PRESS RELEASE FROM THE AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has today released its new study titled, “How much glyphosate is on your dinner plate? SA's food safety compromised by lack of testing.” This study highlights numerous risks posed by the herbicide glyphosate to human and animal health as well as worrying regulatory failures, particularly in relation to the monitoring, inspection and testing of food for glyphosate residues.

South Africans consume glyphosateⁱ ridden food on a daily basis: currently, 77% of maize grown in South Africa is genetically modified (GM) and of this 54% (about 1 million hectares) is modified to be glyphosate tolerant. Soya products on our market suffer the same fate: all of the GM soya planted in South Africa is tolerant to glyphosate, planted on 480 000 ha. South Africa also imports bulk shipments of GM grain from countries growing herbicide tolerant crops.

According to Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB, “the ACB was desirous of testing food samples for glyphosate residues. In the course of trying to get these samples tested, the ACB learnt that while there are numerous private testing laboratories throughout South Africa, nine of which are ISO 17025ⁱⁱ accredited, none were able to test for glyphosate residues in our samples of maize and soya products. Testing could only be achieved if the samples were sent abroad, at considerable expense.”

The main findings of the study include:

1. Numerous peer reviewed studies on glyphosate exist, documenting the health risks posed to to animal and human health;
2. There is a complete lack of testing for glyphosate residues in local market produce. The private sector relies on independent laboratories for monitoring, but none of these currently are able to test for glyphosate. Local government health authorities are responsible for the inspection and monitoring of imported foodstuffs in terms of the National Health Act. However, municipalities suffer from severe capacity constraints and do not undertake any testing for exceedance of the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL).
3. Information from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) with regard to the registration, re-registration and review of glyphosate is veiled in secrecy.
4. Failure by government to reform current legislation regulating glyphosate, and all pesticides for that matter, despite government itself acknowledging such legislation to be hopelessly outdated and unconstitutional.

According to Mayet, “A moratorium should be placed on the further use of glyphosate until such time that capacity exists in South Africa to monitor and test for residues in locally produced and imported food.”

The ACB calls on government to make the following information available to the public:

• Data on glyphosate residues in food, water, and soil as a result of the introduction of glyphosate resistant GM crops;
• Details of its surveillance of glyphosate in food, agricultural and natural systems;
• What support  it is giving to South African labs to establish the requisite capacity to monitor MRLs in our food; and
• What progress has been made since the publication of the Pesticide Management Policy with regard to legal reform.

ACB’s Study titled “How much glyphosate is on your dinner plate? SA’s food safety compromised by lack of testing” can be downloaded from its website.

Contact: Mariam Mayet, African Centre for Biosafety
083 269 4309

i Glyphosate is the 'active ingredient' in numerous chemically based herbicides that are used in diverse situations including in food production, timber plantations, sports fields and home gardens.

ii ISO 17025 is the recognised international standard for competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Download the ACB study for further explanation.

The African Centre for Biosafety
www.acbio.org.za
PO Box 29170, Melville 2109 South Africa
Tel: +27 (0)11 486 1156

African Centre for Biosafety: Sign against "Agent Orange" in South Africa, ACDP submits 'Agent Orange' petition to Parliament

The African Christian Democratic Party is supporting a petition by the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) to overturn a government decision to allow the import of “Agent Orange” GM Maize into South Africa. The maize is dubbed ‘Agent Orange’ because it has been genetically modified to survive very liberal applications of a weedkiller called 2,4-D, one of the key ingredients of the infamous defoliant chemical used in the Viet Nam war. The GM maize in question belongs to US chemical giant, Dow Chemicals.

YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION IN AVAAZ:
BAN AGENT ORANGE GM MAIZE IN SOUTH AFRICA

A wide range of experts in the health field in South Africa have supported the Petition, citing worries about the potential health impacts and government’s lack of capacity to monitor the 2,4 D residues left on food crops. Cheryllyn Dudley, Member of Parliament and Chief Whip of the ACDP, today said: “2,4-D GM maize could pose a health risk to Sou th Africans who eat maize as a staple food, unlike in America where maize is grown primarily for livestock. Government has been too hasty in granting the approval”.

Director of the ACB, Mariam Mayet claims that “the introduction of 2,4-D resistant crops is expected to trigger a 30-fold increase in the herbicides’ use by the end of the decade. This chemical has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cancer of the white blood cells) and numerous studies on animals have produced a variety of disturbing results”.

The use of 2,4-D is banned completely in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The World Health Organisation classifies the Chlorophenoxy herbicide group, of which 2,4-D is by far the most widely used member, as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’.

The petition, supported by 18 health professionals and academics, 20 South African organisations and over 6000 individual signatories, calls on the South Af rican government to overturn the decision to allow the importation of the maize for “food, feed and processing” and to review the decision-making process around GMOs to ensure that it is “transparent, just and fair”. “We are handing over our food production to massive chemical companies whose interest is to keep farmers on their chemical treadmill. We should be supporting healthy food production systems that will sustain our people and the environment into the future. This decision needs to be interrogated and the public needs to be educated and involved”, Dudley said.

We have prepared a fully referenced Fact Sheet  titled "What you should know about DOW's 2,4 GM maize".

Download thePDF book from this page and please help spread the word via the Facebook Like button.

http://www.acbio.org.za/index.php/publications/gmos-in-south-africa/386-what-you-should-know-about-dows-24-d-gm-maize

For more information contact:

Cheryllyn Dudley, MP, Cell: 082 890 6520 (SMS best for urgent response)

Agrofuel push in SA back; government publishes draft mandatory blending regulations.

Before we end this year, the ACB would like to share the following with you:

The South African government has recently published draft regulations for the mandatory blending of agro-fuels into the country’s liquid fuel supply. The regulations state that at least 2% of all petrol, and 5% of all diesel sold must come from agrofuels. This means that around 700 million litres of agrofuels must be produced every year!

Probing beneath the veneer of the greenwash and job creation speak of government policies, one finds that the real beneficiaries will be agribusiness, with emerging farmers being roped into dodgy private-private partnerships. The agro-chemical corporations, who dominate South Africa’s domestic market are set on scoring windfall profits in the production of “renewable” fuels. Soybeans appear to be a hot favourite for biodiesel production! To produce the required quantities of soybeans will entail the use of Monsanto’s GM seeds, and will require the use of 2.5 million litres of Monsanto’s highly toxic chemical herbicide glyphosate; this would need to be mixed in with nearly 160 million litres of water! Agrofuel production would also not be possible without the use of prodigious quantities of synthetic fertislier; the sugar industry accounts for 18% of domestic use alone. Over 60% of South Africa’s fertiliser demand is imported, and the global fertiliser industry is itself highly dependent on fossil fuels.

