How to use starving people to force your product into Global markets - US style

pencil

This is how you push your unwanted product on the world. You give starving people a choice between, starvation & death or food & a form of slavedom.

I'm dumbfounded, how unethical & underhanded can one industry backed Government get?


From:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23728-2002Jul30.html


Starved for Food, Zimbabwe Rejects U.S. Biotech Corn

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 31, 2002; Page A12

Thousands of tons of U.S. emergency food aid destined for crisis-stricken Zimbabwe has been diverted to other countries, and a new shipload may be diverted within days, because the donations include genetically modified corn that the Zimbabwean government does not want to accept.

The image of a nation on the brink of starvation turning down food because it has been genetically engineered has reignited a long-smoldering scientific and political controversy over the risks and benefits of gene-altered food.

Some biotech advocates are criticizing the Zimbabwean government for balking at the humanitarian assistance, saying President Robert Mugabe seems to care more about his political independence than his citizens' lives. About half of Zimbabwe's 12 million residents are on the verge of famine because of drought and political mismanagement, according to the United Nations.

But other scientists and economists say the troubled African nation has good reason to reject the engineered kernels. If some of the corn seeds are sown instead of eaten, the resulting plants will produce gene-altered pollen that will blow about and contaminate surrounding fields.

That could render much of the corn grown in Zimbabwe -- a nation that in most years is a major exporter -- unshippable to nations in Europe and elsewhere that restrict imports of bioengineered food, because of environmental and health concerns.

The United States could save lives and avert a potential ecological crisis by paying to have the corn kernels milled before they enter Zimbabwe, several experts said this week. But relief officials said U.S. food agencies typically don't cover milling expenses, which are estimated at $25 per metric ton -- a significant expense for a nation so poor.

That response has fueled suspicion among some observers in the United States and Africa that Washington is using the food crisis to get U.S. gene-altered products established in a corner of the world that has largely resisted them.

"The U.S. is using its power to impose its view that modified maize is not a danger," said Carol Thompson, a political economist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, who has spent much of the past 10 years in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe and five other southern African nations -- Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia -- face widespread food shortages after two years of drought and floods. The U.N. World Food Program has said the region will need 1 million metric tons of food aid in the next few months, Only a fraction of that amount has been promised by donors so far.

The first shipload of U.S. food aid for Zimbabwe -- a landlocked nation that is the hardest hit of the affected countries -- arrived at a Tanzanian port in June. It was carrying about 10,000 metric tons of corn from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

But the corn, which in Africa is known as maize and is valued by agencies at about $95 a metric ton, was not welcome. Like most corn stores in the United States, the shipment was a mix of conventional varieties and high-tech kernels bearing bacterial genes to protect against insect pests.

The Zimbabwean government, which for decades has supported the development of corn varieties suited to local ecosystems, is concerned not only about genetic contamination, but also about intellectual property issues. Pending changes in international trade rules, backed by the United States, could preclude farmers from saving the patented seeds from biotech harvests for replanting in following years, a practice vital to many subsistence farmers who cannot afford to buy new seed every year.

"If these crops get in, then farmers basically lose their rights to their own agricultural resources," said Carole Collins, senior policy analyst for the Washington-based Africa Faith and Justice Network.

Moreover, some European countries want to ban imports of cattle that have been fed engineered corn, posing another potential trade problem for Zimbabwe if engineered kernels were to swamp the country.

When notified of the June shipment, officials told the United Nations that, although the country was not absolutely rejecting the aid, it preferred that the corn be milled first so no seeds could be planted.

That response got to the U.N. two days after World Food Program officials decided to unload the kernels and ship them to Malawi, said Judith Lewis, the program's regional director for southern and eastern Africa. Malawi is among the poorest of southern African nations and does not have a firm policy on gene-altered food.

Now a second ship of Zimbabwe-bound U.S. corn has arrived, this time in the South African port of Durban. It includes 17,500 metric tons of corn kernels, and USAID wants a decision from Zimbabwe by tomorrow, Lewis said. Zimbabwean officials discussed their options yesterday without reaching a decision, and were scheduled to have further meetings today.

USAID representatives have expressed frustration with this and previous situations like it. When India balked over a humanitarian shipment of gene-altered food, one U.S. official was quoted as saying, "Beggars can't be choosers."

At a news conference in Johannesburg on Friday, Roger Winter, USAID's assistant administrator for humanitarian assistance, suggested that Zimbabwe had little choice if it wanted to feed its people. "We have no substitute for that maize. That maize is what's available," he said.

