Category Archives: Uncategorized

U.S. wins trade dispute, forces Mexico to end GM corn restrictions

by Jim Hodgson

A trade dispute panel has ruled against Mexico’s restrictions on the use of genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) corn, siding with the United States in forcing Mexico to allow the use of GM corn for food. Canada backed the U.S. position. 

The decision, announced Friday afternoon, Dec. 21, is another demonstration of how free trade agreements are used to undermine policy options made in the public interest.

Mexico City’s La Jornada daily newspaper contains an excellent series of articles today about the consequences for Mexican agriculture of 30 years of free trade with the United States and Canada; climate change is another factor in the fall of production.

In Mexico, a coalition of 300 farming, Indigenous and environmental groups said the Mexican government should not modify its policy and called on civil society organizations to maintain their defense of native varieties of corn. 

The Sin Maíz no hay País (“Without Corn There is no Country”) group told La Jornada that the decision is designed “mostly to protect the interests of transnational corporations, instead of giving priority to the rights of the Mexican people or to sustainability of the environment.”

The trade panel, they added, was made up of three experts in international trade who were not “scientists or experts in public or environmental health” and had no “legitimacy or capacity to evaluate measures taken by a country that were intended to protect its population, preserve its biocultural richness and safeguard the genetic reservoir” of corn.

A La Jornada editorial said the administration of President Joe Biden “fought a legal battle against food sovereignty, health, biodiversity, and the right to an adequate diet for Mexicans—not to favour its citizens, but rather four giant global corporations and a handful of rich farmers.”

The Mexican government said it would comply with the decision though it maintains that the restrictions are in line with the principles of public health and the rights of Indigenous peoples, established in national legislation and in the international treaties to which it is a party. On Feb. 13, 2023, Mexico published a Presidential Decree that included stopping the use of GM white corn intended for use in traditional foods such as tortillas and stated Mexico’s intention to eventually replace all GM (yellow) corn in processed food.

The United States challenged Mexico’s restrictions under the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement (referred to variously as USMCA or CUSMA) as being a disguised trade restriction. The restrictions were first announced by then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador at the end of 2020, and revised in 2023.

“This trade panel decision runs counter to a national consensus in Mexico on the threat of GM corn to Mexico’s food sovereignty,” said Cathy Holtslander of the National Farmers Union (NFU) in Canada. “The people of Mexico have the right to protect their unique relationship with corn.”

Holtslander’s comments are included in a Dec. 23 joint news release from the NFU, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Trade Justice Group of the Northumberland Chapter of the Council of Canadians.

“Canada joined the US challenge to force open an unwilling market to genetically modified corn,” said Lucy Sharratt of CBAN.

“This outcome demonstrates how free trade agreements can be used to overthrow democratic decisions for corporate interests,” said the joint news release.

The 117-page decision did not assess the scientific evidence on GM corn provided by Mexico but concluded that Mexico did not conduct a risk assessment that conforms to the terms of the trade agreement. “The Panel recommends that Mexico bring its Measures into conformity with its USMCA obligations under Chapters 2 and 9 of the USMCA. The Panel accepts that Mexico is seeking to address genuine concerns in good faith, and suggests that such concerns be channeled into an appropriate risk assessment process, measures based on scientific principles, and in dialogue among all USMCA Parties to facilitate a constructive path forward.”

“Mexico’s GM corn policy was clearly meant to achieve several goals at once, such as supporting biodiversity, cultural diversity, food sovereignty, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, public health and economic development,” said Stuart Trew, senior researcher with the CCPA. “It is disingenuous for the trade panel to claim the policy is a ‘disguised restriction on trade’ simply because it may affect imports of U.S. or Canadian corn. But doing so conveniently allowed the panel to sidestep Mexico’s strong defence of the GM corn restrictions based on environmental and Indigenous Peoples’ rights exceptions in CUSMA.” 

Canada does not export any corn to Mexico. In explaining its decision to back the U.S. complaint, the government of Canada stated that, to secure a future for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Canada and to prevent trade disruptions due to illegal GMO contamination, product developers need access to all markets.

