NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/catholic/3648

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 7.9 KB | 176 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!DRAGON.COM!CTS
Return-Path: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:35:59 EST
Sender:       Free Catholic Mailing List <[e-mail]>
From:         "Charles T. Smith, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject:      RE: If You Want to Feedd Somalia -- You Must Demand Development!!
Lines: 164

> For more than a year now, the world has sat by while the nation
> of Somalia, and many others, have starved to death. Hideous
> pictures of starving children have come into your living room,
> reinforcing the idea that there is nothing you can do.

The world has not exactly sat by - supplies have been sent for
some time.  I'm not claiming that there is not a problem - there
is indeed; however, a response has been made;  due to various
problems, it's not been totally effective.

>    Now, President Bush has sent troops into Somalia, claiming
> that they will ensure the delivery of food supplies to the
> starving. But will this solve the problem? No, not unless you
> mobilize to force through a full development program for not only
> Somalia, but Africa as a whole.

This depends on what you define as the problem.  If you mean the
short term relief, and an attempt to add some stability to the
political process, perhaps.

The larger problem to which you point is likly beyond "our" ability
to solve.

>    Somalia is dying as a nation. Africa is dying as a
> continent. You have been told that it's their fault, for having
> too many babies, or corrupt leaders. But that's not true. The
> fact is that Africa, and Somalia, have been killed by a
> systematic policy of underdevelopment--underpayment for their
> exports, underinvestment for their infrastructure, and massive
> looting through usurious debt policies.

While there may be some truth here, the fault for the problems cannot
be placed solely on the west.  For every "usurious" loan made, there
was a leader or government willing to make their side of the deal.
We can see how this was used - to provide a life of luxury and ease
for said leaders, to buy arms, or even bread and circuses for the
people who demanded them.  Would it have been better if these loans
had never been made, instead?  Perhaps;  there would most certianly
be less guns floating about in Africa today.  However, historically,
loan sharks have always existed at all levels, and if a leader of
a third world country is willing to take high risk loans, and invest
them on things other than infrastructure, the leadership of the west
can hardly be blamed. In general, countries are left alone to mind
their own intertal affairs (within certian limits).

And as for usurious rates, keep in mind that Africa is not a bastion
of political stability. Loans made there have a much higher risk.  And
for the most part, banks are a business with a charter to make money
for their stockholders... which are secular institutions under a
secular government.

>    With development, Somalia could be feeding itself today. The
> United States should implement the following action program.

I'm curious as to why you feel this way.  First of all,
why do you single out the US instead of the western nations?

Secondly, the U.S. is a secular government, which derive its powers
from a contract with the people called the constitution.  There are
those who can make a convincing case that any foreign aid is beyond
the scope of the powers of government.  In any case, I think it
would be difficult indeed to convince the U.S. taxpayer, many
who do not share your (and my) beliefs, that they have both a moral
and social obligation to cure all the worlds ills though their taxes.

>   1. Food must be brought to people, not the people to the
> food. Special trucks and overland transport vehicles are
> required. Food must be delivered together with the means of
> transport.

Historically, in a war zone, supply lines are one of the
hardest things to maintain.  What is the goal?

Not to mention, roads and vehicles do nothing to correct the
basic political problems.

>   2. U.S. soldiers must not only deliver food supplies, but
> begin immediate construction of roads and bridges for lasting
> infrastructure. U.S. soldiers must act like a corps of
> engineers, building, not killing. The U.S military deployment
> must not be used as a pretext to set up a new colonial
> protectorate system, nor to establish a new U.S military base in
> Mogadishu.

Again, it's pointless to build when the necessary political
stability just isn't there.   Even if the US could afford it,
there's not any point in building roads which will just be
blown up again.  And to impose the stability would lead to
what all good liberals would call colonialism.

>   3. Africa's debt must be frozen or cancelled. During
> 1986-91, Africa paid out more money to the International Monetary
> Fund (IMF) than it received! It is like sucking blood to take any
> debt payments from starving people.

Hmm...  What's the country by country breakdown here...  is this
true, for example, of Somalia?  (I don't know).

Secondly, I think it's been well established that the problem is
not lack of food - it's a political process that keeps the food
from the people.

Thirdly, how do you justify canceling the debt?  The leaders of
these countries took the loans;  what will happen to banking system
if loans are forgiven every time a country overextends and gets
into trouble.  What will happen when everyone is borrowing
at warp speed with no intention of repaying.

And fourthly, the people that made the loans are banks - which
are made up of people.  Some are wealthy, greedy, and all the
other things things that tend to disturb (or create jealousy in)
social activities.  Others are ordinary every day folk, who
have invested their savings in a retirement fund, a college
education fund, savings to buy a home...  is it fair to expect
these people to fund your programs?

>   4. Feed the 23 million people in the Horn of Africa, not
>only the 4 million people in Somalia. This is the only way to
>prevent mass migrations, leading to further regional
>disintegration. Food reserves must be mobilized now from the
>``surplus'' of Europe, the U.S.A., and elsewhere.

And how do you obtain these?  By force from their owner?  Or
by taxes taken by force from the people?

>   5. Start new development projects. According to the
>United Nations, the area in southern Somalia between the Jubba
>and Shabeelle rivers, with technology, can feed 50 million people
>a year--ten times Somalia's present population.

I dare say you could find investors for this... if there were
stability.

>   6. The IMF and other bloodsucking financial institutions
>which have bled Africa, as well as other nations and peoples,
>must be replaced with a new just world economic order.

The IMF and other institutions can only offer the money.  It
takes two parties to tango.

>   Therefore, to feed Africa on a longterm basis, we must not
>just send soldiers into Somalia, or elsewhere. What we must do is
>create the conditions for Africa to develop, so that it can feed
>itself and grow.

Which must start with its own people.  We cannot grant them
peace, stability, or anything else with out the people there
demanding it.  To do anything else commits us to either
maintain that peace and stability for the long term (colonialism)
or have it revert as soon as we go back home.

>    Join our fight today--for Africa, for all humanity. Hold
>rallies, vigils, and marches. Call and visit your congressman.
>Call the White House and the President-elect. Distribute this
>leaflet at places of worship, shopping centers, and schools.

I do not think this is a proper matter for government
invervention beyond what's already in place.

What I do out of my own private charity is another matter.

However, I cannot see the US, given its current charter,
take to solve the worlds problems on the back of the taxpayers...
not all of whom have the same moral beliefs as you do.