Indeed, very little nonengineered corn is segregated from high-tech varieties during the U.S. harvest, and that portion sells at a premium to organic food processors and others.

Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization, said Zimbabwe was using the food to play politics.

"I think the Zimbabwe government is using this to show its muscle against the United States and other Western countries because of the criticism the president has been receiving from outside," Pinstrup-Andersen said, referring to widespread criticism of Mugabe's recent land-reform policies and accusations of government cronyism. "I think it is irresponsible . . . unless they know they can get enough food from elsewhere that is not genetically modified."

Mugabe has said he is being prudent. "We fight the present drought with our eyes clearly set on the future of the agricultural sector, which is the mainstay of our economy," he told Zimbabwe's parliament on July 23. "We dare not endanger its future through misplaced decisions based on acts of either desperation or expediency."

Neil E. Harl, a professor of economics at Iowa State University, agreed that much was at stake. "Pollen drift is a real problem, especially with maize," Harl said. "It places these countries in an extremely difficult position."

He and several other experts recommended that the United States pay for milling costs. "It is highly unethical not to just cover the costs for milling," said Thompson, the Arizona professor. "Tell me how much it costs to drop one bomb on Afghanistan. Who is starving whom here?"

Asked if people were going "too far" by saying that gene-altered humanitarian exports were part of a strategy to spread the crops around the world, Harl said: "I'm not sure that is going too far."

U.S. government and biotech representatives vehemently denied any such collusion.

"I don't think there is any justification to make claims like that," said Rob Horsch, director of global technology transfer for Monsanto, the St. Louis biotech giant that owns the rights to many biotech crop varieties. Although the company has used private detectives to identify and prosecute U.S. and Canadian farmers it suspects of saving patented seeds, that policy would be adapted to accommodate local traditions in other countries, Horsch said.

USAID officials also rejected the notion that they were strong-arming Zimbabwe or had any agenda other than feeding the needy.

With food shortages increasing every day, some U.S. officials said late yesterday that they believed Zimbabwe was on the verge of accepting the corn.

bonkey

Originally posted by pencil
USAID officials also rejected the notion that they were strong-arming Zimbabwe or had any agenda other than feeding the needy.

Then surely theyd have no problems granting Zimbabwe and its surrounding nations an amnesty on fees for any modified corn which was accidentally planted

No? Didnt think so.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

That could render much of the corn grown in Zimbabwe -- a nation that in most years is a major exporter -- unshippable to nations in Europe and elsewhere that restrict imports of bioengineered food, because of environmental and health concerns.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Why the devil would a country beset by famine since independence want to export primary foodstuffs?

Pending changes in international trade rules, backed by the United States, could preclude farmers from saving the patented seeds from biotech harvests for replanting in following years, a practice vital to many subsistence farmers who cannot afford to buy new seed every year.

Now there's no excuse at all for that. It's highly unlikely such IPR issues would ever be seriously addressed formally, but even having it hanging over your head is highly unfair. But, one might argue, who ever said that aid was fair? Untied aid no longer exists, and where it does, the sums are grossly inadequate. The US is hardly alone in this- witness the way in which EU aid to Palestine and other areas *must* be spent on goods and services from the EU. If local Arab expertise was used, the housing might have been more spacious, and more units could have been built, and water-supply to these areas more efficient. You'll find this sort of rabid hypocracy surrounding aid in every nation that chooses to give it.

Not all battles are settled with weapons these days, debt, debt relief, and aid are all tools used openly by western governments to strangle Africa's economy. The world's poor in places are merely pawns to Western industrialist leaders, and several governments in Africa. Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria is a perfect example- open your borders to an oil monopoly and we'll cancel your debt. Don't, and we'll force you to bleed your citizens even more for the interest payments. If only they'd mentioned they were going to arm local warlords to aid control of commodities and drilling-sites...but that would be giving the game away wouldn't it?


Occy

Hobbes

Might want to go read up on the country. Slashdot has a thread on it as well.

http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/08/01/0319209.shtml?tid=99

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1201137

Faced with famine, Robert Mugabe orders farmers to stop growing food

Get article background

JUNE in Zimbabwe is midwinter, but because of the country's subtropical climate, its commercial farmers can grow food all year round. Right now, they should be tending the winter wheat, which is usually ready for harvest in September or October, and preparing their fields for warm-weather crops, such as maize, the national staple. But President Robert Mugabe has commanded them to park their tractors and stop farming. With half the people in Zimbabwe on the brink of starvation, this is, even by Mr Mugabe's standards, an exceptionally bad idea.

