Is food part of the solution?

[elSicomoro]

I happened to be perusing the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning, when I came across this article. I'll post it here since the link will probably expire in a few days. Definitely a solid concept IMO.

Rep. Emerson suggests strong link between hunger, terrorism
By James Collins
Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
07/04/2002 07:39 PM



WASHINGTON - Alisha Meyers is evidence that guns and tough-talk diplomacy are not America's only weapons in the war on terrorism.

Meyers returned to the United States this spring after a yearlong fellowship in Sudan and Kenya, where she helped design a five-year food aid plan for poor farmers whose fields were ravaged by a decades-long civil war.

The 26-year-old Fulbright scholar from Ohio is adamant that fighting hunger is a step-by-step effort. UNICEF, the United Nations children's agency, estimates that 828 million people worldwide are chronically undernourished. Every small contribution, Meyers said, makes a difference.

Those small contributions may also be making a difference in the U.S.-led crusade to end terrorism. Plagued by poverty and political instability, Sudan is like so many of the world's trouble spots: The same country where Meyers worked to feed the hungry was once home to one of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist training camps.

U.S. State Department officials have long linked hunger in places like Sudan to internal factionalism and corruption. Now, with homeland security concerns central to politics in Washington, some international relief organizations and members of Congress say that hunger is also at the root of terrorism.

Reps. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., backers of a program that feeds hungry children with surpluses from American farmers, said making the connection was both valid and politically necessary.

"Part of our own domestic security depends on other countries feeling secure in themselves," Emerson said. "There's a clear line we can draw between the two."

The Emerson-McGovern initiative, known as the Global Food for Education Program, reaches 9 million children in 38 countries. Under the guidelines of the program, children only get the food if they attend school; in many communities, the program has more than doubled the number of girls who receive a basic education.

Less hunger and more education lead to more political stability, McGovern said. And that means a less welcoming breeding ground for terrorism.

"What we've been trying to do is make the case ... that (world hunger) is very much about combating terrorism," he said. "If we can be known as the country that is feeding hungry children in many parts of the world, I think that it creates a lot of goodwill."

Of the world's 828 million hungry, UNICEF estimates that 300 million are children.

Sara Piepmeier, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for the World Food Program, views the problem in terms of an equation.

"The more we can do to ... break the cycle of hunger, the more stable the world is," she said.

The World Food Program is fighting hunger epidemics in Southern Africa and Indonesia, which are home to the world's largest number of Muslims. Indonesia also is the target of a $16 million U.S. military aid package that State Department officials say will bolster the nation's domestic anti-terrorism capabilities.

But Emerson and McGovern worry that such increases in defense spending may make it difficult to sustain funding for world hunger aid.

The law behind the Global Food for Education program authorizes Congress to spend up to $1.3 billion over the program's lifetime. In 2000, the administration of President Bill Clinton established a $300 million pilot program.

But in this year's farm bill, legislators only approved $100 million in funding.

Emerson and McGovern said they hoped to add more. The push for more funding, they said, was all the more reason to educate the public.

Since Emerson assumed control this spring of the Congressional Hunger Center - the nonprofit organization that granted Meyers her fellowship - the three-term member of Congress said that had been her goal.

She also hopes to continue the legacy of her late husband, Rep. Bill Emerson, who led the Hunger Center for more than a decade.

In working to educate the public about hunger, Meyers and Emerson share a common frustration.

"Every little bit counts, especially when people have nothing," Meyers said of her experience in Sudan.

But, she added, conveying that sense of accomplishment to people in the United States is often difficult.

As an elected official with an interest in world hunger issues, Emerson said she found ways to make the issue more relevant to the lives of her constituents.

Take, for example, the program she sponsored with McGovern. What is praised for its international humanitarian achievement also makes smart political sense for Emerson: The farmers in her heavily rural district now have an outlet for their unused soybeans and corn.

Emerson says that domestic agriculture and world hunger shared a common fate in the public eye: Both are often overlooked.

"It's kind of like educating the public about agriculture," she said. "We have a huge public relations challenge ahead of us."

[jaguar]

Please tell me this is not a relvalation........................to anyone. Yes, if people aren't starving in hopeless poverty they are less likely aid, abet, assist or tollerate terrorism....particualry when its aimed at those that feed them hmmmm.......

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Please tell me this is not a relvalation........................to anyone. Yes, if people aren't starving in hopeless poverty they are less likely aid, abet, assist or tollerate terrorism....particualry when its aimed at those that feed them hmmmm.......

To a degree, I'd say it is.

I'd argue in the case of many third-world nations that there are resources to give everyone one nutritious meal a day. Yet government corruption prevents this from happening. I mean, India and Pakistan built nuclear weapons programs...and they are poor as dirt. Most of the Arab countries are swimming in oil money. I'd say that 99% (if not 100%) of the US population is able to obtain one free nutritious meal a day.