Even if all the soybean, sunflower and canola grown here were diverted to agrofuels, this would barely provide enough for the demand a 5% blending ratio and raises questions about the importation of feedstock from the region and its concomitant impact on food security on the African continent.

It is estimated that 400,000 tons of sugar would be required to satisfy the 2% bioethanol blending ratio, yet the sugar industry is battling with its worst drought in its history, with production the lowest it has been in 15 years. Interestingly, emerging farmers produce less than 10% of South Africa’s annual crop. Much is being made of sugarbeet production by small farmers in the Eastern Cape, a crop that has not been traditionally cultivated in South Africa, and whose large scale cultivation will threaten household food security.


The ACB has been tracking the developments around South Africa’s nascent agrofuels industry for a number of years, and has written extensively of the threats to local communities, the environment, and food security that this entails. For more information please refer to www.biosafetyafrica.org.za .

Please see and download our objections and comments on the mandatory blending to the Department of Energy, at http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/images/stories/dmdocuments/Mandatory-blending-response-2011-11-18.pdf

COPORATE CONCENTRATION AND CONTROL IN THE GRAINS AND OILSEED VALUE CHAIN IN SOUTH AFRICA: A CASE STUDY OF THE BUNGE/SENWES JOINT VENTURE

October 3, 2011

The Bunge/Senwes joint venture signals the first significant investment by Bunge in Africa. Bunge is one of the world's largest and most influential corporations and is amongst a handful of companies dominating global trade in agricultural commodities. Senwes holds a dominant position in the South African market for the storage and handling of grain crops. In this briefing, we provide inter alia:

A breakdown of the value chains of the various grains and oilseeds that the joint venture will focus upon, with particular attention being paid to the storage and handling of these crops;
Information on South Africa¹s three largest grain storage companies;
A summary of the merger and acquisition activity in the agribusiness sector, including areas of strategic convergence such as poultry production and grain storage and trading; and
Our major concerns with the joint venture and the imbalances and inequities in the food system that it entrenches.
 Download the full paper from the African Centre for Biosafety.

The dirty politics of the global grain trade - GM maize farmers face ruin in SA

Dear friends and colleagues

Recently, the South African press reported on the possible bankruptcy
faced by maize farmers. The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has
today released a new report titled “The dirty politics of the global
grain trade – GM maize farmers face ruin in SA,” which provides an
analysis of why South Africa’s record 13 million ton harvest of
maize, at least half of which is GM, has threatened financial ruin for
up to 30% of its maize farmers. The paper addresses the following
issues: the political economy of maize in South Africa; new GM markets
for South Africa; the real beneficiaries of the maize mountains; and
regulatory issues, including the extent to which South Africa’s GMO
permit system contributes towards speculation in the GM maize trade
and the price of food. The paper can be found on the website of the
ACB at www.biosafetyafrica.org.za

South Africa’s maize farmers recorded a bumper harvest in 2010, yet
now they face ruin. The price of maize has fallen precipitously in the
last 12 months owing to a crisis of over-production of both GM and
non-GM maize. A mass exodus from the maize sector is anticipated, with
as many as 30% of farmers facing potential liquidation.

During July 2010, the Executive Council: GMO Act (EC) granted export
permits allowing 625,000 tons of GM maize to be exported to various
countries in Africa and Asia. Of this, 600,000 tons were bound for
Taiwan and South Korea. A further 35,000 MT of GM soybeans were also
exported to various countries. Thus, for 2010, South Africa exported
over 1 million tons of GMOs, of which GM maize accounted for a
staggering 956,000 MT.

The record GM exports from South Africa is attributed a bumper
harvest, officially the highest since 1982. Far from contributing to
greater food security in the country, the almost dogmatic focus on
production has led to a precipitous fall in local maize prices.
Consequently, the Solidarity Research Institute group in South Africa
has warned that an oncoming financial crisis in the South African
agricultural sector could drive 30% of maize farmers away from the
sector. For each additional unit of value added to total GDP,
agriculture creates twice as much employment as the rest of the
economy. The knock on affects of the crisis on rural South African
communities could be catastrophic.

Download the paper from our website

.

Biosafety Africa: DANGEROUS NEWS: The Gates Foundation and Cargill push Soya onto Africa

BIOSAFETY AFRICA REPORTS A BAD NEW:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has announced a new project to
develop the soya value chain in Africa in partnership with American
NGO, TechnoServe and agricultural commodity trading giant Cargill. The
US$8 million project will be implemented as a four year pilot in
Mozambique and Zambia with the intention of spreading the model to
other regions in the future.

Download the briefing paper here...
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20100901330/Soya-Gates-Foundation-Cargill-Paper/menu-id-100025.html


The Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies that
open new markets for strong corporate interests while assisting in the
creation of policy environments to support foreign agribusiness’
interests. The programme will yoke African farmers into the soya value
chain and open the door for major agribusiness players such as
Cargill, while displacing African agricultural practices and
traditional crops. In addition, there is a very real threat that this
project could be a foot in the door for the introduction of
genetically modified soya onto the Continent.

Since the green revolution of the 1960’s, soya bean has become the
number one forage crop on the international market. About 85% of the
world’s soybeans are processed into soya bean meal and oil, about
98% of that meal is further processed into animal feed, the balance is
used to make soya flour and proteins. Approximately 95% of the oil is
consumed as edible oil with the rest being used for industrial
products such as fatty acids, soaps and agrofuel. In the last 40
years, production of soya bean has increased by over 500%, driven by
the growing affluence of Chinese consumers, who are now eating more
meat than ever before, as well as a significant increase in demand for
soya beans as feedstock for biodiesel. In addition, soya beans fix
nitrogen in the soil, thereby improving soil fertility and making it
an excellent rotation crop.

The United States, Argentina and Brazil are the three major producers
of soya in the world. The aggressive expansion of soya monocrops in
Latin America has wreaked socio-economic and environmental disaster -
in 2008 over 30 million hectares of soya was grown in Brazil and
Argentina, where soya monocrops are notorious for displacing rural
populations and causing mass deforestation. In April 2006, Greenpeace
announced that in the 2004/2005 growing season, 1.2 million hectares
of the Amazon rainforest was deforested as a consequence of soya
expansion.