From June 25th, some 2,900 white farmers, whose farms have been earmarked to be seized and given to blacks, were legally obliged to cease work. Those who continue to plough, weed and scatter seeds face jail terms of up to two years. Generously, the government said it would allow them to continue living in their homes for another 45 days, but then they must leave. In theory, they are permitted to take their portable possessions away with them, but in practice, police and ruling-party militiamen at roadblocks often prevent them from escaping with anything too valuable. Mr Mugabe's cronies, relatives and assorted mobsters covet their pick-up trucks and threshing machines.

White land owners were told to leave their land or they would be murdered.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus


That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Why the devil would a country beset by famine since independence want to export primary foodstuffs?

Assuming you weren't being tongue in cheek, you basically answered that yourself later in your post, when you described the pressure put on countries in relation to their international debts. Countries with high debts have historically been (and probably still are today) encouraged - by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and indirectly by the countries and financial institutions that bankroll them - to shift land, resources and labour to export-oriented production as part of the conditions for debt rescheduling. The idea is to ensure a steady flow of foreign currency so that they can keep up with their payments. The question of whether it leaves them more open to famine or not is seen as less important. The IMF was recently accused of telling Malawi, presently famine-stricken, to sell some of its then-surplus of maize. The IMF denies specifically doing this, but it has still "suspended Malawi's poverty-reduction programme until it cuts government spending in its budget in June".


Zimbabwe has a debt of around $4.5bn, according to the BBC

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Countries with high debts have historically been (and probably still are today) encouraged - by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and indirectly by the countries and financial institutions that bankroll them - to shift land, resources and labour to export-oriented production as part of the conditions for debt rescheduling

No doubt- but as any good economist will tell you, shifting land, labor and capital into the export of primary foodstuffs does almost nothing to increase overall cash flow. Profit margins are accrued through secondary manufacturing and tertiary industry, not by exporting commodity grain or maize. These forms of industry require investment, which in turn requires that African nations need to address the horrifying level of corruption in their governments and civil services. Sure, every government to some extent is corrupt(though rarely the civil service also)- but when your people starve because of it there's something fundamentally wrong with the entire system. It does little good to write off debt to a nation which will only plague its own financial system with bad loans + a lack of transparency and then shuffle along to the IMF/World Bank with begging bowl in hand. This happens regularly with every (often violent and undemocratic) shift in government that occurs in African nations.

The question of whether it leaves them more open to famine or not is seen as less important.

Another farcical leap of reasoning- in the majority of African countries (Malawi included) the problem is either the inability to distribute food, or that the entire nation is dependent upon 1 or 2 crops for local commodity trading- even for subsistence farmers. Poor distribution is often due to the dictatorship of the day playing favorites with tribal/ethnic groups, starving warlords (who try to starve government enclaves back) and the high level of danger associated with carting food across a country that is often plagued by poor infrastructure, banditry and civil war. These are fundamental problems that have been solved in most other developing countries, which is why they rarely suffer the extent of the problems witnessed in Africa. As for the 2-crop plans that many nations subscribe to- what's your point? Food production is nationalized- therefore the management of agricultural methods is the government's responsibility. If the (only) backup crop fails, and the government hasn't stored food away- or if they are unable/unwilling to distribute that food to a starving populace, then who's to blame? The IMF? Yeah, haven't heard that one before :rolleyes:

The IMF denies specifically doing this<snip>

Did you even read that article you put in there shot? Here's a quote from it:

The IMF's Mr Begashaw countered that Malawi sold the maize after advice from a food consultant, hired by the government in a European Union-funded project.

He added that the country cut the reserve by two-thirds on the basis of inaccurate crop estimates.

"They thought they would have a good harvest in 2001, so they went ahead and sold all the 167,000 metric tonnes in the reserve," Mr Begashaw said.

"They did not even keep the 60,000 tonnes that their own policy required them to keep," he said.

Who's to blame then? The IMF of course! :P They hire a private food consultant with no stake beyond his paycheck, breach their own domestic policy on food reserves, conduct a hopelessly inaccurate crop estimate, and then sell all their reserves- and you want to blame "pressure from the IMF". Ooookay. That's like saying the Soviets "pressured us" into Vietnam or that the British and the French "pressured" Israel into acting the aggressor during the Suez crisis...how ridiculous does that sound? They have nothing to blame but their own inadequate policy and short-sighted planning. But hey, when nothing else goes to plan, Blame Canada! Or the IMF, take your pick.

