Hello fellow Kos members, this is my first diary. I've been a reader of the website for years and enjoy all the entries I see here. I hope that I can contribute in a positive manner and to get people to think about things. Soooo... here goes!
An article from the New York Times (registration req.) on April 7, 2007 addresses the current crisis/problem with food aid in Africa, and how its running out:
Within weeks, those rations [food aid], provided by the United Nations World Food Program, are at risk of running out for them and 500,000 other paupers, including thousands of people wasted by AIDS who are being treated with American-financed drugs that make them hungrier as they grow healthy.
So what issue do I have in the article? Click to read on...
Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome, the World Food Program made an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn from Zambia’s own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.
But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews — a process that typically takes four to six months.
So the administration (surprise) is trying to pass laws to make foreign aid more efficient. In effect, the proposition is to allow emergency spending to be used to buy food in foreign countries, speed up the aid process, and thus save lives. The report states that it could feed one million people for another six months and save 50,000 lives. A few peasly million in the grand scheme of things with what our government spends to save lives is the moral thing to do.
And yet a coalition of agribusiness, shipping, and charitable groups have managed to block the passing of these laws over and over again. They have financial stakes in keeping the system the way it is and don't want to see it change. Save lives at the cost of a few million? Not on their watch.
Not too surprising. Frustrating, but not that frustrating. So here's the kicker:
Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, warned last year at a food aid conference in Washington that decoupling food aid from American maritime and agribusiness interests was "beyond insane."
"It is a mistake of gigantic proportions," he said, "because support for such a program will vanish overnight, overnight."
In my humble opinion, this is immoral. He is basically saying that it is more important to fill the pockets of corporate and business interests than to spend the same money to save thousands upon thousands of lives. He is basically saying that it is more important to make money than to save people's lives. I think it unethical, I think its immoral, and I think its selfish and greedy.
But what is his stake in all this? I tried to see whether or not he has recieved funding from specific industries that might result him to subscribe a certain way in this issue. Over the years he has recieved:
- $80,350 from Agribusiness
- $83,594 from Transportation
- $267,000 from Lawyers/Lobbyists
Source: Opensecrets.org
Nothing too enlightening. He's been in Congress since 1993, so what's his interest in voicing his opinions this way? Is he representing his district, does he have a lot of agriculture interests? Well the 12th district of California is part of the San Francisco area so that rules that out.
Checking his top contributors on the same website shows no major contributions in his top 20 from any sectors that might have interest in him voting the way he does or voicing these opinions.
So why why why?? I just don't understand. My conclusion is that he either is acting with these business interests in mind (lobbying, "bribery", etc.) or he just truly believes in this, no matter how little money he has recieved. It boggles my mind and leaves me very frustrated that something like this happens.
So what do you think, maybe I'm overreacting to this. Read the whole article to get a feel for this.