The vast majority of global soya crops are genetically modified to
withstand applications of herbicides. (Approximately 93% of soya
production in the USA is GM, 98.9% in Argentina and 70.7% in Brazil).
The introduction of herbicide tolerant soya has created a sharp
increase in the use of highly toxic herbicides – in the USA the use
of herbicides has increased by 382.6 million pounds over the past 13
years, with herbicide tolerant soya beans accounting for 92% of that
increase.

No multinational on the planet has greater interests in soya
production and trade than the American corporation Cargill.
Cargill’s business operations include purchasing, processing and
distributing grain and agricultural commodities, the manufacture and
sale of livestock feed and ingredients for processed foods and
pharmaceuticals. Their assets and business operations in Latin America
are staggering; it is responsible for over 75% of Argentina’s grain
and oilseed production. It also has great interest in fertiliser
production, having a two-thirds stake in one of the world’s leading
fertiliser companies, Mosaic. Their business interests in Africa are
scant in contrast. It has now partnered with the Gates Foundation to
introduce a soya value chain in Africa.

The four year project will introduce soya production to 37 000
small-scale farmers in Mozambique and Zambia and aims to spread the
model to other regions in the future. The project will target
smallholder farmers and facilitate their access to agricultural inputs
and new technology, facilitate market access, assist in infrastructure
development and in developing enabling policies for investment.The
cultivation of soya in Africa is negligible, with Africa contributing
to less than 1% of global soya bean production. African countries that
produced over 100 000 tons of soya bean in 2008 are Nigeria, South
Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Nigeria is the biggest producer of soya
beans on the continent, harvesting a relatively modest 591 000 tons in
2008, mostly for domestic consumption. Egypt is the 13th biggest
importer of soya bean in the world, importing 1.2 million tons in 2008
and producing 219 800 tons of soya bean oil. Morocco also imports soya
for the production of oil and was the 19th largest importer of soya
bean in 2008. Demand for soya outstrips production in Africa, creating
the need to look outside of the region for commodities, predominantly
soya bean cake for animal feed, but also for oil, meal and
soya-derived products.

As demand for soya feed for the growing global livestock sector
increases, along with a growing interest in the crop for biofuel
production, soya is gaining influence as an attractive crop that is
worthy of investment. Global prices for vegetable oil are good and
this too, is attracting investment. There have been recent major
private investments in oil processing plants in Uganda and Mozambique
and investors are keen to contract local farmers to supply raw
materials. This model threatens to bring farmers into a high-risk
global market and shift agricultural practices from using local inputs
to reliance on agribusiness products.

A further threat is the introduction of genetically modified soya
into Africa. South Africa is the only country on the continent that is
growing genetically modified soya and has been doing so since 2001. In
2006, about 75% of the area planted to soya was genetically modified
and in 2008, approximately 88% of soya seed purchased was GM
<#_edn1> . In 2010, South Africa has begun exporting genetically
modified commodities to the rest of Africa for the first time. This is
as a result of the finalization of African biosafety legislation that
allows for the cultivation and import of GE crops and commodities. In
early 2010, the Mozambican government allowed for the commodity import
of 35,000 MT of GM soybeans <#_edn2> . This is the first such
permit authorised by the Executive Council in South Africa.

As the major global producers of soya have almost completely adopted
GM in their production, it is likely that there will be great pressure
for African farmers to adopt these seeds. The acceptance by the
Mozambican government of the first GE shipment of soya from South
Africa shows that their door is now open for African trade in GM soya,
although the road to environmental releases of crops will be a longer
and more arduous process. Zambia has traditionally been one of the
strongest forces against genetically modified seed on the continent,
taking an extremely cautious approach in its biosafety legislation. In
2002, the Zambian government rejected the import of GM food aid for
almost 3 million starving people <#_edn3> . It was an extremely
controversial decision, but after despatching a group of scientists to
investigate the safety of the crop, President Levy Mwanawasa held to
his convictions in the face of massive international pressure. Could
this support for the introduction of soya into the country be the
beginning of the erosion of that caution?

New from the ACB: GM Sugarcane: A long way from commercialisation?

Despite the best part of a decade of research and field trials,
genetically modified sugar cane in South Africa remains a long way
from commercial cultivation. Numerous research projects are currently
under way at a number of publicly and privately funded research
bodies, most of which are concentrating on increased sucrose and
biomass content. Late last year the Department of Science and
Technology announced the creation of a strategic sugar research
platform to be overseen by the PlantBio Trust, a branch of the
Department of Trade and Industry that focuses on plant biotechnology.

Internationally, both Brazil and Australia lead the way in GM sugar
cane research, and both countries believe they can bring it to market
commercially within the next 5 years. Under the guise of south –
south co-operation, Brazil has been particularly active in extending
its influence as the world’s largest sugarcane producer into the
African continent. Huge sugarcane for ethanol investment deals have
been signed with Mozambique, while a steady succession of research
partnerships have been undertaken between Brazilian and South African
institutions.

The biotech industry, either through direct research and acquisitions
or indirectly via a number of lobby groups, has been very active in
both GM sugarcane and sugarbeet. In 2009 GM sugarbeet adoption in the
US and Canada occurred at a faster rate than for any previous GM crop.
The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI), formed in 2005, is the
‘environmental round-table’ of the sugarcane world (and by
definition industry). Already active in South Africa, the BSI’s
members include some of the world’s largest food, commodity, and oil
companies. While their position on GM sugarcane remains publically
neutral, the experience of other rountables, notably the Roundtable on
Responsible Soy (RTRS), points to another potential industry conduit
into the environmental policy discourse.

Finally, developments around transgenic sugarcane cannot be viewed in
isolation from those around the global agrofuel drive. South Africa
has had a national agrofuels strategy in place since 2007, with
several massive projects already in operation around the country using
conventional sugarcane. So far GM sugarcane has been kept off the
agrofuel agenda, but there is no doubting the potential compatibility
of the two, nor the political and economic clout of those who seek
their union.

You can download the paper from our website from this link.

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20100412296/GM-Sugarcane-A-long-way-from-commercialisation/menu-id-100026.html

Dawn of the Risky Stacked GMO Era: A taste of things to come

March 2010

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has today released a new study
titled “The GM stacked gene revolution: a biosafety nightmare”
which reveals some startling current and future trends concerning the
advent of GM stacked varieties.

Stacked GMOs are those containing more than one gene genetically
engineered into a crop plant. A controversial stacked GMO, Smarstax
containing 8 such genetically engineered genes, was commercially
approved in the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea during 2009. Stacked
gene varieties are highly complex, posing new biosafety risks that
outpace the capacity of regulatory systems. “Stacked GM varieties
also promise unprecedented scope for patents on life forms” said
Gareth Jones, researcher for the ACB.