There's also this gem:

Mr Banda said the forecasts had predicted another bumper harvest from March 2001 but the crop failed.

Oh huzzah- the agricultural minister of a famine-plagued country predicting a bumper-crop...credible source indeed that. Next you'll be telling me to believe Secretary Rumsfeld's recent claim that "the DOD is woefully underfunded in key areas". Not a chance.

<snip> but it has still "suspended Malawi's poverty-reduction programme until it cuts government spending in its budget in June".

Can you in all honesty blame them? If Malawi (amongst others) continue with unspeakable blunders like this, how can they be expected to manage any resources accrued through a poverty-reduction programme? Looking at the form-book, it would suggest that the Malawi government would start off by using food coupons as fire-lighters, fertilizers for chemical engineering labs, and crop seed for livestock feed. That is the depth of incompetence, possibly corruption, and very probably bad leadership. You can blame the IMF/World Bank when they go wrong- but you can't criticize them for refusing to pour bad loans down a black hole.

Zimbabwe has a debt of around $4.5bn, according to the BBC

This might well have to do with the high levels of imported food Zimbabwe now needs after several white farmers were driven off their land. Government policy seems to be that the ends will justify the means used to achieve them- the international community rightly disagrees. If you're going to antagonize and harass the largest food-production base of the country, and then whine about having to import food, then you're an idiot and a hypocrite. Sounds rather like Robert Mugabe to me.

To sum up- there's no point in throwing homeless people loose change when they're reeking of booze, surrounded by heroin needles, and just as likely to lose it as buy food with it. The problems in Africa need to be addressed before the rest of the world can help them to help themselves effectively.

Occy

smiles

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Why the devil would a country beset by famine since independence want to export primary foodstuffs?

Ireland was exporting Corn all during the Great Famine. There's always hidden (and not so hidden) forces acting

<< Fio >>

BJJ

Ever wonder how much money , food and medical aid is donnated to these 3rd world countries?


The U.N asks that each country donate 1.5% of their GDP, but only 2 countries actually do this and the Bushes USA is not one of them.

The WorldBank however has to be the best one. It forces many 3rd world nations to sell off their Medical supplies and Foodbanks or threatens them with no more loans. Forcing the countries into starvation.

BJJ

there's no point in throwing homeless people loose change when they're reeking of booze, surrounded by heroin needles,
Occy [/B]

Thanks for clearing that one up, I always knew homeless people were dirty drunken Junkies, that's the last time I throw those f*ckers a cent!

sceptre

Originally posted by smiles
Ireland was exporting Corn all during the Great Famine. There's always hidden (and not so hidden) forces acting

Clincher point, Fio, argument over




Also, a country may export something like corn in order to have money to buy other foodstuffs they don't produce*. Like we do. Makes a little more sense then


*or, unfortunately, big US-produced guns. The arms production industry isn't exactly flourishing in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Thanks for clearing that one up, I always knew homeless people were dirty drunken Junkies, that's the last time I throw those f*ckers a cent!

Way to make your point :rolleyes: The majority of homeless people suffer from one or a combination of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental problems and a general unwillingness to sleep anywhere but rough. None of these issues can be addressed unless they are willing to be helped- there's no way of getting around that simple truth. I challenge you to show me a single study to the contrary.

The WorldBank however has to be the best one. It forces many 3rd world nations to sell off their Medical supplies and Foodbanks or threatens them with no more loans.

It "forces" nothing- the decision rests with the governments in question. Instead of reforming their financial systems and rooting out corruption, they're bent on taking out more and more loans, and then blaming the bank for forcing them to repay their debt. That's as ridiculous as me taking out a huge loan from my bank, squandering the money, and then moaning when the bank finally takes my house. Sounds silly doesn't it? Another thing. Where does most of the money go one might ask? There's not a lot of it that seems to be reaching the citizens- yet their government officials drive limos and live in mansions more often than not. What's the solution? More loans to line our pockets of course :rolleyes:

Originally posted by smiles


Ireland was exporting Corn all during the Great Famine. There's always hidden (and not so hidden) forces acting

<< Fio >>

Oh, I see now: It had to be Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick! :P We can talk about "hidden causes" and theorize conspiracies till the cows come home, but all that matters in the international policy arena is diplomatic engagement, and what you can prove.