Mexico is regarded as the birthplace of modern corn. It will continue to prohibit planting of GM corn because it may contaminate native strains of the grain. 

Mexico is the top foreign buyer of U.S.-grown yellow corn, nearly all of which is genetically modified. Half of the corn consumed in Mexico today is imported from the United States. The imports are mostly of “yellow corn,” used for animal feed and industrial food production. “White corn” produced in Mexico is used for human consumption.

Mexico has more than 60 native varieties of corn (known as landraces), coming in a variety of colours and with distinct flavours.

In April 2024, CCPA provided an excellent background analysis of the GM corn dispute.

CBAN has joined with US and Mexican groups to issue a new call to action: Groups and individuals in Canada, the US and Mexico are asked to sign a trinational statement in solidarity.

Cuba-U.S. relations: the thaw that didn’t happen

by Jim Hodgson

A decade ago this week came news that the United States and Cuba would begin a process to restore relations broken in 1961 in the wake of the Cuban Revolution and at the height of the Cold War. 

Simultaneous announcements, December 17, 2014. Image: OnCuba News. For more background, please see my 2021 series of posts about Cuba, beginning here.

“Today, America chooses to cut loose the shackles of the past so as to reach for a better future—for the Cuban people, for the American people, for our entire hemisphere, and for the world,” said President Barack Obama. 

“As we have repeated, we must learn the art of coexisting, in a civilized manner, with our differences,” said President Raúl Castro. 

Obama did not, however, back away from historic U.S. criticisms of Cuba’s revolutionary option; nor did Castro promise to surrender national sovereignty or its political system. But a process was set in place for dialogue over differences. Prisoners were released on both sides of the Straits of Florida. People could visit each other once again. Perhaps the United States would finally become a “good neighbour” to Cuba and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Tragically, hope inspired that week and by Obama’s visit to Havana in March 2016 has proved but fleeting—“ephemeral” says an editorial Tuesday in Mexico’s La Jornada daily newspaper. 

When Donald Trump came to power in January 2017, he cancelled all the advances of the Obama era and, as La Jornada puts it, added “new layers of sadism to the criminal blockade against Cuba.” He even maintained his “maximum pressure” on Cuba during the COVID-19 pandemic, obstructing Cuba’s efforts to obtain vital medical supplies during the crisis. (Yes, Cuba produced its own vaccines, but syringes and other specific items were in short supply.)

We kind of knew then (as we do now) that dealing with Trump in a rational manner would be difficult, but it was a disappointment that President Joe Biden failed so miserably to alter any but the most minor of sanctions that the United States—alone in the world—applies to Cuba. The harshest measure—maintaining Cuba on a U.S. list of “state sponsors of terrorism”—blocks Cuba from normal international financial activity. It is applied in an “extraterritorial” way, complicating efforts even by humanitarian organizations in other countries (including Canada) to share financial resources or for freight companies to carry material aid to Cuba.

As I have said before, sanctions in almost every instance harm civilian populations and fail to produce their stated goal: regime change. In Cuba today, the consequences verge on catastrophic (again, the word used by La Jornada): Cuba is now “unable to generate urgent resources in order to restore its energy system, start food production, take advantage of its tourism potential, and restore industries devastated by the isolation to which Washington has subjected it.”

Cubans will march to the U.S. embassy in Havana on Friday, December 20, against “imperial shame” and for an end to hostility.

In these next four years, leaders of the United States represent a menace to their own population—especially Trans people, pregnant women, and immigrants—but also to other nations. In the face of Trump’s tariff threats, Canada and Mexico are both scrambling to mitigate damage. They’ll be choosing which battles to fight.

Canada, together with countries like Mexico, must retain its distinct foreign policy, a feature of which for 65 years has been solidarity with Cuba. And those of us who care for Cuba’s choice to do things differently must remind Trump and his cohort that they cannot punish a country simply because it chooses not to govern itself as the United States wishes.

Disappointment and fury in the wake of failed climate talks—and hope for the road ahead

by Jim Hodgson

“I am infuriated to come home to the aftermath of six typhoons that have struck the Philippines in the space of just four weeks with basically zero gains from COP29,” said Patricia Mungcal, a young climate advocate who serves as humanitarian manager with the National Council of Churches in the Philippines. 