According to the study by Jones, from 2006 to 2007, the global area
of stacked trait GMOs planted to cotton and maize grew by 66%, with
maize alone increasing by over 100%, from 9 million to 19 million ha.
Plantings of stacked varieties ballooned between 2007 and 2008 at 23%
compared with its single trait counterparts: 9% for herbicide
tolerance and a 6% reduction in planted area for insect resistance. A
total of 26.9 million ha of stacked biotech crops were planted
globally in 2008 compared with 21. 8 million ha in 2007, with the US
having planted 41% (26.7 million ha) of its total biotech area of 65.2
million ha to stacked varieties.

Stacked GMOs deliver nearly twice the rate of profit compared to
their single trait counter parts, often forcing farmers to pay for
traits they neither want nor need. Increased profits further
strengthen the dominant position of the world’s largest biotech
companies; between 1996 and 2007 over 90% of all stacked events
approval globally were owned by a handful of multinational companies,
with Monsanto leading the pack.

In 2006, stacked GMOs accounted for 23.7% (approximately $1.4
billion) of the global GM market, worth $6.5 billion. Monsanto
expected 79% of its maize seed sales in 2009 to be triple stacked
while Syngenta plans to make triple stacked maize account for 85% of
its portfolio for 2011.

South Africa is a fervent supporter of stacked GMOs, granting a
staggering 56 permits for stacked GM maize varieties during 2009
alone. Currently, 19% of South Africa’s GM maize area is planted to
stacked GM varieties, representing a four-fold increase since 2007.

According to Jones, “If the adoption rate of stacked traits between
2005 and 2009 is projected forward, a colossal 81 million ha of
stacked GMOs could be planted by 2015 (an area larger than Mozambique
or Turkey).”

In 2008 Monsanto announced that it expected its profits to treble to
nearly $3 billion by 2010 and that its new stacked trait releases
would account for the bulk of this. “Despite the rhetoric promising
GM drought tolerant varieties for the poor and the marginalised, it is
clear from the current trends that the game is set for a stacked GM
revolution” said Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB.

The ACB briefing can be accessed at
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20100304290/The-GM-stacked-gene-revolution-A-biosafety-nightmare/menu-id-100026.html

Africa's Green Revolution Drought Tolerant Maize Scam

Prediction of exacerbated drought in Africa due to climate change is
apparently the driving force behind the establishment of the Water
Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) initiative, another prong of the
so-called “New Green Revolution for Africa”.

WEMA seeks to develop drought tolerant maize varieties through a
program which is being presented as a panacea for solving issues of
hunger on the continent using marker assisted breeding and genetic
engineering. That this is being done under the guise of philanthropy
sidesteps questions about the real causes of hunger, disregards issues
of imbalanced global distribution of food and underplays the financial
benefits to be derived by the various proponents of the scheme.

The possible risks to small-scale farmers, whom WEMA targets, include
loss of biodiversity through gene flow, a dependence on expensive
inputs into farming, possible exposure to intellectual and property
rights claims and impacts on their food security. The most effective
ways of supporting small-scale farmers is through agro-ecological
approaches to farming. These focus on small-scale sustainable
agriculture; locally adapted seed and ecological farming that better
addresses the complexities of climate change, hunger, poverty and
productive demands on agriculture in the developing world.

Download a briefing paper from our website www.biosafetyafrica.org.za

STATUS OF DE FACTO MORATOIUM ON GM (GENETICALLY MODIFIED) COMMODIY CLEARANCE/IMPORT APPLICATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

The South African government has granted a large number of commodity
import permits over the years, enabling millions of tons of GM maize,
soya and canola to be imported into South Africa. However, during
September/October 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), a
member of the Executive Council (EC): GMO Act, raised several concerns
about price distortions involving GM maize and its concomitant
negative impact on South Africa’s trade in maize and maize
products. These concerns prompted the EC to take a decision not to
grant any permits for applications involving new GM varieties, pending
the outcome of investigations.

The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) has no knowledge of the extent
of these investigations but has been able to ascertain that at least
one study was conducted by the DTI itself. The minutes of the EC’s
meetings reveal that the DTI study has been available since March
2007, and that the DTI’s World Trade Organisation desk has been
involved in the process since October of the same year. The DTI
report has not been placed in the public domain. The ACB’s numerous
attempts to obtain the report have fallen on deaf ears. ACB’s formal
application for access to information has been refused by the
Department of Agriculture, forestry and fisheries (DAFF), on the
grounds that the study is unavailable to the general public as it
“contains sensitive commercial information.”

Nevertheless, in the interim, a steady stream of commodity import
applications for GM maize continue to be lodged with the EC; including
several stacked varieties, as well as an application by Bayer for
approval of GM rice LL62. See annexure 1 below.

The only way in which the ACB is able to obtain any information is
through the minutes of meetings of the EC. These are often posted on
DAFF’s website several good months after the actual meeting had
already taken place. Recent minutes indicate that the commodity import
applications placed on hold had begun to be processed almost as if in
anticipation of the lifting of the moratorium.

When questioned by the ACB, industryappears to be unaware when
its outstanding applications would be finalized. Nevertheless, we have
been advised by the Registrar: GMO Act that these applications had
already been reviewed and tabled at EC meetings and final decisions
are pending decision making by the EC on the commodity clearance
question.

Unfortunately to date, the minutes from the EC meetings held on the
1st September and 27th October have yet to be posted by DAFF,
making it extremely difficult to follow the decision making process.

In the meanwhile, the DTI report remains firmly under-wraps.

Swanby, H (2008). GMOs in South Africa: 2008 overview. African
Centre for Biosafety. Biosafety, biopiracy and biopolitics series.
Booklet 11. Johannesburg

EC minutes, 13th March 2007. Department of Agriculture,
fisheries and food.

EC minutes, 23rd October 2007. Department of Agriculture,
fisheries and food.