As for the not so hidden causes... Correct me if I'm wrong someone, but those not-so-hidden forces in Ireland during 1845-50 were in the form of direct executive control by the British Empire. If you can prove to me that executive branches of government in Africa are still being directly and forcefully controlled by other governments then I'll concede the point:p. Given the stark evidence of decolonization, there is no excuse for a nation's inability or unwillingness to direct resources into feeding its people. "Neocolonialism" is merely a term used by people who don't realize that ultimately economic policy (including how much trade to let in) is up to individual governments. Unless you want to go back to using that "pressure" argument again. No? Then we must accept that the burden of responisibility for these glaring failures in the basic running of a country are the fault of the governments that run them! Using food as a starvation tool against your political opponents, playing favorites with tribal groups, sabotaging rebel crop growth- these are all favored tactics by Africa's not-so-democratic governments. It's a rare African government that is willing to put the lives of their citizens above their own political surivival, and often their own greed. THAT is the not-so-hidden force which is plaguing the agricultural economies of Africa. Externalizing the problem and pointing the finger of blame are all very well and good- too easy for most politicians in fact. "It's ANYONE'S fault but ours of course, because lord knows how long we'd survive in office if we actually reviewed transparency and took some of the blame ourselves"

Look at the tiger economies of Asia for example, many of whom required World Bank/IMF intervention and advice. They didn't waste time blaming their former colonial masters, the weather, the crop harvest, Canada, the IMF or the Boog. They just got off their asses and sat down to table serious reforms. Malaysia for example has since 1971 been changing the emphasis of its agrarian commodity-based economy to manufacturing, high-tech and service-oriented industries. Their cash flow is now several hundred times what it would have been had they stuck to tin, palm oil, rubber and rice. Brazil have stuck to a commodity market- look where it got them. Governments have to hold up their hand and take responsibility when they are unable to do something as basic and as simple as feed their people. In the Irish example, the British were using their colony for overall food production, they didn't give a damn about the Irish- because that's the nature of a colony's relationship to an empire, they are politically subservient to you, and their only purpose is to serve a function for the empire. You can't use that same excuse for Africa, nor can you claim they're being "pressured" or forced into doing anything (Help help, I'm being repressed!)


It's a myth that you *need* international aid to develop economically. Investment certainly- but if you're not willing to create an environment for investment, then we're back to square one, blaming everyone but yourselves. It will require tough decisions, responsible and fair government, reform of the crumbling financial systems and most important of all, a willingness to see it done. The level of apathy at African summits is appalling. I return to my conclusion from my previous post and the homeless person analogy- that homeless person needs to be willing to be helped. If African nations are determined to embroil themselves in tribal disputes, petty squabbles, corruption and the complete destruction of anything resembling a market for investment, then they can forget about developing. Keep pointing the finger of blame anwhere else but home, and you're burying your head in the sand- that should be the message to African political establishment. Though at the moment it's Blame the Boog!, or something along those lines.

Occy

shotamoose

Did I put all the blame for famine on the IMF? No. I was clearly saying that they made a bad situation worse. I suppose it's easier to try to erase the roots of these problems and blame all Africa's problems on Africa and tell it to 'sort itself out', but the reality is a little more complex that.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

---

Countries with high debts have historically been (and probably still are today) encouraged - by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and indirectly by the countries and financial institutions that bankroll them - to shift land, resources and labour to export-oriented production as part of the conditions for debt rescheduling

---

No doubt- but as any good economist will tell you, shifting land, labor and capital into the export of primary foodstuffs does almost nothing to increase overall cash flow. Profit margins are accrued through secondary manufacturing and tertiary industry, not by exporting commodity grain or maize. These forms of industry require investment, which in turn requires that African nations need to address the horrifying level of corruption in their governments and civil services.

So you agree that the IMF and WB have been practising this kind of pressure, but then simply say that countries in Africa should simply ignore this and switch to more profitable industries. Of course, it's so simple! Maybe if we put inverted commas around the word 'pressure', as you so cutely do, it'll just go away. Unfortunately, it's not that simpel. And unfortunately, the IMF and World Bank aren't run by good economists, they're run by neoliberals. So they still think or pretend to think that each country should concentrate on its 'comparative advantage'. For African countries, this means maize, grain and other primary commodities.

You're right that there's more money to be made in manufacturing and services, and that developing these industries requires a lot of investment. That's the problem. To take your example of the East Asian Tigers, there were and are several distinguishing features that marked the developmental paths of those countries from countries in Latin America or Africa.