[jaguar]

Ethopia is the prime example of that, there have been protests in the streets here about how aid is being misused in Ethopia.

[Griff]

This also makes our recent farm bill a root cause of terrorism since its subsidies will subvert the growth of agriculture in the third world.

Just got my 2002 Census of Agriculture in the mail while I was on vacation. My answers will be used to further attempts to manage our small farmers out of business...

[jaguar]

Farm subsidies have always kept the thrid world poor. EU is just as guilty.

[Hubris Boy]

Did I miss something?

I didn't see anything in this article that shows a verifiable statistical correlation between hunger and terrorism. All I saw was a couple of Congresscritters trying to find a market for their constituents' surplus produce:

Take, for example, the program she sponsored with McGovern. What is praised for its international humanitarian achievement also makes smart political sense for Emerson: The farmers in her heavily rural district now have an outlet for their unused soybeans and corn.

Translation:
<blockquote>"The asshats in my district grow more food than they can sell, and I'm up for reelection this year. I'll make up some bullshit story that people would be afraid to argue against, like feeding starving children, and convince Uncle Sucker to buy my constituents' surplus. Then, we'll dump the food in some Third World country, drive the local farmers out of business by distorting their market with artificially low prices, make the local population dependent on foreign supplies of food, and... here's the best part... stick the American taxpayers with the bill!"</blockquote>

I don't think starving people spend a lot of time being terrorists. They're too busy starving. The majority of starving people, it seems to me, spend most of their time looking for something to eat. You have to be well-fed and unemployed to be a successful terrorist. That's why Ireland and the West Bank are overrun with terrorists, and Bangladesh and Ethiopia are not.

Hey! I have an idea! Instead of pissing away all this money on corn and soybeans from Missouri, why not buy every family in Sudan an iBook with an AirPort card instead? They can surf the 'net, and it'll give them something to do while they're starving, and surely Apple is as deserving of Federal subsidies as Missouri soybean growers. (And my program is more politically correct... we don't have to worry about upsetting the Sudanese computer manufacturers.)

[Griff]

I'd say hunger and terrorism are both symtoms of failed economies. The question is to what extent can the third world develop economies with first world interference? The US public wants to do right by them, seeing in our over-production a chance to feed the world. As we maintain our food programs we squash individual third world farmers who need a market. We do not and cannot have enough market information to manage the worlds food supply. The American press generally sells it as a win win situation which is good for american agriculture and good for the third world, when in fact it is the opposite, destroying the flexibility and openess of the American market and maintaining a dependent overseas population. Instead of putting our overproduction of grain into meat we move production higher. We feed cattle with our regular production and then our overproduction is shipped overseas to disrupt their market places. This means that when we have a down production year, instead of fewer cattle being fattened in the US, we have fewer human beings being fed in the third world.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Griff
I'd say hunger and terrorism are both symtoms of failed economies. The question is to what extent can the third world develop economies with first world interference?

Indeed. The simplistic "solution to hunger" is "give away food", which is the superficial pitch of the article under discussion (the actual ajenda being "spend the taxpayers money to buy up our surplus and give it away").

But is there really a reason to expect this to work in the real world? It *sounds* good....just like "people commit crimes with guns so make guns illegal" sounds good at first blush too. But the real world is more complicated than this. The solution to failed economies isn't an international welfare dole. Helping poorer countries to develop a growing, sustainable economy is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

.

[elSicomoro]

We know that a Congressman will seize any opportunity to pat themselves on the back.

I like the concept as a whole--give hungry people food, they may be happier and less likely to hate us. Of course, there's no guarantee of that, and I concede that it's only a temporary fix. My understanding of places like Ethiopia and Sudan are that they are rather arid places, unable to grow much food. So, how would we necessarily be destroying their markets?

I'm not sure if the 3rd world can truly develop without some sort of "interference" from the first world. As I see it, the former colonial powers pulled out of these nations without helping the people develop long-term governmental and economic structures. Someone will always want their hand in the cookie jar, methinks.

Quite frankly Hubris, you're no better than Congress. If we gave every family in Sudan an iBook, that would be as much as $3-5 billion.

I am admittedly ignorant of agricultural issues, therefore, Griff, I am confused by parts of your post. The parts I am confused on are italicized.

The American press generally sells it as a win win situation which is good for american agriculture and good for the third world, when in fact it is the opposite, destroying the flexibility and openess of the American market and maintaining a dependent overseas population. Instead of putting our overproduction of grain into meat we move production higher. We feed cattle with our regular production and then our overproduction is shipped overseas to disrupt their market places. This means that when we have a down production year, instead of fewer cattle being fattened in the US, we have fewer human beings being fed in the third world

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

I like the concept as a whole--give hungry people food, they may be happier and less likely to hate us. Of course, there's no guarantee of that, and I concede that it's only a temporary fix.