Personal communication, Marion Van Rooyen, senior administration
officer, office of director general, department of agriculture,
forestry and fisheries. 21/10/2009

Personal communication, Kualani Machaba, Pioneer-Hi Bred South
Africa. 30/11/2009

Personal communication. Michelle Vosges, regulatory affairs
specialist, Monsanto South Africa. 25/11/2009

Personal communication, Gillian Christians, the registrar, GMO
Act. Department of Agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 08/12/2009

Meeting dates with regard to Executive council 2009.
Department of Agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
http://www.daff.gov.za/ (accessed 03/12/2009)

The document can be viewed on our website:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20100105251/Status-of-de-facto-moratorium-on-GM-commodity-clearance/import-applications-in-SA/menu-id-100023.html

Aminatu Haidar, huelga de hambre, firma

Queridos amigos y amigas en España,

FIRMAS EN
http://www.avaaz.org/es/haidar_safe_return

Ayuda a que Aminatu regrese a casa Mostremos nuestra solidaridad con Aminatu Haidar. Juntos podemos generar una gigantesca ola de presión pública capaz de acelerar su regreso incondicional a su hogar. Haz clic en el enlace de abajo para firmar la petición, y reenvíala después a tus amigos y conocidos:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/haidar_safe_return
Su vida pende de un hilo.

Ya se han cumplido 27 días desde que la defensora de los derechos humanos, Aminatu Haidar, comenzase una huelga de hambre en el Aeropuerto de Lanzarote, después de ser expulsada del país por el gobierno de Marruecos. ¿El motivo? No reconocer la soberanía marroquí sobre el Sahara Occidental.

A pesar de la creciente presión internacional, el gobierno de Marruecos permanece firme en su negativa a permitir el regreso a casa de Haidar. Gran parte de la esperanza reside ahora en la habilidad de dos de los aliados más cercanos de Marruecos, España y los Estados Unidos, de persuadir al rey Mohamed IV para que le ofrezca un nuevo pasaporte. Cada vez más preocupados por el grado de visibilidad y las posibles repercusiones políticas de esta crisis, el Ministro español, Moratinos, y la Secretaria de Estado de los EEUU, Hillary Clinton, se reúnen el próximo Lunes.

El tiempo se nos acaba. Debemos actuar antes de que su salud se deteriore de manera irreversible. Generemos una gigantesca ola de solidaridad y presión pública que nuestros líderes no puedan ignorar. Firma la petición y demanda una acción diplomática contundente que garantice el retorno inmediato de Haidar a El Haiuún, y será entregada durante la crucial reunión del Lunes. Después reenvía este mensaje a todos tus amigos y familiares:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/haidar_safe_return

La expulsión de Marruecos de Aminatu Haidar, también conocida como la "Gandhi saharaui", constituye uno de los últimos episodios de represión y hostigamiento por parte del gobierno contra activistas pro-derechos humanos y contra todos aquellos que cuestionan la soberanía de Marruecos sobre el Sahara Occidental.

El mismo coraje y determinación que han llevado a Haidar a luchar pacíficamente durante más de treinta años por los derechos y libertades del pueblo saharaui, la han llevado ahora a rebelarse contra la arbitraria decisión del gobierno marroquí que le impide volver a su casa, incluso si el precio a pagar es su propia vida.

Tras el fracaso de los intentos diplomáticos bilaterales por parte del gobierno español, el foco de atención se está trasladando al nivel internacional, la reunión de Moratinos con Clinton puede ser una de nuestras últimas opportunidades para conseguir la suficiente presión diplomática que facilite el regreso inmediato e incondicional de Haidar a su casa y el fin de su huelga de hambre.

Nuestras voces puede marcar la diferencia si logramos enviar un mensaje atronador a nuestros líderes políticos. Mostremos nuestro solidaridad con Aminatu! Firma la petición y compártela con tus amigos y familiares.

http://www.avaaz.org/es/haidar_safe_return

Con esperanza y determinación,

Luis, Paula, Benjamin, Pascal, Paul y todo el equipo de Avaaz.

En la cárcel por tocas temas tabú: Ali Samek, Marruecos, de Amnistía Internacional

http://www.es.amnesty.org/actua/acciones/sahara-presos-conciencia

Quiero presentarte a Ali Salem Tamek. Él y otros seis activistas de derechos humanos están encerrados en una cárcel marroquí exclusivamente por ejercer su derecho a expresarse de forma pacífica a favor de la libre determinación del pueblo saharaui.

Los siete fueron detenidos el 8 de octubre al regresar de una visita a los campamentos de refugiados de Tinduf, en Argelia. Están acusados de poner en peligro la seguridad nacional y sus casos han sido trasladados a un tribunal militar. Podrían ser condenados a muerte si se les declarara culpables.

La situación en el Sáhara Occidental y los derechos de la población saharaui son un tema tabú en Marruecos, como también lo son las críticas a la Monarquía.

No en vano, las autoridades marroquíes también detuvieron en octubre al periodista I driss Chahtane, director del semanario Almichaal, por publicar un artículo sobre el rey de Marruecos.

Los ocho hombres están en prisión sólo por ejercer su derecho a la libertad de expresión. Para Amnistía Internacional, todos ellos son presos de conciencia y deben ser puestos en libertad.

Firma ahora y ayúdanos a conseguir su liberación inmediata e incondicional.

FIRMAS EN:
http://www.es.amnesty.org/actua/acciones/sahara-presos-conciencia

Necesitamos también que des máxima difusión de este mensaje y que lo hagas llegar todas las personas que conozcas para que también firmen. Hazlo por correo electrónico, a través de tu blog, tu perfil en las redes sociales o de cualquier otro modo que se te ocurra. Para que los casos de estos ocho hombres inocentes no caigan en el olvido.

Muchas gracias por apoyar incansablemente nuestra lucha por la justicia.

Un abrazo

Esteban Beltrán
Director Amnistía Internacional Sección Española

PD: Por favor, firma nuestra petición y pide a tus amistades que hagan lo mismo. Cuantos más seamos, más fuerza tendremos.

http://www.es.amnesty.org/actua/acciones/sahara-presos-conciencia

Open Letter to Minister of Agriculture on Monsanto GM Crop Failures

In April 2009, the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) learnt that
three of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) maize varieties had
failed to pollinate, leaving up to 200 000 hectares of mielie fields
barren across several provinces. We were informed that the varieties
that flopped were Monsanto’s MON 810, NK 603 and its stacked GM
maize MON 810 x NK 603. The ACB is of the view that the matter has not
been dealt with sufficiently by the Executive Council, the GM
regulatory body in South Africa that approved these three events in
the first place, nor has the public been sufficiently informed of the
EC’s final decision on the matter.

The handling of this matter has not engendered public faith in the
regulation of GMOs, an already highly contentious technology. The ACB
requests that the Executive Council publicise the biosafety procedures
followed in reaching their final decision on the crop failures and the
scientific basis upon which they have come to their decision. Public
support for such an explanation is steadily growing at:
http://www.activist.co.za/.

We reiterate our demands for a ban on all GMOs.

Download the ACB paper from:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20091126249/Open-Letter-to-Minister-of-Agriculture-on-Monsanto-GM-Crop-Failures/menu-id-100026.html

Sobre la "caridad europea" campañas de recogida de cosas para países del tercer mundo; ejemplo: Zapatos: ayuda a la campaña de Kiwi en África

Mandar productos de segunda mano (especialmente textiles, zapatos y otros artículos de baja tecnología) a países pobres los empobrece aún más, pues supone un dumping temporal que quiebra la producción local, especialmente los pequeños negocios, que evidentemente no pueden competir.
Cuando la campaña caritativa termina, quedan muchos menos productores locales (los más grandes y fuertes), que generalmente suben los precios al tener una posición más oligopólica.
Esto solo sirve para hacer a los ricos del norte sentirse bien, a los ricos del sur un poco más ricos, y a los pobres a quienes lleguan productos de caridad les alivia un rato, pero después les deja en peor situación.

Según un colaborador, el director de Humana huyó de Dinamarca para escapar de un juicio por corrupción, por desviar fondos para construirse mansiones en California y México.


EJEMPLO DE CAMPAÑA DE RECOGIDA PARA ENVÍO A ÁFRICA:

La marca de productos para el cuidado del calzado Kiwi, ha lanzado la campaña "Shoe aid for Africa". De esta manera se pretende emular lo que se consiguió con la campaña de 2006 cuando se ayudó a distribuir 100.000 pares de zapatos entre gente necesitada de África. En cooperación con Humana y el futbolista camerunés, Samuel Eto’o, Kiwi intenta repetir, o incluso mejorar, esa exitosa campaña en el año 2009.
Las cajas estarán en los supermercados (Hipercor y El Corte Inglés) durante aproximadamente un mes, dando tiempo para que los consumidores depositen allí sus zapatos. Cada semana Humana recogerá todos los zapatos de estas cajas y las llevará a sus almacenes.

De diciembre de 2009 hasta abril de 2010, todos los zapatos serán distribuidos en zonas rurales de varios países africanos. Estas áreas han sido seleccionadas por Humana y Kiwi y todo el proceso de distribución de los zapatos será manejado enteramente por equipos combinados de Humana y Kiwi.

On going concerns about harmonisation of biosafety regulations in Africa

Author: Haidee Swanby

Published by: African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa

Web: http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za

November 2009-11-13

Dear friends and colleagues

Haidee Swanby has written an excellent briefing paper titled
“On-going concerns about harmonisation of biosafety regulations in
Africa.” The paper is a response to concerns raised by the African
Union’s Biosasfety Unit about assertions made in an earlier briefing
in June 2009 regarding the African Union’s biosafety harmonisation
processes.

In this briefing the Ms Swanby on behalf of the ACB salutes the
initiatives taken by the AU in the biosafety discourse on the
continent to date, including the early harmonisation attempts by its
predecessor, the Organisation of African Union (OAU) to put in place a
Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology. At that time, the OAU’s
harmonisation approach was to bring about a consistent African
approach to biosafety regulation based strongly on the precautionary
principle.

However, this briefing continues to warn of the dangers lurking in
the AU’s Biosafety Stategy with regard to proposed biosafety
harmonisation processes that involve several players that cause us
great concern. These players include: Regional Economic Communities
(RECs), who have a decidedly pro trade and pro GM agenda and whose
biosafety initiatives have to date been funded by USAID. The briefing
points out that the harmonisation approach favoured by USAID is one
that creates a one stop GMO approval system, and thereby side stepping
a country-by-country, case-by-case risk assessment and decision-making
process.

The briefing also reiterates our extreme disquiet at the role of the
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (“FARA”) in the
implementation of the AU’s Biosafety Strategy. The briefing goes
further by proffering information to the AU’s Biosafety Unit of
FARA's involvement with industry by highlighting for example, its
partnership with the Syngenta Foundation announced in May 2009, to
launch a 3 year biosafety capacity building project for six countries
in sub-Saharan Africa: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and
Malawi. FARA’s board member is the well known Florence Wambugu,
whose long standing ties with Monsanto and generally, the pro-GM
machinery is well established.

The ACB looks forward to measures being taken to distance the AU’s
biosafety processes from actors whose agenda it is to promote
proprietary technologies while actively promoting the development of
biosafety frameworks that ignore the precautionary principle and
provisions of the African Model Law on Biosafety.

Download the document from our website:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20091117248/On-going-Concerns-about-Harmonisation-of-Biosafety-Regulations-in-Africa/menu-id-100025.html

Kind regards

Mariam Mayet

Director, African Centre for Biosafety

--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters,
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=93ff72c1f09939bf74cc8f0cb29de089

To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/lists/?p=preferences&uid=93ff72c1f09939bf74cc8f0cb29de089
Forward a Message to Someone
http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/lists/?p=forward&uid=93ff72c1f09939bf74cc8f0cb29de089&mid=40

Una visión distinta de los piratas somalíes

Sin pretender justificar lo injustificable, este vídeo descubre otra verdad, tapada por intereses de las multinacionales y los países expoliadores.

http://www.diagonalperiodico.net/Una-vision-distinta-de-los-piratas.html

La solución está clara no?

Una victoria para Guinea!, de Avaaz

Queridos amigos y amigas,

Un logro en la Unión Europea: ¡la victoria de los derechos humanos en Guinea!

Por favor activa las imágenes para ver la entrega de la petición
Avaaz entrega la petición de Guinea a la Presidencia de la Unión Europea en Luxemburgo
Excelentes noticias: ¡nuestra campaña para que Europa sancionase a la junta de Guinea fue todo un éxito!

Nuestra comunidad contribuyó activamente a que la Unión Europea actuase tras la masacre de más de 150 manifestantes por la democracia. Logramos entregar nuestra petición de 125.000 firmas a la Presidencia de la Unión Europea y publicar notas de opinión en el International Herald Tribune, el New York Times online y otros periódicos.

Un día después de nuestras acciones, ¡la Unión Europea acordó un embargo de armas y sanciones! La semana pasada, la Unión Africana prosiguió con restricciones para viajes y con congelamiento de cuentas.

Esta es una victoria para nuestro movimiento democrático global, particularmente para aquellas valientes voces africanas que luchan contra la brutalidad y la violencia. Las pequeñas acciones que hemos realizado juntos han dado a los líderes africanos y europeos el mandato público para que lleven a cabo aquello que es correcto. Las sanciones de la UE y de la UA están ejerciendo una poderosa presión al liderazgo militar para que den un paso al costado y permitan un proceso democrático en Guinea.