For example, they all had authoritative (sometimes authoritarian) state institutions that established coalitions of industry and social groups around agreed economic goals. Land reforms that took veto power away from ranchers and major land-owners were a major factor in this, but so were a generally higher level of social cohesion, political continuity and very influential civil services. What's more, due to their unique geopolitical position (bordering communist China) they received relatively high levels of aid from the U.S. but more significantly free access to US markets. They were able to build up their industries behind high tariffs and utilising public ownership of many vital economic, industrial and infrastructural sectors. They also had, compared to Latin America and Africa, better access to intergovernmental rather than private sector loans, with the latter charging significantly higher interest rates.

So, this kind of development is facilitated by a mix of internal and external factors, generally summable as 'agreed socio-economic goals pursued by authoritative states and cooperative industry in a favourable international environment'.

Africa and Latin America, generally speaking, did not enjoy these advantages. In Latin America, no land reform meant that economies and polities were disproportionately dominated by ranchers and large-scale exporters. There was certainly very little social cohesion - the legacy of colonialism left fractured societies governed by corrupt elites, often propped up by either the USSR or USA. Aid was lower, trade relations didn't allow for the same level of autonomous, behind-high-walls industrial development.

Corruption in Africa is not just down to personal venality. The environment has always been ripe for corruption - divided countries with massive poverty, weak administrations but vast resources.

Drawing a line around a country inside of which everything is the government's fault is absurdly short-sighted. So is blaming various international bogeymen for everything. Again, the reality is a lot more complex than that. All parts of the world do not share the same past, so we can't realistically expect governments everywhere to have the same abilities. This is not my bleeding-heart talking, it's my head. I'm sure the governments of Africa or Latin America don't want my pity, but they could do without your casual contempt too. Until ALL parties face up to their past and on-going responsibilities for what's going on in Africa and elsewhere, any proposed solutions will be at best only partially appropriate and partially effective.

DadaKopf

Something spouted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
It "forces" nothing- the decision rests with the governments in question. Instead of reforming their financial systems and rooting out corruption, they're bent on taking out more and more loans, and then blaming the bank for forcing them to repay their debt. That's as ridiculous as me taking out a huge loan from my bank, squandering the money, and then moaning when the bank finally takes my house. Sounds silly doesn't it? Another thing. Where does most of the money go one might ask? There's not a lot of it that seems to be reaching the citizens- yet their government officials drive limos and live in mansions more often than not. What's the solution? More loans to line our pockets of course

Another way to put it is to say that countries which, firstly colonised, have remained in a subordinate economic position. In order for these countries to become prosperous, for the state to provide necessary services such as health and education as well as irrigation and dams etc and to eradicate poverty and war, they have gone to the World Bank and IMF for help. If the issue was as straightforward as 'just taking out a loan from your local bank', then why are such grievous issues continuing?

High level government corruption is certainly an issue - one of many which urgently have to be dealt with. But could I also say that during the Reagan administration, the US became the biggest debtor in the world. Moreover, in spite of economic prosperity, the politicians at Washington have spectacularly failed at "rooting out corruption".

The issue, in my mind is this: when countries go to the World Bank and the IMF for help, what begins as a positive sounding 'bank loan' becomes a huge set of constrictive, prosperity sapping instructions.

When, for example, Eritrea required money to construct dams for irrigation the terms of the deal were that African contractors and machinery could not be sought. Instead, it was insisted that an American or European contractor only could bid for the work and only American and European machinery could be bought and used. This, presumably, was in the interest of global trade and prosperity - but at whose expense? While America and Europe benefit immensely from such deals, the developing regions are continually denied the development of their own regional economies. The money flows back out of the regions it goes into. It flows back to the West.

So, African states do not fail only because of corruption. Washington is corrupt but America has prospered. Why? Evidently, the major problem in need of most attention is the structure of the loan conditions placed on the debtor countries that prevent them from supporting their own economies. America prospers because she is benefitting from the biased structure of these loans - from flowback - while the developing countries continue to tread water.

shotamoose

Originally posted by DadaKopf

High level government corruption is certainly an issue - one of many which urgently have to be dealt with. But could I also say that during the Reagan administration, the US became the biggest debtor in the world.

It still is. There's an interesting report from Jubilee Research on this very subject here.

DadaKopf

I remember standing in Times Square in 1996 watching the national debt counter. It was steadily going up every second!

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by shotamoose
Did I put all the blame for famine on the IMF? No. I was clearly saying that they made a bad situation worse.

I don't agree that they have, at least not significantly- the reason the IMF and World Bank wield such disproportionate influence in Africa are the weak administrations you mentioned.

So you agree that the IMF and WB have been practising this kind of pressure, but then simply say that countries in Africa should simply ignore this and switch to more profitable industries. Of course, it's so simple!

