self-described . Worldist” has . his gospel of ople since his first hunger in 1929 speaking at “The ” conference in ummer of 1984, e believes hunger itically motivated . by developed

e political force to

or earthquakes. Any project with foreign assistance, he insists, must employ locals, but supplies locally and be controlled locally by the

_ people affected (not necessarily

their government). If money is needed it should be given with no strings attached, and _ toward fulfilling their rights of people. “Countries should feed them- selves, not depend on so-called aid. Ninety per cent‘of aid goes to the ruling elite and bourgeoisie,

“The real solution lies in a deep reform — dare I say revolution?- of the world social, economical and political system. ”

‘ Noting that people go hungry in a world where abundance reigns, with farmers being paid not , to produce and food being destroyed by the ton, Seara-Vasquez calls hunger a “crime by humanity against humanity.”

“Everybody is guilty -— the rich countries, egotistic and short-

rganize them further entrenching inequalities sighted, and the ruling classes of

peasants are har— Aid blocks the production of food the developing countries, ineffi- ‘ _ z .

i n food they will for the starving.” cient, corrupt andas egotistic as I 0' x ' ' He says the best approach to those from developed countries.” ‘ ’i‘v.n...,,.u..: ,, “wlinmmmmlllllflmm,v.

{5 not only on the combatting hunger is to be mili- Countries have a moral obliga— ll” I . "t L" """h | ' M'- ,v" I“ ' """"""

but the right of tant, launching ‘an all-out attack tion to produce food and people .' "MW Walnut”... 1' -

themselves. “We on the current world economic have an inextricable right to their ' _ I'll "‘11 ,"I l Wl;,_u.uulllfll{i.n“ I

poor the right to system, a system that insists on a just share of production. Of ' "i. ll Ml." “H's”!lili'lltxuuwm, .‘ a M"... .

oat'ice, to harvest, ‘free’ market for primary agri- course there are sound economic ‘ tt ‘l ‘ MW U ‘

food What the that-be want is to to steal from the

an example of _

tention. Nicara- was a grassroots a largely by an land reform and ation. The success ta programme of

o the peasants to '

food has outraged vernment. Amer- ns have been re— uge land holdings to lose not only a 0d exports but, heap garden for nd a huge colony . Thus the Amer- t is backing the . the peasants for d and food they for.

cultural and mineral products from the Third World countries, but highly regulates and artifi- cially inflated (through quotas

,and oligopolies) the price of

finished goods, services and food— stuffs. »

The island nation of Malta demonstrates how poor nations are at' the mercy of outside economic forces. The economy of

.the country has been devastated

by the introduction'of a new Coke. The» new drink contains no vanilla, the island’s principal export, whose sole client is Coke. Vanilla prices are set by the “free” market — in this case what Coke offers — but imports of finished goods rise steadily in price and don’t stop once the vanilla market caves in. The situa- tion isrsimilar across the Third World. More than 60 nations depend essentially on a single

reasons from keeping food from reaching the hungry, he says, but this only further proves the inadequecies of the system, it in

'no way justifies what is happen-

ing.

“... We aren’t speaking of simple economic operations, but of practices that mean literally condeming to death millions of people.”

One can always find perfectly good economic reasons for other people’s deaths but we are ignoring the true value of the malnourished. The ultimate irony,

says Seara-Vasquez, is that the’

billion starving people cOuld be viewed as a natural resource look- ing power, lacking rights. He says the rich, ruling classes are so

short-sighted in their exploitation.

that they don’t even realize that by giving up little they could wipe out starvation and create new

W. — | ‘ ' 'Hmmuimwm “I, I

.Ip in ,. v

, egovernments,in product for 'their export income, markets which conform to their .5. ,3“ . .. . . . . . . . \ {N /,r'\~' I 1!," .w .y . are the monetanst and in most cases thisproduct 15 Ideas of rational self-interest. . _ I % ‘_ g M}, .\ \\ ' back to propo— purchased by one or two cor- ' People who are fed, not sur- ,

mic beliefs in the porations: coffee in Ethiopia, nuts‘ prisingly, are far’more productive.

in particular The in Gambia, cocoa in Ghana, The option to granting all people ' nd International bauxite in Jamaica, sugar in the right to food is grim says the Q , virtual Greek Cuba, wood in Laos, livestock in professor. He hesitates to use the

4‘ _ WIN?!»- ‘ ' 4.3;!“ \v‘xi‘ N,

\ L

led by the. United n policy, stated US Secretary of lture Earl Butz is od is a weapon. It he principal wea- negotiating kit.” capon, and the

nd lMF are the.

ing markets for ucts and insisting o a strict set of s. DumonL labels - ’s collective debt, the neighborhood . “a detailedV'ac— by the rich/of the

hing altruistic in It serves political njectives and, like 55 gestures, must m on investment. a leaves no room h friends like the Soviets for that Olicies are similar) countries can ill-

Dumont goes so se all aid to the xcept in the most ations occasioned ters such as floods

_ Chad anr’ cotton in Sudan. While

the e" of the world focus on the drought in Ethiopia and Sudan, we somehow manage to ignore the fact that corporations continue to harvest hundreds of

“millions of dollars in non-edible

products such as cotton and coffee while the locals starve to death. ' “The cause of hunger is'politi- cal and ending hunger necessitates

/ massive political concessions,” says Dumont. In effect, what«

Dumont- calls for is revolution. Not a revolution in the sense of taking up arms (through he warns that this is inevitable if current inequities persist) but a revolution in our approach to famine and justice;

For a world so proud if its science, technology and its management skills, eliminating hunger should be child’s play. The problem is a lack of political will. “... Marxism, capitalisms, etc. are all outdated,” says University of Mexico professor Modesto Seara— Vasquez, another participant in “The Right to Food” conference “Nineteenth century theories can- not solve twentieth century problems.” -

word “revolution” (it sounds so pat), but warns that “much worse is yet to come” for both rich and poor if changes are not made.

The Universal Declaration of Hunger and Malnutrition states: “No right has.meaning or value once starvation strikes. It is the ultimate deprivation of rights, for without food, life ends, and rights are of value only to the living.”

Think of that as you sing along to the We Are the World video,

or watch Bod Geldof receive a‘

Nobel Prize or as you stick a cheque to your favourite charity in an envelope.

Think of the political and moral statements you are making through your action or inaction.

“The problem of hunger is not one of technology or organiza- tion, but one of politics; morally, the issue is not charity, but justice,” says Susan George.

“Even one death is a scandal in a world where more than enough food exists for everyone,” she adds.

Think of that when you mourn the 1,000 people who died while you read this article. ' .

Mourn- them with action.

"05(le (All 2)}

October 10 1985 THE NETTED GEM Page 9