While Denying Poor Countries Basics During This Crisis, Globalism Continues to Poach Their High Quality Food Stocks

Excerpt Washington Post report "Where Every Meal Is a Sacrifice ".

Like good servants of fat cats and big business the Washington Post article starts their article on a growing food crisis in Mauritania blaming the shutting off of exports from mildly food strapped nations for the  plight of the more desperately affected nations and the wreck of the world food markets. It makes you wonder how mainstream news sources are consistently doctored to fit the big business propaganda of the day. 
Do they plan it this way?

Strong global demand and limited supplies are key factors driving up prices, but perhaps just as important is a massive disruption in the free flow of global trade. In recent months, food-producing countries from Argentina to Kazakhstan have begun to slam shut their doors to protect domestic access to the food they grow.

Yet, lower (as usual) a more accurate picture emerges: 

The result of the whole globalization program was to reduce the  value of food in the third world, while increasing the value of cheap junk from  well, China.

Globalization was supposed to eliminate this kind of recurring disaster. With economists radiating confidence about the new efficiencies of the global market, the need for food self-sufficiency seemed almost archaic. In that new reality, global markets would provide the long-term cornucopia that the arid earth here could not, and at reasonable prices.

But it turned out that globalization did not really work for food. Countries, especially rich ones, felt compelled to continue protecting their farmers and their domestic food supply even as they pushed for trade liberalization for manufactured goods. It distorted the market, which didn't adjust as global demand surged and production flagged.

So agricultural efforts flagged as they weren't seen as being needed or profitable anymore.  This seemed to be the case both locally and at the government level.  Also the article notes that a big irrigation effort in Mauritania some years ago, overseen by 'businessmen' failed apparently because of their lack of farming experience.  It would be interesting to know the particulars.  Were the businessmen friends of high government officials or even outsiders in what I see as a reinvation of Africa?  The article doesn't say.

More on Mauritanias' problems:

"We see our best-quality fish leaving the country right in front of our eyes every day," said Mame Kato Diop, 36, wrapped in flowing indigo and yellow robes as she and other fishmongers waited for the exporters to finish their deals. They would later buy what was left for resale in town. "They leave us with sardines as they eat juicy fish. We stand no chance against the  hunger of richer countries."

...

So far, however, it is the erosion of livelihoods that have experts most concerned here. They fear it may accelerate into a far broader crisis that could approximate the large-scale African famines of the 1980s.

"For many people, the sources of income are drying up just as food prices are increasing," said Gian Carlo Cirri, the WFP's Mauritania country director. "We are very, very worried about what may happen next."

The article does note that another attempt to irrigate farmland will be undertaken in Mauritania (which sits on the ever more arid edge of the Sahara).   I hope it works.

So, in a way  George Bush was right.  We do need to find a way to stimulate 3rd world farming, but his solution, to use the food of third world farmers in one part of Africa to handle crises in other parts wouldn't work well now since most of Africa is already under food stress.  Also, in the long run, dumping free food on  underdeveloped countries depresses local food prices, yet even the Democracy Now report on Haiti (linked at side on linkblog or below) says that for the short while free or low cost aid will have to be used to keep people from starving.

And though Bush has used his name to back a proposal to help third world farmers, do you trust him to actually boost them or to find ways to let American agribusiness, which could reimburse the Republican party take advantage of whatever new system is set up by re-invading the third world  in the new neo-colonialism.  We've already seen how that works in the fish example above. I've also read reports that Europeans have been invading Africa big time, setting up agribusiness and taking the crops back home without providing even locally decent wages for locals.  Just making underpaid jobs and taking the crops home is not a good thing for the third world.  

Then the usual later step is for IMF and World Bank to step in and require changes from the government before new loans, and aid is given, but the report on Haiti shows that has been used to make nations dependen.t on American crops.

Since the IMF and World Bank are basically controlled by executive branch of the US, it is up to us to produce an administration which is less dependent on campaign money from big business and agriculture sources. That could lead to one that helps guide those agencies to make less financially and agriculturally devastating demands on small and poor nations.

 If you can't get in to read the Washington Post article, I have found a usenet copy of it (without pictures).  If you like pictures, and/or want dependable access to articles published there, don't be lazy. Register at the Post.  Usenet copy of Where Every Meal Is a Sacrifice

tags: mauritania  africa  global food crisis  imf  world bank  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit