American author and geopolitical analyst William Engdahl clarifies the implications on Ukraine’s agriculture of legislation ushered in with new IMF loans to Ukraine. Such legislation makes it possible to cultivate GMO crops in Ukraine.
Like any lender, the IMF makes conditions when it loans money. In most countries, the IMF insists on at least the opening up of markets to foreign companies. With a bankrupt economy, Ukraine will only welcome foreign investment in its agriculture. Under article 404 of the Associative Agreement that Ukraine has signed with the EU, the country agrees to cooperate ‘to extend the use of biotechnologies’, which is the Monsanto euphemism for GMOs crops. Cultivation of GMO crops was banned in Ukraine right up until the present leaders took power in Kiev. American GMO companies can now start large-scale cultivation of GMO modified crops, and establish a back door into the EU, where growing such crops is banned in most countries. For reasons best known to the corporations involved, hardly a word about this has been printed in world’s mainstream press.
Why is Ukrainian agriculture of interest to other countries?
William Engdahl: The Ukrainian soil is some of the finest high quality nutrient and rich soil in the world today. One of the ironic benefits of the 70 years under the Soviet system, is that the agriculture in Russia and Ukraine virtually received no heavy chemicals. All the chemicals were diverted for military purposes during the Cold War and so forth. And the soil, by the nature, the black soil of Ukraine is absolutely finest soil on the Earth.
So, the Ukrainian laws up until this coup d'état in February of this year, backed by Washington, by the way, protected the agriculture land as a national treasure from any foreign ownership. And under Yatsenyuk – the man, handpicked by Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative former advisor to Dick Cheney, who’s orchestrated the personnel to be the new Government after the February coup; Yatsenyuk is known as a waterboy for the IMF (the International Monetary Fund).
Now, what is the IMF? Many people don’t understand. The IMF was created by the US and Britain, and a few allies after WW II to oversee the reconstruction of Europe. It got changed into an agency to control better countries in Latin America and Poland, and Yugoslavia, and so forth during the debt crisis of the 1970’es and the 1980’s.
And the key thing about the IMF is that the controlling veto power of the agency is held by one country – the US Treasury Department.
Now we are talking about a more subtle form of colonialism, I believe, through the IMF and the World Bank using globalization. So, what is happening is that we are taking over new countries by taking over their markets. And the method that we are using is loans and strings attached to the loans, which you name in your article “conditionalities”, correct?
William Engdahl: Yes! It is a kind of informal imperialism or colonialism. The US and Britain together rigged the rules of the IMF. There is a huge debate with the emerging countries, like China, Russia – the BRICS countries – Brazil, South Africa and India – wanting to have a stronger voting share in the IMF. But the US and Britain hold onto this blocking veto. So, they determine the rules of the IMF. The head of the IMF is always a European approved by the US. And the head of the World Bank is always an American.
So, the control of Washington over the IMF and the money of Saudi Arabia, and other countries that are the members, is held by the US Treasury. It is a beautiful instrument of hidden colonialism. Many developing countries have guessed the game, because they’ve been victims of the rape and the looting by the IMF.
What they do is: they come in to a country like Ukraine and say – Ukraine, you are bankrupt (which is de facto true). And they say – we will give you $17 billion. Oh, that’s wonderful! But we have some conditions, we tie on some strings, because, of course, there is no free lunch. The strings are – you have to have a free market. You have to eliminate your laws that control the ownership of your agriculture land. You have to eliminate your law that bans the planting of genetically modified seeds, so that Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, BASF and so on, they can come in and plant they poisonous GMO seeds and ruin the finest agriculture in the world.
Why is GMO so bad?
William Engdahl: Two things. One, the seeds are patented such that farmers, who get trapped into Monsanto trap, every season have to buy not only Monsanto GMO seeds, but they are forbidden to replant the seeds – something that’s been done for 5000 years by farmers ever since the Mesopotamian invention of agriculture. The second thing is that you are forced by a contract to use Monsanto Roundup weed killers, poisonous chemicals and so forth. And you cannot violate that.
The diabolical thing that goes on here is that Monsanto refuses to allow government testing of any of its products – its weed killer Roundup, as well as its seeds. But there have been independent tests that they’ve managed to carry out in France and elsewhere. And they’ve shown that the weed killer that is paired by a contract, paired with Roundup Ready soybeans or corn contain toxins – poisons that kill cells in the female human embryo, in concentrations much less than is used in garden variety weed killers.
Is this invasion into Ukraine by these companies a way to get into Europe through the back door?
William Engdahl: Yes! Because of the Ukraine’s EU association agreement, they are going to then export the GMO crops and say that this is part of the EU. The European Commission in Brussels, they are a bunch of corrupt bastards. They’ve sold their soul to the devil and they would really love to have GMO all over the place. Who knows what they are getting under the table.
Why isn’t this being reported in the world’s mainstream press?
William Engdahl: That is a very good question: why the mainstream press doesn’t report many things? I think the problem is that the mainstream press, most print media today is struggling to survive because of the Internet and they are dependent on advertisers. Advertisers include agribusiness corporations – Big Time, Monsanto and others, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Syngenta in Switzerland.
And not only that. There is a mainstream media consensus process that creates opinions on key issues to stay controversially against that, like global warming. To argue with that openly and freely, which a democratic press has to do – that is their responsibility – that is considered a taboo and you don’t do it, if you want to have a career as a journalist.
Does this article 404 under the Associative agreement stipulate that Ukraine has to allow GMO cultivation?
William Engdahl: Yes, that is the situation. And to get the $17 billion they have to sign that agreement, and it is embedded in Article 404, that they have to include the allowance of genetically modified or biotechnology crops.
They’ve already signed the agreement, as I understand.
William Engdahl: Yes, they have.
So, it is a done story. This is going to happen, unless everything changes.