

Also, Bagram has been the launch-pad for many American airstrikes criticised even by the UN Secretary General for killing too many civilians.

Wedding parties and the like have been bombed. The Americans have operated their air war on a “No [Geneva] Laws” principle regarding “collateral” civilian damage”.

We now hear that American strategy has changed, and they are engaged more in “surgical” air strikes. Funny then how they are still using 2000 pound bombs. It doesn’t sound very surgical.

Greens Sport the 350 Look

Green MPs support Bill McKibben’s campaign to reduce carbon in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, down from the current 389 ppm which is going up every year.  Scientists believe this would keep the global temperature rise to less than 2C.

Meanwhile, the NACT government struggles with denial.  National’s “target” is a 50% reduction by 2050.  And while the Nats have also adopted the IPCC target of 450 ppm, they’ve ignored that the IPCC also says an 80% emissions cut is needed by 2050 to achieve it.  

National’s targets are meaningless without a programme for reaching them.  After complaining last year that emissions went up during Labour’s reign, they’ve done little besides reverse the few positive steps Labour took during its last term and create confusion in the market by delaying the ETS.

New Zealand is looking increasingly silly overseas, last week “winning” the Fossil of the Day award in Bonn, given by a group of environmental NGOs to countries that block progress at the United Nations climate change negotiations.   With the successor agreement to Kyoto to be completed at Copenhagen in December, our Parliament is still mired in a false debate about the science. 

Perhaps they’re not bothered by this confusion as their true intentions were signalled in the budget.  Roads, roads and more roads will see any target not only missed, but will send Aotearoa in the opposite direction (and “clean” coal is just around the corner?).   Nick Smith says everything will be fine, but he seems to be talking to himself these days. Certainly his government is not listening.

If the government had a Green New Deal type of approach, it could put forward solutions that would build resilience into our economy by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, while at the same time allowing us to take a meaningful part in the global discussion on climate change mitigation.  Instead, this NACT government is making sure New Zealand won’t be joining the international consensus anytime soon.

It is a cogent reminder that when we remain silent in the face of arcane legislation like the current Immigration Bill or last year’s Terrorism Amendment Act, we allow those who would take our rights to chip away at them quietly. We also allow illegal detention and torture to flourish in the forgotten corners of our world.

Yesterday was World Food Day. World Food Day began in 1979 established by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The aim of the day is to heighten public awareness of the world food problem and strengthen solidarity in the struggle against hunger, malnutrition and poverty. In 1980, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed observance of the day in consideration of the fact that “food is a requisite for human survival and well-being and a fundamental human necessity”

And it even has an anthem. Well, not really…

in a resource-constrained post-peak, climate changing world, there won’t be enough to go around. We won’t be able to help the whole world, therefore removing all incentive for them to attack us.

And that seems to be the problem that small islands around the world are struggling with too – what does peak oil and climate change mean for international security?
This week small island nations are tabling a UN resolution [pdf] calling on the UN Security Council to address climate change as a pressing threat to international peace and security. The resolution is sponsored by the states of Fiji, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu  and … Canada (which is not quite as small and islandy?)

Avaaz has a supportive petition you can sign that island ambassadors aim to present to the UN General Assembly & Security Council saying action is needed now:

global climate negotiations must accelerate to deliver a strong deal in time to prevent catastrophe, as well as protecting those forced to relocate as a result of global warming. Our common future requires the United Nations to address the international climate crisis with at least as much urgency as it gives to matters of war and peace.

According to Avaaz Palau’s President Remengesau recently said:

“Palau has lost at least one third of its coral reefs due to climate change related weather patterns. We also lost most of our agricultural production due to drought and extreme high tides. These are not theoretical, scientific losses–they are the losses of our resources and our livelihoods…. For island states, time is not running out. It has run out. And our path may very well be the window to your own future and the future of our planet”.

The blog Islands First covers the issue of climate change and security well and in some detail if you want to read more.

Georgia has had the bulk of the good will in the international media to date – probably because people in the West remember fondly Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003.  But that does not fairly reflect the shared desire by both sides to warmonger.

On the other side Russia has again shown that the five permanent members of the Security Council do not have the necessary balance and lack of bias to be exercising the role that they do.  Russia’s involvement in this conflict means that we cannot expect the United Nations to respond in the way that will save the most lives and lead to long term peace.  This is a shame because compromises like that give bodies with less democratic ideals, such as NATO, added legitimacy.  Which possibly brings us back to where we started?

“Climate change is today one of the main drivers of forced displacement, both directly through impact on environment – not allowing people to live any more in the areas where they were traditionally living – and as a trigger of extreme poverty and conflict.”

The 37 million people that the United Nations classifies as refugees does not include those people escaping natural disasters or poverty – only those fleeing conflict and persecution.  It also does not include those who flee their homes but remain in their home countries. In 2007 there were estimated to be 26 million of them.

In a case study of environmental refugees the Guardian outlines the situation for the 2.7 million Sudanese displaced from their homes as a result of the Darfur conflict.

[I]t was fuelled by longstanding competition between mostly Arab nomads and African farmers for scarce water and land after years of worsening drought. Herders who were once allowed to graze their camels on farmers’ land because their droppings helped fertilise the soil found themselves increasingly blocked by farming communities…

Some experts have argued that Darfur represents an early example of a new wave of conflicts driven by competition for land and water in a world of increasing scarcity. High food prices, also a result in part of climate change, have also triggered unrest in nearly 40 countries.

Situations like this make the moral imperative to address climate change even more urgent before further people are hurt.  But they also add the need to ameliorate the suffering that climate change is already causing.

“Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable,” said the report.

And the report’s Chief Scientist says “The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is ‘no’.�?

Yet, powerful countries with large GE lobbies like the USA, UK, Australia and Canada are currently not endorsing the report. So it seems some will continue to defend GE even when it fails to deliver on its most crucial promise.