| It seems to me that the way we all feel about Wall Street is the way Africans feel about us. Or - at least - about our leaders. They're up there on Wall Street making million dollar bonuses - BONUSES! In addition to their salaries! - and we're trying to scrape together enough to pay the rent. And now imagine how you'd feel if you lived in an African country on $2 per day!
And you know how we feel about Paulson and Geithner "fixing" the mess on Wall Street that he and his buddies helped create? That's how they feel about the G20 trying to "fix" the problems of the developed world.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), together with the World Bank responsible for the prescriptions that have relegated the weaker economies of the underdeveloped world, and Africa in particular, to virtual vassals of the developed countries will get $250 [sic] to expand their activities in the satellite economies of the South.
The South Africans will be co-opted into that game through the appointment of the country's finance minister, Trevor Manuel, to a committee that is tasked with reforming the structures of the organisation, presumably with the aim of accommodating the aspirations of the underdeveloped countries for greater representation on the organisations.
We're pissed about the bailout money, and they're pissed at the money going to the IMF.
And now here's where it gets to be about food:
The critics of the G20 rightly point out that the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) has found that it takes only $30 billion to feed the poor of the world. It takes $10 billion to ensure that they have potable water.
In other words? If we actually gave a shit, we'd have no more hungry people. Period. How long does it take us to spend that much money in Iraq? And they continue with damning statistics - in the 1960's Africa could (for the most part) feed itself. Since then world population doubled and global grain production tripled. And yet, today, Africa is home to hundreds of millions of hungry people. Why is this?
...the main objective of foreign assistance, as many other tools of foreign policy, is to produce the kind of political and economic environment in the world in which the US can best pursue its own goals.
That pretty much says it all. And about those GMOs that Africa won't accept (except for South Africa) even when they face starvation?
"The business of biotechnology is intimately entwined with agro-chemicals; over 60 percent of GM (genetically modified) seeds are built to be pesticide and herbicide dependent. In 2005, global pesticide sales stood at $5.4bn, mainly accrued by three companies," according to Chenery.
It doesn't sound to me like Africa wants another Green Revolution. Why can't we allow them to decide their own fate and then support them in their decision? |
