Kenyan Farmers’ Fate Caught Up in U.S. Aid Rules

I came across this article in today's New York Times. According to the story, "The Bush administration is now trying to change the law so that up to $300 million of food in Kenya can be bought in poor countries during emergencies." The bill is being debated by the United States Congress. If the bill passes, advocates say we could see a big difference to the world's hungriest people: allowing the U.S. government to buy some food in Africa to feed the famished, rather than shipping it all overseas from America.


Is this another case of charity? Are we as Americans simply being the "givers" and Africa is the "receivers"? Is this empowering the nation or rather making them dependent? Besides the issues of interfering with local farming economies and driving prices down, there are other considerations. Is it not healthier for Africans to eat indiginous, fresh food rather than transshiped and industrially produced corn?



Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/africa/31food.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

8 million Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

This article discusses the pressing issues of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Iraq. According to relief agencies, "about 8 million Iraqis — nearly a third of the population — need immediate emergency aid." Furthermore, the report said 15 percent of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, and 70 percent are without adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003. It also said 28 percent of children are malnourished, compared with 19 percent before the 2003 invasion.

It is obvious that this war has caused terrible consequences. Do you think our presence in Iraq has made the situation worse? If so, will the withdrawal of our troops provide immediate relief for that 33% of the Iraqi population who find themselves in this humanitarian crisis?



Link to story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/30/iraq.humanitarian/index.html

Cuba Under Two Masters

For the first time, Raúl Castro, the acting president in Cuba, gave the traditional revolutionary speech during Cuba’s most important national holiday on Thursday, deepening the widespread feeling that his brother Fidel has slipped into semi-retirement and is unlikely to return.

Since becoming acting president, the younger Mr. Castro has twice offered to enter negotiations with the United States to end a half-century of enmity and sanctions. He repeated that stand on Thursday, noting that President Bush would soon be leaving office “along with his erratic and dangerous administration.”

Some have critiziced the fact Raul has not made enough reforms since taken power. According to the New York Times, “The answer is because Fidel Castro continues to govern." Moreover, Fidel Castro’s “main impact on Cuba is not his writings but that he’s alive, and it means Raúl and the others are reluctant to take major initiatives,” said Jorge I. Dominguez, a Harvard professor and Cuba expert.

What do you all think of the two leaders in power? Do you think Cuba should hold a democratic election for the next ruler? If one is to say that Fidel's government has "failed" to be "democratic enough", then perhaps something other than liberal or bourgeois democracy be counterposed to what exists in Cuba? In addition, how would you compare Venezuela's revolution to the one in Cuba under Castro's regime? Also, how do you feel about Castro's impact on Cuba and its people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/americas/27cuba.html?th&emc=th

Panel seeks overhaul of U.S. military health system

We hardly ever hear about what happens to soldiers when they are injured in the Iraq War.

According to an article in today's New York Times, soldiers are not getting the treatment they need and deserve. A report was released on Wednesday concluding that the health system that soldiers receive is insufficient for the demands of two modern wars. In addition, the report called for improvements, including far-reaching changes in the way the government determines the disability status and benefits of injured soldiers and veterans.

This is a story that has deserved attention since Clinton's time. How much responsibility should the government take for this? Why are we just reading about this? Do you think the soldiers who serve our country receive the best health care possible? Or is there room for improvement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26medical.html?th&emc=th

A Portrait of Sub-Saharan Africa

I came across an interesting article in today’s New York Times. The piece provides an insight on how Africans in ten different countries in the region feel about their current lifestyles. According to the poll, despite the troubles, from deadly illnesses like AIDS and malaria to corrupt politicians, a plurality of Africans say they are better off today than they were five years ago. In addition, according to poll, they are more optimistic about their future and that of the next generation.

The poll was conducted this spring. In addition, face-to-face interviews were also conducted in April and May. With this in mind, both the poll and interview were only conducted in Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. Do you think by only surveying ten countries in Africa, the poll provides a clear reflection of all the countries situation in the region? Also, if you take a look at the economic data, you can see that it provides a mixed picture. Do you think it is fair that the poll surveyed urban families rather than rural? Finally, I found the statistics on hunger to be rather interesting. It seems that a majority of respondents said that they had enough money to purchase food for their family. What are your thoughts on this in relation to development in the region?

The Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/world/africa/20070724_AFRICA_GRAPHIC.html?th&emc=th