A U.S. diplomatic cable from December 14, 2007, released by Wikileaks, opens a window on the way our State Department personnel abroad quarterback for corporate interests, in this case biotech companies.
The classified cable was sent to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab and others by Craig Stapleton, U.S. ambassador to France and a personal friend of President George W. Bush, with whom Stapleton had been co-owner of the Texas Rangers in the 1990s.
The cable expressed concern about a law being mulled in the European Union that would regulate the planting of genetically modified crops. The law, Craig wrote, “could make any biotech planting impossible in practical terms. The law would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift and sets the stage for inordinately large cropping distances…
“Both the GOF [government of France] and the Commission have suggested that their respective actions should not alarm us since they are only cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict imports… Further, we should not be prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting seed business in Europe and because farmers, once they have had experience with biotech, become its staunchest supporters.
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU…. Our cooperation with France on a range of issues should continue alongside our engagement with France and the EU on ag biotech (and the next generation of environmental related trade concerns.) We can manage both at the same time and should not let one set of priorities detract from the other.”
Similar pressure on behalf of genetically modified crops was brought to bear in other countries by State Department officials; they even lobbied the Pope on the issue.
You’re an American citizen. What do you expect the foreign service officers whose salaries you pay to be doing? Did you know your taxes were going to pay them to front for American corporations (and only some corporations, not all) by putting pressure on other countries (“country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU”) to bend their environmental and food quality standards? Would you rather see your tax dollars go for that than for housing, medical care, education and infrastructure repair back home?
When your tax dollars are taken to pay government agencies to do work that enhances the profitability of a certain corporation or industry, that’s corporate welfare. The libertarian Cato Institute estimated that in fiscal year 2006 the U.S. government spent $92 billion on various forms of corporate welfare, or roughly one-sixth as much as the Social Security benefits paid out that year ($554 billion).
How fair is it for businesses that shout about “socialism” when ordinary people get government benefits to take government benefits themselves, particularly if they’re businesses that offshore jobs? Not all businesses get that kind of help from the government. This is why our government has traditionally—and especially in times of crisis—taxed the rich at higher taxes than others: because very often government services contributed to their opportunities to receive high incomes.
