Posted on 05/02/2002 9:59:10 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials are scrambling to cope with what could become the worst humanitarian crisis since President Bush took office: a potentially catastrophic famine in drought-stricken southern Africa that threatens 5 million people with starvation.''What's unfolding in southern Africa is very big,'' Roger Winter, the assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development's humanitarian assistance bureau, said in an interview Tuesday.
''Even though we don't have in hand all the information we need, we have in hand enough to know that we have to respond big-time,'' Winter said.
The looming disaster also could have political ramifications for Bush. For many foreign aid advocates, how aggressively his administration responds will provide the first practical test of whether Bush will keep his word to boost U.S. assistance for needy countries.
Bush's commitment this year to spend as much as $10 billion more on U.S. developmental aid by 2005 -- roughly double current spending -- was praised by aid advocates. But activists want to see how the administration reacts to a real crisis.
''People have been encouraged by a lot of the speeches and rhetoric that Bush and people around him have used to talk about poor and hungry people,'' said Tom Freedman, an adviser to President Clinton who now is a visiting fellow at Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank.
''Now we have a concrete case. And there's a lot of folks who have their fingers crossed that the action will live up to the rhetoric,'' Freedman said.
Judith Lewis, regional director of the United Nations World Food Program, said in a telephone interview from Kampala, Uganda, that she had just returned from a tour of the afflicted region, where relief efforts are centering on food shortages caused by a severe drought in six countries: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The United Nations feeds 2.6 million of the 54 million people in those countries. Lewis said she believes the aid will have to at least double because of food shortages already being felt.
Lewis said the famine in the region is ''certainly the worst we've seen since 1992,'' when a drought left 18 million people without sufficient food. Lewis said she hopes the world will not lose sight of the crisis because of the war on terrorism. ''We just have to get people to turn back to Africa because there are a lot of competing crises,'' she said.
Experts say conditions are particularly bad in Malawi, with Zambia and Zimbabwe close behind. Zimbabwe declared a state of disaster Tuesday.
U.S. officials blame President Robert Mugabe as much as the drought for food shortages in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe recently won a questionable re-election that has plunged the country into chaos.
U.N. teams are still conducting a survey of the region, and Lewis said a plan of action won't be proposed until early June.
But U.S. officials said they already are responding, even in Zimbabwe, despite their unhappiness with Mugabe. Winter said the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and other agencies met April 11, and reports on the famine have gone to Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush.
Winter said Washington is providing food assistance -- a shipment of 35,000 metric tons is on the way and 40,000 metric tons are ready for shipment. That's enough to feed approximately 375,000 people for a year.
''President Bush has said there will be no famines on his watch,'' Winter said. ''We take that very seriously.''
Aid groups point out that the famine is a natural disaster, which Bush's pledge did not address. He promised new foreign aid for long-term poverty reductions in countries that show progress and spend the money responsibly.
But aid advocates say more money is needed to avert short-term crises, such as famines, if some struggling countries are ever able to achieve long-term gains.
''The U.S emergency response frequently is generous, and we hope it will be here because there can't be long-term development for people who are in the middle of a famine,'' said Bill O'Keefe, government relations director for Catholic Relief Services.
Bush's actions on the famine also will be seen as a pivotal factor in how high Africa ranks on his foreign policy agenda.
Though last year's terrorist attacks and the resulting war in Afghanistan have diverted attention from U.S. policy on Africa, activists say they are generally pleased with Bush's approach. Both Powell and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill have visited the continent.
''I give them reasonable marks . . . on a scale of one to 10, maybe a six or seven,'' said Melvin Foote, president of the advocacy group Constituency for Africa.''
Foote said Jendayi Frazier, the Africa specialist on Bush's National Security Council, recently told the group that Bush plans to visit Africa next year.
I believe there are plenty of scriptures that could be quoted that point out self sufficiency as well.
You're right, we're not liberals. If we agree with everything the liberals say I'll bet they stop calling us names.
Robert Mugabe already has $2 billion in Swiss accounts, a little more won't hurt. We will send aid because of who and what we are but that won't change who and what they are. There comes a point where feeding the beast only strengthens the beast. Maybe we should keep our "pink noses" out of their affairs as Mugabe requested.
One word: Somalia.
First of all you insist we have to help the poor starving Africans or we are all troglodytes. Never mind that they a poor and starving because they kept stealing until nothing was left to steal.
Then you notice that you can't get food to the starving people because the powers that be 1) take it for themselves and 2) take and sell it.
So you insist we have to send in the marines or we are all heartless troglodytes. Never mind that you are asking men to die so you can look good politically. (Who is the heartless troglodyte?)
The marines show up, but they aren't allowed the means to defend themselves because they would basically have to shoot everyone. So after a few of them get killed you realize that this just isn't the political bonanza back home you thought it would be so we tuck tail and run away.
The Africans still go hungry, and all we get for our trouble is a few more widows and orphans and several billion dollars in tax money down a rathole.
But hey, as long as YOU get to feel self-righteous for a little while, that's ok.
The same countries that always fall all over themselves each time we have a natural disaster or civil unrest- No one.
That being said, I’m not sure what your question had to do with my post.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Two points: I KNOW that the liberals will never like us. But to allow the "let 'em all starve" comments flood this thread gives the liberals AMMUNITION in getting people to side with them. Why give them ammunition with which to shoot us?
Secondly, I think there is a way to help starving people without either getting militarily involved as in Somalia OR by letting the dictators and their thugs pocket the cash. If those were our only two options, I would probably not be very supportive.
However, this administration has consistently used innovative methods to accomplish their goals. I expect them to do the same in this situation.
Let'em starve. What are their cohorts in the surronding countries going to do? Trash the US in the UN?
What's different about that? They're the ones that are going to feel the effects of mass migration due to
starvation. Let them deal with the upheaval in the country later, or deal with corrupt regime in
Zimbabwe now. Their choice, since anything by the west other than cash is "colonial/imperialism."
Then maybe, just maybe, the US will help out.
BTB, Nixon sold wheat at a market discount to the Soviet Union, who then sold it to India at a profit.
And your point about the money in plain site being????
And your point about the money in plain site being????
An excellent point worth repeating.
Maybe you could elaborate on this third option you allude to.
It is possible to have human compassion for millions of innocent people who will be facing a horrible painful death without:
· Quitting a job
· Leaving one’s family
· Undergoing paramilitary training
· Organizing financing
· Recruiting mercenaries
· Obtaining military armaments
· Waging battle against an established government and military
· Assuming that one was successful, assuming rule of a country
· Attempt to rebuild a country that’s been destroyed by thirty years of corruption.
You’ve made some very insightful comments on other issues, but you do realize how absurd this statement is, correct?
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Destabilize Mugabe (Britain would be glad to help) and install a provisional emergency government until the food crisis is past.
Set up food distribution points in areas friendly to the west. Staff with UN troops (they need something to do anyway).
Not EVERY country in Africa is as bad as Zimbabwe. Help those that are pro-West.
Air drops of food in areas where there is little infrasctructure could be effective if accompanied with propaganda, as in Afghanistan.
BUY mineral resources with food, making sure that monitors see that the thugs don't get control of it.
That's just what I can think of, not knowing that much about the resources available. I am certain that the administration is better at this than I am.
The "let them all starve" folks would hand a propaganda victory to those who want to control the Third World. This would be a disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.