Beyond Lies in American Food Aid: The Dead Bodies
From Tom Barnett at his Thomas P. M. Barnett web log - Beyond Lies in American Food Aid: The Dead Bodies
Quote:
ARTICLE:
"As Africa Hungers, U.S. Policy Slows the Delivery of Food Aid," by Celia W. Dugger, New York Times, 7 April 2007, p. A1.
I've written before about this Congress-protected iron triangle of food producers, food transporters and aid groups.
This story just makes you want to scream at the greed of it all.
For two years Bush and Co. try to change this insane law that says only food grown by Americans and shipped by American vessels with American crews and distributed by American charities can be used for foreign food aid.
So despite the people going hungry right now in Zambia and USAID being more than happy to buy food aid locally--as in, right in Zambia when the harvest was bountiful this year--USAID cannot do so because of this law.
Also because of this law, our food aid will likely be held up in terms of delivery for as long as six months. So people will die needlessly, according to Oxfam. Maybe 50,000 in the next half year alone.
The Bush administration says American taxpayers could feed an additional million more Africans if Congress just changes this idiotic law...
Are we not already doing enough ?
Those so-called laws are in place to protect America's interests. It wasn't too long ago, that anything the Embassy or DoD elements needed also had to be... made by, shipped by... and... used by Americans. From vehicles to toilet paper. I think the laws are apropriate and should remain in place.
Jeez, it's not like we are sitting around watching them die:
http://usembassy.state.gov/zambia/press_releases.html
A quick scan of the U.S. Embassy's Public Affairs section for Lusaka, Zambia reveals mucho bucks being donated.
Hell, even the U.S. Marines 'toys for tots' program cranked out mega toys in December of 2006 for needed children.
I mean c'mon, if there's soo much chow available in Zambia to buy, why don't they get a tad more involved in donations ? :mad:
Catchy Title - Tied Aid !
Hey Marc !
To quote a real smart guy herein....Yepper !
Quote:
The technical term for this is "tied aid", something that Canada has done for a long time. Honestly, I think it's a bad policy on the whole for a number of reasons.
1. It encourages a "dependency" mentality in the host country.
2. It doesn't encourage the local economy. Since the late 1970's, there has been a fairly major move in development agencies that is based on the idea of teaching a person to fish rather than giving them a fish (you know the old adage...). After all, I'd rather that these countries be able to feed themselves....
3. It makes economic sense for "us". Hey, if we are going to feed 50k people, would you rather spend $5,000,000 or $1,000,000? Personally, I'd rather have my charity money (and tax dollars) going directly to people who need it in the most efficient way (it's why I look at admin charges and won't support any charity tha doesn't have open books).
Yes, I agree that this entire scenario does little more that encourage dependency. They will never then, ever get off their dead behinds and do something.
They recently received computers and all kinds of 'stuff' to boost tourism ????? I give up, obviously USAID thought that would 'plug a hole'.
The Peace Corps supposedly teach them how to raise fish, do we now need to teach them how to eat said ?
I also have a real hard time with that term 'charity' tied to administrative costs. Perhaps why I like keeping the whole banana :eek: At least I would have some idea where all that admin cash is going.
I'm not totally against 'buying it there', but if there is a bumper crop, why not give some to their own folks ? Why do we have to buy their Sierra, and give it away (just down the street) :confused:
Regards, Stan
Assistance and Crises Perpetuation
Quote:
I've got no problems with some of the tied aid that is given. Where I do have problems with it is when it is inappropriate tied aid. Probably the classic Canadian example of that was several hundred million given by Canada to Mozambique in the 1970's to build a railroad into the resources areas of the country. Good idea, except for the implementation. It used a non-standard gauge of track and all the equipment was produced in Montreal and only available there. The effect was to create a situation where the railroad did little actual good and, in terms of supporting Canadian industry, the money would have been better spent on a straight subsidy
.
Canada is hardly alone in that regard, Marc. We started an insurgency in Bangladesh with a dam that eliminated a tribal group's homeland and benefited their rivals. I have told my story here about Wisconsin dairy cattle forced on USAID Egypt by a now deceased Senator who later was a Sec Def (Les Aspin). All the pampered Wisconsin beauties were hoofs up in a year in Egypt's slightly different climate where the locals don not put air conditioning in barns (if they have barns). Pick a reciepient country and we probably have dome something that was not quite right. Military assistance gets even more bizarre.
Your frustration about foreseeable, perpetual, and often perpetuated crises is also valid. But very often those whoe refuse to see (or publicly admit) the crises are the governments that need the aid. That was my experience in Sudan in 84 when the drought was just as bad as it was in Ethiopia. Or as was the case in Zaire in 94 when the "government" (as in the muliti-layered criminal organzation that ran the country called itself) used the Rwandan refugee crises to its advantage only to have that crises consume them. Sudan (Darfur) and Zimbabwe (the whole bloody place) fall into that realm.
My frustration has been and still is that much money that actually should go to developing countries goes to countries that do not even fight the profile for development aid, those of course being both Israel and Egypt.
Best
Tom