ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Food Aid as Commercial Sabotage?

Something that warrants looking into: reports in Science magazine (8 Nov., p. 1153+) and elsewhere suggest that the controversial decision of the Zambian government to reject genetically modified corn might have sinister aspects of commercial sabotage.

Suffering from drought and famine, Zambia has been widely criticized for not accepting thousands of tons of corn offered by the United States, supposedly putting some "pseudoscientific" concerns about genetically modified (GM) food above the welfare of its people. However, it appears that an underlying concern is that once they permit GM corn into the country they will loose Europe as a food export market.

It would appear that our government is using the African famine as leverage to introduce GM corn into Africa, with a good prospect of depriving the Africans of a European market and the Europeans of a source of corn. Perhaps someone out there could look into this.

J. Johnson

Padilla Awareness

I read Maria Tomchick's commentary on the Padilla case at your site. I'm thinking it's long past time for a ruckus to be raised about Padilla being denied due process, and so I'm hoping to gather some sympathetic people at www.chargepadilla.org.

I'd be grateful if Maria (and/or anyone else) could look at the site, give me any feedback you have, and if you're willing, spread the word.

Timothy, via e-mail

John Poindexter and the TIAP

Since he wants information on every American, send John Poindexter your grocery and other receipts, junk mail, and phone bills (he has a degree in Physics and can probably read the darn things). Oh--send him a Solstice/Kwanzaa/Hanukah/Christmas card while you're at it:

Dr. John Poindexter Information Awareness Office DARPA/IAO 3701 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Karen Isaacson, via e-mail

Unprovoked Provocation

US State Department officials said before and after the passage of the UN resolution 1441 on Iraq that they would consider any attacks on US/British aircraft in the no-fly zones a material breach of the UN resolution. The following is an excerpt from an article by Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert that appeared this summer:

"In April 1991, the UN passed a resolution calling on Iraq to cease its repression and urging member states to provide humanitarian aid to refugees.

"President Bush senior ordered air drops to Kurdish refugees on the Turkish border and then ground troops which assisted the refugees as part of Operation Provide Comfort. The US, Britain, and France demanded Iraq observe a no-fly zone in the area, and when the troops were withdrawn, the no-fly zone was maintained, and patrolled by coalition air forces. Nothing in the UN resolution authorized Operation Provide Comfort, the no-fly zones, or the air patrols.

"The initial no-fly zone in the north may have played some humanitarian role with respect to the Kurds. But essentially the zones are unilateral US and British impositions, without any basis in international law, designed to put pressure on Saddam Hussein."

As described above, the no-fly zones were not a part of any previous UN resolution and would not likely be part of the new one, given. When the US claims that an attack on (or retaliation to?) US warplanes in the no-fly zones would be considered a material breach of the resolution, they are deliberately misrepresenting the UN resolution. The UN certainly knows that the no-fly zones have not been part of any UN sanctioned action. I'm sure you recall when the UN resolution was under deliberation the talk of hidden "triggers" to war. France and Russia were adamant about extricating such wording that would provide "automaticity" to war. The intent of the current resolution is, of course, to allow the inspection process to work, that is, to avoid war. Considering the no-fly zones as part of the UN resolution is a cynical way for the Bush administration to do the end-around on the UN and to provide the "trigger" to war that they are looking for. As I see it, this ruse is meant for a domestic audience. I conclude that the administration is counting on the press and the American people to miss the deception.

Tom Larsen, Seattle

Kennedy Correction

I enjoy your publication. However, in a recent article on the death of Paul Wellstone, you mention JFK's activities in Vietnam, "Never mind that JFK was responsible for escalating the low level US intervention on behalf of the regime in Saigon into a full blown US invasion of South Vietnam. There isn't any evidence up until the day he died that he was going to change course regarding US policy in Vietnam." This statement is false regarding US policy in Vietnam. This statement is false . According to NSAM #263, JFK was ordering the removal of 1000 troops by Christmas. Clearly de-escalating US involvement.

Jeff Newsom, via e-mail

TS Responds: While Rick Giombetti wrote the article in question, and referenced Noam Chomsky to support his statements on Kennedy and Vietnam, I looked up National Security Action Memo #263, because I was curious. Dated October 11, 1963 it does say that Kennedy approved "plans to withdraw 1,000 US military personnel by the end of 1963." NSAM #263 also includes this statement: "It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all decisions and US actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose." So despite the planned withdrawal of 1,000 of the USA's 16,500 troops in Vietnam, NSAM #263 by itself doesn't sound like a sweeping change of policy. The text of NSAM #263 can be seen at http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html.