Con agradecimiento,

Alice, Benjamin, Paula, Ricken, Graziela, Luis, Pascal y todo el equipo de Avaaz

No a los diamantes ensangrentados. Zimbabue y Mugabe

Este es el email original de Avaaz.

Queridos amigos y amigas:

El dictador de Zimbabue Robert Mugabe se ha apoderado de los yacimientos de diamantes del país de forma brutal, y está utilizando los beneficios derivados de los preciados anillos de boda y joyería para financiar una cruel milicia política.

El grupo de países que regulan el mercado global de diamantes se va a reunir esta semana en Namibia para decidir si suspenden o no a Mugabe, impidiéndole así vender sus diamantes manchados de sangre en el mercado mundial.

Sólo tenemos 24 horas para persuadir a estos países para que actúen. Consigamos una auténtica marea de firmas en esta petición para entregarla directamente durante la reunión en Namibia. Firma en el enlace a continuación y envía este mensaje a todo aquellos que se oponen a que regalos que se hacen por amor sirvan para financiar odio:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/diamonds_for_love_not_hate/97.php?cl_tta_sign=13ab4c6f0121b88c220f3fc03d0bc489

Todos los países productores de diamantes saben que sus beneficios dependen de la reputación que tengan sus marcas, y que la mayor conciencia pública de la existencia de "diamantes ensangrentados" influye cada vez más sobre dicha reputación. Una petición global gigantesca les mostrará que el público que compra diamantes está exigiendo una acción inmediata.

Los diamantes de Zimbabue solían ser explotados por mineros locales. Pero en los últimos meses, matones al servicio de Mugabe se han hecho brutalmente con el control de estos campos, asesinando a más de 200 civiles. Una investigación internacional realizada en Julio encontró evidencia de "una violencia atroz en contra de la población civil".

Los beneficios de estos diamantes de sangre están siendo utilizados para financiar una milicia política que ya ha provocado la muerte de cientos de ciudadanos de Zimbabue, amenazando la frágil unidad del gobierno del país. Permitir a Mugabe que mantenga el control de estos diamantes podría ayudarle a financiar una nueva guerra.

Todos nosotros estamos aprendiendo de qué manera nuestras decisiones sobre lo que compramos y hacemos puede afectar la vida de muchos seres humanos en otras partes del mundo. Regalar y llevar piedras preciosas es algo que debería hacerse por amor. Exijamos a los reguladores del comercio de diamantes que lo mantengan de esta forma:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/diamonds_for_love_not_hate/97.php?cl_tta_sign=13ab4c6f0121b88c220f3fc03d0bc489

Con esperanza,

Ricken, Alice, Benjamin, Graziela, Luis, Milena, Paul, Ben, Paula, Pascal y todo el equipo de Avaaz

Más información:

# Zimbabue: los diamantes no son eternos, IPS, 4 de Noviembre:
http://ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=93843

# Informe de Human Rights Watch, "Zimbabue: Poner fin a la represión en los campos de diamantes de Marange" (en inglés):
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/26/diamonds-rough-0

# El informe del Proceso de Kimberley sobre Zimbabue (en inglés):
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=5303

South African Govt rejects GM potato !!

**South African Govt rejects GM potato **

Johannesburg-15 October 2009

In a damning and ground breaking ruling, South Africa’s GM body,
the Executive Council (EC), has rejected attempts by the Agriculture
Research Council (ARC) to bring GM potatoes to the South African
market. The EC cited no less than 11 biosafety and socio economic and
agronomic concerns for rejecting ARC’s commercial release
application. These support the objections raised by the ACB that GM
potatoes pose unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and
the farming community.

The ARC has touted the GM potato, engineered to resist tuber moths,
as a new agricultural technology that will benefit smallholder and
commercial farmers. Its five year field trial programme has chewed up
considerable public funds as well as having been bankrolled by USAID
and Michigan state university.

According to Haidee Swanby of the ACB, “the precautionary decision
taken by the EC concluded that ARC’s toxicology studies were
inadequate, scientifically poorly designed and fundamentally flawed.
It was unconvinced that the GM potato would benefit small holder
farmers, who are faced with more fundamental production problems such
as access to water and seed, and found that the Potato Tuber Moth is a
low priority for most farmers.”

“We are elated with this decision because it confirms our
contention that the GM potato was not developed in answer to pressing
problems faced by South African farmers , but rather as a solution
developed in search of a problem” said Mariam Mayet, Director of the
ACB.

According to Swanby, “Potatos South Africa, representing commercial
and small holder potato farmers opposed ARC’s application. Fruit and
Veg City, Simba and McDonald’s also expressed their opposition to GM
potatoes. Consumers in South Africa have also overwhelmingly expressed
their opposition.”

ENDS

The ACB’s objection to the ARC application can be found at:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20091007244/Ojection-to-the-commercial-release-of-th-ARC-GM-Potato/menu-id-100023.html


The ACB’s research booklet on GM Potatoes titled Hot Potato can be
found at:

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20080305173/Hot-potato-in-South-Africa/menu-id-100023.html


Contact:

ACB Director: Mariam Mayet 083 269 4309

ACB Researcher/outreach officer: Haidee Swanby 082 459 8548

NOTES for EDITOR

South Africa is the only country on the continent to have
commercially released GM food crops (maize and soya) and the only
country in the world to have allowed the genetic modification of the
staple food (maize).
Attempts to release GM potatoes onto markets in the United States,
Canada and Egypt have all failed in the past. There are no GM potatoes
on the market globally.
Potato South Africa objected to the permit application on the
grounds that the technology did not provide significant advantages for
farmers while damaging consumer confidence.
The ARC received technical support in the development of GM potatoes
from Michigan State University and was funded by USAID. The patent on
the genes is held by the multinational Syngenta.