Did I ever say it would be simple? No one's saying that- the simple route is to build up debt, line your pockets, use the cash for financing a combination of white elephants and internal suppressive policies and then pack your bags a la Mobutu. Planned foreign investment is required, but that depends on a huge and dramatic policy shift in several African governments.

Further, if there is any kind of pressure involved, it's of their own doing- the IMF and world bank do not wield even close to the same amount of political clout as the WTO, even the UN for that matter. The decision to involve these organizations rests with the administrations involved. These aren't the global financial police, merely executive financial auditors(the IMF) and bankers (World Bank). Their approval means significantly less to free traders than a solid environment for investment and prevalence of the rule of law. If these two basic requirements are fulfilled, investment will pour in, regardless of the regime in charge. Singapore, Indonesia and more recently Myanmar are perfect examples of this.

So they still think or pretend to think that each country should concentrate on its 'comparative advantage'. For African countries, this means maize, grain and other primary commodities.

And of course the IMF are the architects of national policies...no wait! Countries have no obligation to follow the IMF's plan for economic development, nor do I believe they should. Attracting private investment on a less than 50% equity scale should be the aim, and one that has worked supremely well for many South Asian and East Asian development programmes. Also, a gradual shift of resources from primary production to secondary manufacturing units and eventually service evolution. Easier said than done, but it would at least be possible if government policies gave it a chance.

For example, they all had authoritative (sometimes authoritarian) state institutions that established coalitions of industry and social groups around agreed economic goals. Land reforms that took veto power away from ranchers and major land-owners were a major factor in this, but so were a generally higher level of social cohesion, political continuity and very influential civil services.

Several African states are similarly authoritave/authoritarian- land reforms, continuity established within a political process, agreed economic goals, the fusion of state interests and private industry are within their power to provide. In addition, the legacy of the French & British empires left most African states with a fundamentally well-structured civil administrative system. However, over time the executive stamped their authority on the civil services, seeding them with cronies, yes-men and thugs to do their bidding wrt their political opponents.

What's more, due to their unique geopolitical position (bordering communist China) they received relatively high levels of aid from the U.S. but more significantly free access to US markets.

That is incorrect. With the exception of the ROK and the ROC, neither set of circumstances applied to the Asian tigers. Communism wasn't seen as a threat south of Vietnam to the US administration, though history certainly proved them wrong, as SouthEast Asian states had to fend for themselves by and large, the Communist Emergencies in Malaya and Singapore demonstrated this lack of importance to the international community quite nicely. Cohesive societies don't come about overnight- the majority of SEA nations have a diverse ethnic and religious population which are kept together as much by national untiy as any forceful politicking. Access to markets was a moot point after the early 1970s(up until which most nations in the region were agrarian commodity exporters anyway), when trade relations blossomed amongst SEA nations, culminating in the formation of ASEAN. Export markets remained important, but the destination was primarily Europe, Japan, and South Asia, not the United States. The authoritative governments in these positions simply used their power better- huge landowners didn't plague them, not to mention the fact that none of them had the vast untapped potential of resources that African nations boast in abundance.

They also had, compared to Latin America and Africa, better access to intergovernmental rather than private sector loans, with the latter charging significantly higher interest rates.

A highly risky strategy which they paid for dearly in 1997. The Asian financial crisis was allowed to happen because of the delicacy of a nation's ERM when vast sums of money are loaned intergovernmentaly.

Corruption in Africa is not just down to personal venality. The environment has always been ripe for corruption - divided countries with massive poverty, weak administrations but vast resources.

Clearly Africa's colonial past plays a role here, that is undeniable and acknowledged. As far as weak administrations goes though- valid political process and decisive leadership can change most of those other factors you describe.

Drawing a line around a country inside of which everything is the government's fault is absurdly short-sighted. So is blaming various international bogeymen for everything. Again, the reality is a lot more complex than that.

I never said everything was their fault- in fact, if you read my first post on this topic, I alluded to RDS's raping of Nigeria's socioeconomic fabric. What I will not accept however, is the claim that food production and distribution can be blamed on external parties. There you can point the finger unerringly at the regimes who are unwilling to make the required effort.

All parts of the world do not share the same past, so we can't realistically expect governments everywhere to have the same abilities.

