Beyond Lies in American Food Aid: The Dead Bodies

[SWJED]

From Tom Barnett at his Thomas P. M. Barnett web log - Beyond Lies in American Food Aid: The Dead Bodies

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...

[Stan]

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 ?

[marct]

Hi Stan,

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.

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. Think of this in COIN terms, even if there are no overt kinetic ops going on, and you can see that it will produce a whole lot of resentment.
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).

A quick scan of the U.S. Embassy's Public Affairs section for Lusaka, Zambia reveals mucho bucks being donated.

So? Ever tried to eat a greenback ? Stan, think of this in military terms for a minute. If you were out at the sharp end, would you rather know that there is a company following on ready to support you or that there is a battalion 300 miles away that could reach you in a week?

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 ?

I'd be interested to find out how much they actually are donating. Still and all, the fact that there is a bumper crop there tells me that agricultural development programs are working. Why not buy it there?

Marc

[Stan]

Hey Marc !
To quote a real smart guy herein....Yepper !

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 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)

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Stan,

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.

And, to make matters worse, when they do do something then they're told it ain't good enough for us to buy!

They recently received computers and all kinds of 'stuff' to boost tourism ????? I give up, obviously USAID thought that would 'plug a hole'.

In Zambia!?!?! Shessh!!!!!

When I'm wearing my consulting hat, I've been doing tourism research for the past 3 years (amongst other stuff). That has got to be the stupidest idea I have heard of!

I also have a real hard time with that term 'charity' tied to administrative costs. Perhaps why I like keeping the whole banana At least I would have some idea where all that admin cash is going.

LOLOL Yeah, me too. I stopped supporting any UN agency a long time ago. I think the worst one was about a decade ago when UNICEF had an "administrative overhead" of 88% of all monies raised. None of them that I am aware of in the UN have less than a 50% overhead cost. The best one I found was the Unitarian Service committee with an 11% overhead which, when I went over to their HQ, struck me as really threadbare. Right now, I won't support any "charity" that has an overhead of greater than 20%.

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)

Maybe they are, I haven't sen anything one way or the other. Still and all, the aim of the article was to point out the silliness of being required to buy in the US. It really makes one wonder about the purpose behind the "charity" - is it to feed people and help them so that they don't have to be dependent in the future, or is it another government support plan for US agriculture and shipping? Enquiring minds want to know ....

Marc

[Tom Odom]

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.

Marc

I have worked aid and relief overseas in the Sudan, Zaire, and Rwanda. I was married to an AID officer for nearly 10 years during which time she worked in the AID missions in Sudan and Egyt. And she ran the Food for Peace program into Haiti in the late 80s early 90s under PL 480. Tied aid as you describe depends on type aid, situation, and adminstration. In Sudan we used American sorghum that the Sudanese did not like; ours is red and we use it as livestock feed. Theirs is white, called durra, and it is a staple like corn. They ate the red sorghum, given the choice of eating it or starving, In Goma, it was not food, it was water. Food was an issue but it was not the crisis driver. In that case, the greatest US AID was really ailift with water transport as a seond place. One case of "tied aird" that stood out was Japan's donation to UNHCR millions of dollars of Toyota and Nissan luxury--leather seats, dual A/Cs, CDs, etc--as emergency aid worker vehicles. In Rwanda, I was able to get waivers allowing me to buy Nissan trucks for demining rather than US vehicles that you could not get parts for locally.

It encourages a "dependency" mentality in the host country. Think of this in COIN terms, even if there are no overt kinetic ops going on, and you can see that it will produce a whole lot of resentment.
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....

No emergency aid encourages the "local economy" unless you define local by region. What constitutes local in Zambia? South Africa? No USAID worker regards disaster assistance as foreign development. They would rather do the teach them to fish but when the friggin lake is dry it is time for canned tuna or something like it. That is why USAID has the OFDA (Office of Foriegn Disaster Assistance) as a sub-entity. And by the way there is a culture clash between the two: USAID tends to me more mainstream while OFDA and its DARTs are more like disaster groupie/hippies

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).

This is apples and oranges. Apples are government assistance programs where the govenment sets the priorities and the rules, as in "tied aid." Much of "tied aid" in the US agricultural sector is tied to farm subsidies and food storage. If I as a US tax payer am paying to store wheat (or red sorghum)and a disaster occurs, I want that food used rather than buying it elsewhere. Oranges are the private contributions to NGOs and PVOs where as a private donot you should be asking if yiur money is being spent where it needs to be. CARE by the way is one of the most extravangant when it comes to "overhead".

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Tom,

You're quite right in pointing out the distinction between immediate disaster and long term development.

One of the things that has really toasted my cookies for years now has been how the two categories have been conflated for fund raising (and other) purposes. Let me give you an example...

The "famine" that is operating in the countries bordering southern Sudan is both a "crisis" and, at the same time, something that pretty much everyone knew was going to happen (similar to the Darfur refugee problems). It is a "crisis" in the sense of being a critical problem, but it lacks the temporal immediacy of, say, a tsunami or earthquake; let's call it the difference between a "crisis" and a "disaster" for the purpose of discussion.

Emergency response groups, such as the DART teams etc., are pretty much designed for a response to immediate problems, i.e. disasters. As such, there is probably going to be little that can be done in terms of "local".

But what about crises that can be forecast? This is where I see the conflation between development and foreign aid taking place. You used the example of canned tuna when he lake is dry, and it's a valid analogy, but surely someone would notice that the lake was drying up?

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.

Marc