While it may appeal as a "whole concept", unfortunately people can't eat concepts, even whole ones. Since it's "only a temporary fix", do you really think they'll be less likely to hate us when we <i><b>stop</b></i> giving them food? It doesn't <i>fix</i> anything, even temporaily (except perhaps misplaced feelings of guilt); it's a quick fix of feel-good.

By the time you're aware of a starving population somewhere, they're too far away and there too many of them to do anything meaningful by shipping food from here. Food isn't of fixed value. Like real estate, *location* is highly important variable in the equation. We've got lots of water in Lake Michigan, should we spend millions to ship it to areas stricken by drought?

It's a viable, working economy that feeds people, not CARE packages.

[Griff]

Having never played an economist on tv, I'm sure there are some obvious holes in my position. Anyway, here goes, There is no such thing as a temporary Federal program. I'm all for buying a little love with free food if its a bridge to the ultimate goal of Sudan being either food self-sufficient or developing enough of an economy that food purchaces are a small burden. If temporary, the American market will reduce the number of beef cows being grain fed, the price of beef will increase and Griff will put on a small herd of grass fed angus to take advantage of the prices. If it becomes permanent, the guaranteed income will cause even more centralization in our agriculture as big ag puts more land under tillage to meet the known greater demand. This will permanently eliminate ag production in Sudan. It also moves market elasticity overseas with human beings rather than cattle being the extra mouths to feed, unless Congress is willing to pay substantially more for the overseas grain.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Since it's "only a temporary fix", do you really think they'll be less likely to hate us when we <i>stop</i> giving them food?

Possibly. Even I as an idealist realize that this is nice in theory, poor in practice. But as I see it, we give them food and help them on their feet, they may play nice with us in the War on Terror (apparently, the Sudan is playing nice right now)*, we improve our standing in the world community, it costs $1.3 billion (based on the amount in the story) over the lifetime of the deal. Though I'm sure plenty will disagree, to me, $1.3 billion in the long run is a drop in the bucket.

It doesn't <i>fix</i> anything, even temporaily (except perhaps misplaced feelings of guilt); it's a quick fix of feel-good.

I don't see it that way. If we're giving a nation such as the Sudan food, and it's keeping them alive for the time being, then I would say it's a temporary fix. Nothing compared to a sustainable economy of course, but...

By the time you're aware of a starving population somewhere, they're too far away and there too many of them to do anything meaningful by shipping food from here. Food isn't of fixed value. Like real estate, *location* is highly important variable in the equation. We've got lots of water in Lake Michigan, should we spend millions to ship it to areas stricken by drought?

Depends on whether the benefits are worth the cost. I'm sure it would cost a ton of money to ship water from Lake Michigan...but would it be worth it to send it to drought-stricken states? A cost-benefit analysis would need to be done.

Shipping food to Sudan would probably cost a lot, but I would think it cheaper than sending food to Afghanistan, since the Sudan appears closer to the US.

Hmmm...the US could use this to their advantage with the UN. We offer the food to them, they reduce our debt to them and handle the logistics. Unlikely, but...

It's a viable, working economy that feeds people, not CARE packages.

Absolutely...I don't disagree with you on that. Perhaps we should include economic advisers as part of the food package. Unfortunately, Sudan has a lot of political issues that I think need to be resolved first before they can truly develop a solid economy.

*--Sudan's background notes from the US State Dept.

[elSicomoro]

Gracias, Señor Griff...now it makes sense to me.

This Global Food for Education program is supposed to be tapped out at $1.3 billion. Granted, someone like Emerson could always ask for an increase on that, but if economic advisers could be included in that original funding, it might be beneficial.

Promise me you'll name a cow after me if you go with this.

Now let me ask you this. Should we continue to grow surpluses? My own answer is yes, b/c I figure it better to have too much than little. And I would think that some country somewhere on this earth could use that surplus, and may even be able to pay for it.

[Griff]

If we are talking ideal situations, I'd leave that up to individual farmers. That would be assuming we had something resembling a free market in agriculture. We don't, the Department of Agriculture has a program for everything. They are a hodge podge of conflicting goals and interests. It really is tragic that in a country that supposedly appreciates individualism virtually every farmer of any consequence is cashing federal checks. Any extra grain we are producing is subsidized grain. Like Jag keeps saying, first world subsidies prevent agricultural development in the third world. A Sudanese farmer may be able to compete with an American farmer due to transportation issues but he cannot compete if the American taxpayer is part of the mix. If you want to see how two-faced we are on this issue you should check out our reaction to Canadian timber subsidies.