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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i definitely agree with what you wrote about as far as debates against this bill go. The US is in such a difficult position a lot of the time because of our political and economic power: we are looked down upon for providing help (or charity?) to poor countries, yet at the same time we are expected to do so.
While i agree that this may lead to various countries' ultimate dependency on the United States, I think it is more important at this time (given the world's current rates of malnutrition) to consider what good may come out of this bill, such as the thousands or even millions of lives that could be saved or lengthened.
At the same time, however, when i read the article i couldn't help myself from thinking "but what's the catch?" It almost sounds too good to be true
Post a Comment