Ha, that's priceless. Their abilities are not in question, it's their blatant attitude to put their own personal and party ambitions above such basic ideas as feeding and clothing their citizens. Ability has little or nothing to do with this, it's a lack of basic policymaking that isn't above the intelligence level of your average Rwandan mountain gorilla community. What is truly the problem is the chronic inability of African governments to alter their paradigm within a politically stable process. If they "ability" was truly the issue, and they were indeed unable to do these basic things...then why are we even having this discussion? Surely if that was the case we'd just shrug our shoulders and turn our faces away from the problem- the fact that Western governments are addressing the topic (however inadequately on the aid front) means that there is the ability to effect necessary change, there just isn't the will to do it.

This is not my bleeding-heart talking, it's my head. I'm sure the governments of Africa or Latin America don't want my pity, but they could do without your casual contempt too.

Contempt certainly, and well-deserved it is too. Hardly casual contempt though- the fact that I'm making the effort to argue the issue shows that it's one I care deeply about. No one would like to see an Africa lifted out of poverty more than myself, and it will not be achieved by externalizing responsibility. No successfully developing nation has given a lot of weight to external blame, because they realize their destiny is primarily in their own hands. Whether or not past colonial powers are directly responsible for the plight of African nations, they will never accept responsibility for being the agent of change there again. The only way that will change is if it is in their interests to invest, that lies firmly in the hands of the administrations in Africa. No matter how wealthy a nation is, if law, order and transparency cannot be achieved, then investors will turn their back.

Until ALL parties face up to their past and on-going responsibilities for what's going on in Africa and elsewhere, any proposed solutions will be at best only partially appropriate and partially effective.

A hard fact in all this is that our responsibility will not be made clear to our governments until there is an environment which allows viable solutions to be implemented. Such solutions will inevitably involve investment opportunity, so international trade will be beneficial to all parties involved given the appropriate conditions. Those conditions however, need to be created by the people and governments of Africa- unless of course one advocates simply going in head-first with a policy of regime change, puppet leaders and...never mind, colonization already went down that road. The only people with the power to radicalize development policy in Africa are the Africans themselves. When that happens, then the question of market openness and trade barriers will be asked again, not only by the Africans, but by powerful business lobbies in the West who will angrily demand why trade barriers to African exports which they produce, still exist. The change in thinking needs to come, and I hope it comes soon.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The issue, in my mind is this: when countries go to the World Bank and the IMF for help, what begins as a positive sounding 'bank loan' becomes a huge set of constrictive, prosperity sapping instructions.

Sure, but what began as a positive sounding bank loan was, in many cases, money the country wasnt going to spend correctly in the first place.

While we can say "the IMF shouldnt have given them the money in the first place", we should also say "the country was screwed anyway simply because it was ruled by someone willing to do this to the nation".

I dont think anyone here will claim that one side or the other should take the blame - both the borrowing nations and the banks are to blame to some degree.

Now, getting back to the case at hand - the refusal of GM grain by a nation beset by famine.

There are pro's and cons. On one hand, the nation is starving. It needs food. Refusing food is, in the short term, an dincredibly cruel and callous action, especially when there is no readily available alternative for this food.

On the other hand, there is a very real risk that GM grain could, as a result, get into the fields, not only in Zimbabwe, but also in its neighbouring nations, as a result of this

Unless Monsanto explicitly agree not to try claiming damages for this, Zimbabwe is facing the very real risk that sometime down the line it, as a nation, will get hit by a massive bill for licensing costs by Monsanto for unauthorised use of its grain.

Were this to happen, I think it is highly likely that not only would Monsanto win, but that Zimbabwe would face trade sanctions etc if it didnt pay up.

Note - to my knowledge, Zimbabwe would be liable for these charges simply for producing the grain, regardless of whether they ever exported it.

In other words, the grain that is being donated to it today may result in an absolutely horrendous bill down the road. Hardly charity.

Now, obviously, Monsanto dont want to give Zimbabwe a carte blanche to rip it off, so they can hardly issue a guarantee that they wont charge for planting the grain.

So - whats the best middle ground?

Personally, I think the US should mill the flour. Otherwise, it is not really giving any aid, is it?

Its giving the Zimbabwians something they have to spend money on before they can use it (if the Z's mill it), or that they may have to pay a fortune for several years down the line if they dont pay up front. This is a the very least an ill-chosen gift.

Much and all though I dislike Mugabe, I think he is possibly making the right call for his nation on this one. Its a tough call, and the short-term implications are horrific, but the long-term implications of accepting the grain are just as dangerous IMHO.

Using a slightly dodgy analogy, the typical defense of choosing to drop atom bombs on two cities was that the long-term costs were even more horrific.

Before condemning Mugabe for this action, we should stop and consider exactly what the long term effcts of accepting the grain are.

jc