“I will be telling thousands of Filipino families who were devastated by these strong typhoons that world leaders have left us to suffer the heaviest impacts of the climate crisis and disregarded our demands for finance and reparations. This failure to address loss and damage is a grave disregard of our human dignity and rights. We charge this failure of COP29 to the moral bankruptcy of the rich, polluting nations.”

News from Philippines and (right) Patricia Mungcal (screenshot from WCC video)

At the recent climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, world leaders failed miserably in their response to the climate crisis and its consequences. Of the $1.3 trillion of climate finance that independent experts estimate will be required annually by 2030, the UN climate conference agreed to provide just $300bn every year – by 2035 (Progressive International newsletter, Dec. 3).

Meanwhile, governments around the globe (including Canada) are still ploughing billions of dollars into fossil fuel subsidies to shelter citizens from higher energy costs, but that comes with a fiscal burden and impedes the goal of reducing overall use.

And Philippines had six typhoons. In the Canadian Rockies, Jasper townsite burned—just days after I had written about climate disasters in British Columbia.

What is to be done?

More often now, we are seeing the connection between the climate crisis and the growing indebtedness of the so-called “highly indebted poor countries” (HIPC). And proposals for a new international financial architecture are once again getting attention. 

In June, Pope Francis pressed leading economists and world finance ministers to support new mechanisms to ease foreign debt, lamenting that “poorly managed globalization” has deprived millions of people of a “dignified future.”

“Ecological debt and foreign debt are two sides of the same coin that mortgages the future,” the pope said. “For this reason, dear friends, the Holy Year of 2025, to which we are heading, calls us to open our minds and hearts to be able to untie the knots of the ties that strangle the present, without forgetting that we are only custodians and stewards, not masters.”

The focus of this Jubilee Year is gaining ecumenical and inter-faith support. In Canada, KAIROS will lead a Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee campaign, in step with global debt relief efforts. “These are inspired by the Jubilee tradition from the Book of Leviticus. Rooted in faith, Jubilee calls for the release of debts, liberation from servitude, and the return of seized lands—principles that resonate deeply in today’s world,” says KAIROS. This campaign aims to:

  • Cancel unjust debts. 
  • Establish a UN-led mechanism for debt resolution. 
  • Prevent future cycles of crippling debt.

The 2025 meeting of G7 (leaders of the richest countries) will be held June 15-17 in Kananaskis, Alberta (southwest of Calgary).

“Confronting threats to the living planet.” Photo: Valter Muniz, WCC)

A “Manual for Mutiny”

The global Progressive International network, meanwhile, is presenting a Program of Action on the Construction of a New International Economic Order. It speaks of a “polycrisis”—the combination of the “old crises of debt, dependency and under-development” combined now with “an accelerating crisis of climate to threaten not only the developmental prospects of the South—but also, in the case of many small island states, their very existence.”

The Program of Action offers nearly three dozen measures across five broad sections: to leverage the South’s natural wealth, labor power, and collective voice in order to extract concessions from Northern partners; to bolster the sovereign development agenda by building Southern alternatives to Northern institutions; and to pool Southern knowledge, resources, and ingenuity in service of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

To that, I would add: Systemic failure demands system change.

What you can do

Keep an eye on KAIROS, of course, and on Development and Peace-Caritas Canada for ways to get involved in the new Jubilee campaigns.

I also want to share with you some suggestions from Katharine Hayhoe, a Canadian atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on understanding the impacts of climate change on people and the planet.

“For climate action to happen at scale, conversations have to move beyond international summits to what’s happening in our communities, our workplaces, and our organizations. And there, change isn’t something we wait for. It’s something we catalyze,” she wrote after COP29.

She suggests starting conversations “about climate solutions where you work or study. Ask what your organization is already doing, and what more it could do—and share that with people around you, particularly those who can make decisions.”

That will be especially important as Canadians vote in a federal election in 2025, and as one party opts for simplistic slogans over serious conversations about climate policy.