Mark Steel: If the poor of Africa are hungry, send them arms
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
It's so difficult, apparently, to work out how to solve the food shortages in Africa. Because the price of food has just gone up, the way prices do sometimes, caught by a freak gust of wind or flare from the sun or something and whoosh, up they go, whether it's oil or an Olympic Games or rice and it's just bad luck.
Combined with the growing population, it means there's no simple way of stopping millions of people starving. But fortunately the same laws don't apply to other essential items, such as arms. That's why you never get reports saying: "What with the booming population and rising prices, there just aren't enough weapons to go round.
"The crisis is so deep there are now allies of America without access to a single cluster bomb, and in one region of the Congo warlords have to share one flamethrower between two. Charities have sent out truckloads of Tomahawk missiles to Uzbekistan but the queues of government officials go back across the hills, and the fear is that for some this shipment may have come too late."
And aid programmes require summits lasting several days, followed by statements about tying aid to trade deals, that begin: "You don't solve the problem of hunger simply by giving people food."
So while getting food to the hungry seems impossible, there has been a 37 per cent increase in global arms spending in the past 10 years, which raised last year's tally to $1,204bn. Those of you who don't understand economics might wonder why there can't be an agreement to only spend $1,203bn instead, then wander round Sainsbury's buying a billion dollars' worth of food and take it to people who are starving, especially as Sainsbury's currently have a special offer of a free box of Shredded Wheat if you spend a billion dollars or more.
It's arguable there isn't a food shortage at all. According to the World Hunger Education Service, there are now 17 per cent more calories produced per person each day than there were 30 years ago. The problem is that, for example, in India, while 48 per cent of children under five are malnourished, in 2004 they exported one-and-a-half-billion dollars' worth of rice to meet trade agreements.
But instead the most common solution offered is that Africa has to attract the free market, and then trade itself out of hunger. Kofi Annan, on Monday's Newsnight agreed with this, in his amiable helpless way. There was no alternative, he said, to attracting Chinese trade, regardless of their human rights records or whether that trade will encourage the dictators they trade with. Because that's what the starving need – people who are prepared to make a few quid out of them.
The only flaw is that these people are already the ones who've wrecked the place. In Nigeria entire villages were uprooted to make room for Shell Oil. In Tanzania the water supply was sold off to a consortium, which spent a huge chunk of Tanzanian public money and was so disastrous even the World Bank kicked them out. In South Africa tens of thousands were left without electricity after privatisation.
But the more chaos these companies cause, the more we're told they're the only answer. Maybe that's how these companies advertise, with little boxes in the Yellow Pages that say "Balfour Beatty – making disaster come faster". Or they send out leaflets that say: "Not long ago no one had heard of the Shanto region of Ethiopia. But since Unimax Ltd. forced the farmers to make cheap coffee for export, many inhabitants now feature regularly on Christmas charity videos! Unimax – we put the star into starvation."
What a depressing argument it is, that help can only be attracted if it promises to make multinationals a fortune. No one else is expected to think like this, to see dying children and think: "Hmm, I would help out, but what's in it for me?"
Maybe there should be a special edition of Comic Relief for businessmen, that goes: "Well you all saw that harrowing film presented by Lenny Henry, and since that was made, eight of those children have died of Aids. Which is why it's vital that you ring right now and secure the rights to provide water to the place. Because the World Bank have forced the country to sell off its supply and you'll make a PACKET, but if they're all dead they won't be able to pay so it will be too late. Now here's Gaby with a man dressed as a giraffe who'll tell you how to make 3 million quid buying mangoes from Uganda and selling them straight back to them again."
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
35 Comments
KP, yes its so stupid and callous of me to recognise that virtually no aspect of the human plague's activity is sustainable. Of course I'm pasrt of it also but unlike Steel I'm not hanging onto the post-religious humanist fantasy of a human-centric existence. I avoid speciesism as much as possible and observe the wider picture for the majority of life.
I only focussed on Africa because thats the topic of the article, there certainly is no benign "civilization".
Posted by Marcus | 18.06.08, 22:41 GMT
Western aid payments are taken by the rich in third world countries and do nothing to help the poor.
Aid should be stopped, as should the indiscriminate breeding.
Suffer now, or even more will suffer later.
Posted by cap | 18.06.08, 22:41 GMT
I was under the impression that we need corrupt African leaders - to sell us lucrative concessions for peanuts. They defiant, leftie types don't stand a chance.
Posted by Eve Smith | 18.06.08, 18:49 GMT
Africa like Asia has a middle class - it has millionaires and billionaires too - so what the hell are we doing giving them a penny? What are they doing to help their own people? How can all those corrupt leaders have their assets taken away from them and returned to the countries they plundered?
Aid perpetuates poverty - and it is paid for by all people, including very poor people, in the 'West' who then lose their jobs when companies relocate to India and south africa! It is so surreal and absurd that you couldn't make this stuff up.
Posted by MyLai | 18.06.08, 18:47 GMT
Well done Marcus, good job you're not one a member of that species eh? Otherwise you'd have to be considered along with everyone else when the deciding was being done over who gets to starve to death. Good job your jet-propelled throne sitting high above the earth's surface allows you to opt-out of that lottery eh?
Although ... it's kind of like Mark's point is that we *do* actually produce enough food to feed everyone, in which case you've set up a rather foolish false dichotomy predicated on the assumption that no one has actually read the article above your comment. But no, 'cos then you'd look stupid as well as callous. So that can't be right.
Posted by KP | 18.06.08, 18:18 GMT
Wow, what a depressing article. It's reallly sad that, knowing what's wrong, we still don't do anything about starvation. This article shows or, in better terms, unveils how sarcastic things can get if we just let things happen.
Posted by Juan José Barizone | 18.06.08, 17:59 GMT
Jumber in your isolationist scenario you sacrifice the continent's innocent non-human life to instant extinction. While I share the main sentiments, if the area labelled as The Congo was cut off tomorrow then the last gorillas would be gone within the year surely?
As you hint one human in 6.5bn is valued higher than the last pockets of our primate ancestors and I believe the later needs defending.
Its a complex question and I do feel we're just delaying the inevitable either way.
Posted by Marcus | 18.06.08, 17:51 GMT
Dump the reserve currency status of the really worthless greenback and let the Americans start paying their way selling things - other than Frankenstein food, gas guzzling technology, weapons, glitzy crap and Hollywood films.
Posted by ArfaBrayne | 18.06.08, 17:47 GMT
All aid to Africa should be stopped as it does nothing but perpetuate corruption and war and over-population (the main issue). We really do have to let them get on with it. There is no other way. To be honest the most tragic thing is the destruction of the wild-life (eg gorillas in Congo) to feed and support a huge and growing population - it has quadrupled since independence and this is the cause of much nastiness and conflict in Africa. To be a bit misanthropic - given the choice between saving the animals or the people, I'd vite for the animals (oh but no votes in africa...)
Of course everything in africa is tribal too - but to just blame the whites and the West is a red herring. Africa is a mess because of Africans - and the elites who ruined/ravaged their lands to steal everything and invest nothing. The black Africans have been betrayed by their own.
Stop making excuses. Perhaps we need to neglect Africa completely and let the population control itself?
Posted by Jumber | 18.06.08, 17:42 GMT
A tired piece of "satire" from a deluded humanist who can't stand to accept there may be even one too many of his beloved species.
Keep those fingers in ears and hands over eyes while those you cast as helpless victims breed more hungry suffering mouths into existence.
Posted by Marcus | 18.06.08, 17:20 GMT
35 Comments