Bill Gates wants to do public good with the immense profits of his information-technology empire, and over the past few years his foundation has given more than US$6.5 billion to global causes. The money has been well-received as socially useful and, generally, sensibly directed.
But last week the Gates Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization in the world, was strongly criticized when it gave US$25 million to genetic modification (GM) research to develop vitamin and protein-enriched crops for the world's poor. In scientific terms, this is not a lot of money, but it is expected to be just a first tranche and to stimulate what the GM companies say is the second generation of GM crops -- those that are potentially of some real use to ordinary people.
Gates was bitten hard by international charities, farmers' groups and academics in Europe, India and elsewhere, who argued that the money would not go to addressing poverty, the root cause of worldwide hunger, but would promote an agriculture that was of little use to the very poor. He was further accused of being captured by an industry now using the hungry as a "Trojan horse" to get its biotech output into poor countries.
The foundation, and the research organizations who will spend his money, deny all the charges, saying that the poor are in desperate need of vitamins and micronutrients, and arguing that GM will give the poorest a choice.
But there are reasons to believe that the Gates food agenda is now being shaped by US corporate and government interests. The Gates Foundation has recently appointed a Kenyan ex-Monsanto scientist to one of its boards, and last year joined Kraft foods, a subsidiary of Philip Morris, the world's largest and most profitable tobacco corporation, in a program to add vitamins to conventionally grown foods.
Gates, moreover, has chosen for his latest venture to partner the US Department of Agriculture and USAID, Washington's overseas aid organization -- two of the most active pro-GM organizations in the world. Also helping with money or research are several US government groups and universities who have benefited from government biotechnology grants. The other major financial partner is the World Bank, which is reviewing the costs and benefits of GM to poor countries.
The Gates money, however, is directed at some of the least known but most controversial organizations on the global stage. The research will be done mainly by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Both are part of the little-known Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). This family of 16 global public institutes forms the world's largest public plant-breeding effort for poor farmers and has immense say on the direction of world agriculture.
But CGIAR is widely accused of being a creature of its two major funders -- the US and the World Bank. The bank, dominated by the US, not only houses its secretariat, but provides its current chair.
CGIAR is only slightly better than the WTO when it comes to accessibility. It has only once held an annual meeting outside the bank offices and when it did -- last year in Thailand -- there were major demonstrations against it by international and local farmers' organizations complaining that it was promoting a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to research that ignored the knowledge and experience of farmers and indigenous people.
CGIAR's public research, say non-governmental organizations in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe, is being quietly corporatized, centralized in Washington and becoming remote from farmers in the developing world.
They argue that having promoted the "green revolution" of the 1960s -- which introduced high-yielding, chemically dependent crops -- CGIAR is now using large amounts of public money to develop GM foods, once again without consulting the people who the technology will affect most.
With hundreds of millions of small farmers around the world already in crisis because they cannot compete with US or EU subsidies which mainly go to corporate farmers, the Gates donation is seen to be supporting something irrelevant to most farmers -- another kick in the teeth for those in poverty and an endorsement of a widely questioned technology dominated by vested big-science interests.
CGIAR says its work is for the public, by public servants and it is aware of the power of GM companies to muscle in. But its backing of GM goes well beyond honest research. Last year it controversially invited the Syngenta Foundation on to its board. This charitable, nominally independent organization is owned by the largest GM company in the world and run by a former British civil servant who worked at the Department for International Development. Insiders believe it is only a matter of time before the Gates foundation is offered a place, too.
But why should the Gates Foundation be interested in a small, obscure organization like CGIAR? Apart from strongly influencing the direction of world agriculture, one answer is that it is the custodian of more than 600,000 seeds, something that has been called the "collective wealth of nature and the food security of the world."
Almost every crop that has ever been grown is held in trust, and the unpatented genetic bank is of immense potential wealth to life-science companies, not just for food but medicine. Already many have been investigating partnerships.
Gates' foundation appears the innocent newcomer to the mucky world of global malnutrition and food security. The trouble may be that his foundation's increasing influence on the world stage makes it a prime target for those who have an agenda well beyond the public good.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.