

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Anuradha Mittal, (510) 469-5228;
amittal@oaklandinstitute.org
A new report from the Oakland Institute, Voices from Africa: African
Farmers & Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green
Revolution in Africa, issues a direct challenge to Western-led plans
for a genetically engineered revolution in African agriculture,
particularly the recent misguided philanthropic efforts of the Gates
Foundation's Alliance for a New Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and
presents African resistance and solutions rooted in first-hand
knowledge of what Africans need.
The report finds a lack of accountability, transparency, and
stakeholder involvement in philanthropic efforts such as AGRA. "Despite
the Gates Foundation's rhetoric of inclusion and the claim that their
investment in agricultural development benefits the growing majority of
the world's poor who rely on agriculture, a leaked Gates Foundation
confidential report on their Agricultural Development Strategy for
2008-2011 actually emphasizes moving people out of the agricultural
sector," said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland
Institute and the editor of the report. "Their intention is to reduce
dependency on agriculture, but their strategy report does not specify
where or how this new 'land mobile' population is to be reemployed,"
she continued.
AGRA claims to be an "African-led Green Revolution," and
features Kofi Annan at the helm as its chairman; however, African civil
society has rejected the idea that one man can speak on behalf of over
50 countries and 680 million people. It is also not apparent from the
foundation's Agricultural Development Strategy report whether--or
how--the Gates Foundation consulted with African farmers before
launching their multi-million dollar development strategy for the
continent. Some of the foundation's external advisors have long
partnered with biotech companies: for example, Ruth Oniang'o is
featured on Monsanto's website claiming that there is an urgent need
for food biotechnology in Africa, and Gates Foundation potential
grantee Calestous Juma has urged the G8 to put biotechnology on the
agenda for for Africa and discard the application of the precautionary
principle because it interferes with the development of new
technologies.
"Africa does not need dumping of food aid by rich countries
that destroys local efforts to produce. Not the imposition of
industrial-style agriculture based on chemicals and 'high-yielding'
seeds, with the paradoxical outcome of greater production of a few food
crops accompanied by even worse hunger and environmental degradation,"
said Diamantino Nhampossa, a contributor to the report and Executive
Coordinator of the Uniao Nacional de Camponeses (National Peasants
Union) in Mozambique and member of the Via Campesina's International
Coordinating Committee for the Africa Region.
The battle over genetic engineering is being fought across the
world, between those who champion farmers' rights to seeds, livelihood,
and land, and those who seek to privatize these. While promotional
campaigns for technological solutions to hunger regularly feature a
handful of African spokespeople who drown out the genuine voices of
farmers, researchers, and civil society groups, there is widespread
opposition to genetic engineering and plans for a New Green Revolution
for Africa. Voices From Africa is based on the essays and statements of
leading African farmers, environmentalists, and civil society groups,
and brings to light the real African perspectives on technological
solutions to hunger and poverty on the continent--and the solutions
that the people on the ground believe would bring true development.
The increase in hunger resulting from 2008's steep increase in
food prices has been used to make a case for increasing agricultural
production through technical solutions such as genetically engineered
crops. This "poor washing"--the spurious claim that technology will
address the needs of the hungry--and "green washing"--the claim that
this technology will help address the threat of climate change--conveys
a false sense of need. Voices from Africa clarifies how solutions to
hunger and environmental degradation require a paradigm shift that
values local and traditional knowledge and biodiversity, opens policy
space for developing countries to craft their own solutions, and allows
for agriculture and trade policies that protect local and regional
markets for small farmers, pastorlists, and fisherfolk. "The way to
fight poverty in Africa is to embrace the proposal of food sovereignty
that comes from the movement of peasants, indigenous peoples, migrants,
women, and rural communities," said Mr. Nhampossa. "Food sovereignty
puts those who produce, distribute, and consume food at the heart of
food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and
corporations."
Other voices featured in the report include: Mariam Mayet,
African Center of Biodiversity, South Africa; Nnimo Bassey,
Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria; David Fig, BioWatch, South
Africa; Mukoma Wa Ngugi, BBC Focus on Africa Magazine; Makhathe
Moahloli, Katleho Moho Association (KMA), Lesotho; Zachary Makanya,
Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Association (PELUM),
Kenya; and Gertrude Kenyangi Kabusimbi, Support for Women in
Agriculture and Environment (SWAGEN), Uganda.
Voices from Africa:African Farmers & Environmentalists
Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa is a publication of
the Oakland Institute (www.oaklandinstitute.org), a think tank for
research, analysis, and action whose mission is to increase public
participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic, and
environmental issues in both national and international forums.
Download the Report
Download the Introduction
Meet the Authors
The Oakland Institute is a policy think tank whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic and environmental issues in both national and international forums.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.