According to minutes on the Department of Agriculture’s Website,
the EC denied the General RElease of SpuntaG2 on the grounds that:

The Socio-economic impact study indicates that the commercial
farmers do not anticpate this event to present a significant lowering
of inputs as the same spraying regime is required to manage other
pests which this even does not target
Small scale farmers identified more pressing challenges relating to
production such as lack of water, seed availability, fertilizers, etc
No evidence is presented that other pest management strategies
against PTM have been considered or compared with the release of
GM-Spunta
The applicant presents several arguments of the value of this event
for small scale farmers; however, entry of these GM potatoes into the
formal trade remains a particular concern. Segregation of GM from
non-GM potatoes would require an Identity Preservation System which is
currently not in place.
The capacity of small scale farmers to implement risk management
measures could potentially be onerous
Considering the biology of potatoes, vegetative material (tubers)
may be used for propagation, which may complicate risk management
PTM is not a major pest for stored potatoes but rather rodents
The Western Blot of transformed potatoes was limited to protein
extracts from leaves and there is an assumption that one band
represents the Cry1 la1 protein. No data is presented of expression
levels in tubers
Concerns on the toxicity testing by use of an animal feeding study
was conducted with cooked (boiled) potato although raw freeze dried
potato would have been better suited
No evidence is presented that known allergens of potato, namely Sol
t1 (patatin) are not over expressed in the GM potato
No actual toxicity data of the cry-protein on the target organism
PTM is presented

These minutes can be found at http://www.doa.agric.za

under divisions/biosafety/information/july minutes

Masacre en Guinea Conakry

Estimados amigos y amigas,

La sangrienta masacre de Guinea puede llegar a socavar la paz en África Occidental. Firma la petición reclamando sanciones contra la junta militar de Guinea; levantemos nuestra voz en todo el mundo contra la represión:

¡Firma la petición!
La semana pasada, más de 150 civiles fueron asesinados cuando fuerzas de seguridad abrieron fuego contra una protesta pacífica por la democracia en Guinea Conakry, en el oeste de África. Las mujeres fueron violadas y atacadas con bayonetas si intentaban huir: un mensaje aterrador dirigido a un pueblo que está reclamando la elección de un gobierno civil democrático por primera vez.

A pesar de la condena de la comunidad internacional a la violencia y el llamamiento a que el régimen permita elecciones, la junta se aferra al poder, mientras envía preocupantes señales de que el ejército está actuando por su cuenta. La tensa situación amenaza convertirse en una espiral violenta entre facciones rivales o desencadenar un contragolpe militar, lo cual podría tener como consecuencia la propagación de la violencia y la desestabilización de toda la región.

Necesitamos actuar ya. La comunidad internacional debe enviar un claro mensaje: a no ser que el régimen presente la dimisión y permita una transición democrática y pacífica, tendrá que enfrentarse a sanciones selectivas. La Unión Africana y la Unión Europea están considerando revocar visados de entrada e imponer sanciones bancarias a la cúpula gobernante, amante de los viajes y las compras. Esta podría ser la mejor oportunidad de tener un impacto inmediato sin dañar al pueblo de Guinea, quienes necesitan nuestra ayuda desesperadamente. Entregaremos la petición a líderes europeos y africanos durante reuniones fijadas en el mes de Octubre: haz clic en el enlace siguiente para firmar la petición y reenvía este email.

http://www.avaaz.org/es/guinea_stop_the_crackdown

El líder militar de Guinea, Capitán Moussa Dadis Camara, alcanzó el poder a través de un golpe militar el pasado año. Entonces aceptó dar un paso al costado y permitir elecciones democráticas el año que viene, pero luego de meses de tensión ha retirado su promesa. El pueblo de Guinea ha sufrido 50 años de dictaduras brutales y corruptas. Decenas de miles de civiles que participaron en las marchas de la semana pasada clamaban por el fin de la dictadura y se manifestaban en contra de su candidatura en las elecciones.

La violencia contra la población fue brutal. Un testimonio recogido por la organización Human Rights Watch narra: "Vi a los Boinas Rojas (una unidad de elite dentro de la junta) atrapar a algunas mujeres que estaban intentando huir, arrancarles las ropas e introducir sus manos en sus partes íntimas. Otros golpeaban a las mujeres, también en sus genitales.... las mujeres gritaban".

Una acción firme es necesaria no sólo para dejar en claro que rechazamos la represión violenta de la gente que, en cualquier parte del mundo, se manifieste por un gobierno transparente y democrático. Del mismo modo, lo que suceda en Guinea afectará a una serie de jóvenes democracias en África, donde candidatos a dictadores están siguiendo de cerca la reacción de la comunidad internacional. Ha llevado muchos años construir una frágil paz en países vecinos como Sierra Leona y Liberia. Si Guinea explota, ellos también podrían estar en riesgo.

También hace falta una comisión internacional que investigue los actos de violencia y que el ejército se vuelva a sus barracas. Pero pasada una semana de la masacre, los líderes opositores continúan detenidos y el Capitán Camara elude su responsabilidad por los acontecimientos violentos, culpando a la oposición y prohibiendo toda reunión pública, que ve como "subversiva". Envía así un claro mensaje de que no está dispuesto a dar marchar atrás tan fácilmente ni a doblegarse ante la comunidad internacional.

La Comunidad Económica de los Estados de África Occidental ha nombrado un negociador para Guinea. Pero cualquier negociación debe ser respaldada por una fuerte presión internacional. De otro modo, el régimen podría perpetuarse, apoyado en las riquezas minerales del páis y en su poderoso ejército. Una política de sanciones selectivas por parte de la UE y la UA, que afecten a los líderes militares personalmente, puede ser crucial, no sólo para evitar más derramamientos de sangre, sino para poner los pilares de la transición democrática.

http://www.avaaz.org/ea/guinea_stop_the_crackdown

El pueblo de Guinea necesita desesperadamente del apoyo internacional. Permanezcamos a su lado, enviemos un mensaje claro a la dictadura militar de Guinea y a aquellas fuerzas en África que buscan gobernar con la ley del terror: es hora de que los regímenes represivos militares lleguen a su fin. Firma la petición y envíala a amigos y familiares:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/guinea_stop_the_crackdown

Con esperanza,

Alice, Luis, Benjamin, Ricken, Graziela, Paula, Pascal, Iain y todo el equipo de Avaaz.

Más información:

# "Dictador de Guinea prohibe protestas", La Jornada:
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/10/01/index.php?section=mundo&article=024n4mun

# "Guinea: al menos 157 muertos por la represión", Clarín:
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/09/30/elmundo/i-02008882.htm

# "Dos días de luto por la muerte de 160 personas en represión en Guinea Conakry", European Pressphoto Agency:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5jKZEZDGoQZZpy26qVhWuZsrM1tsg
#

# Testigos de la masacre y las violaciones. Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/29/guinea-detener-ataques-violentos-contra-los-manifestantes

# "África impondrá sanciones contra el líder golpista de Guinea", EFE:
http://www.adn.es/internacional/20090918/NWS-2843-Guinea-Africa-sanciones-impondra-golpista.html