Monthly Archives: January 2009

Jan 31, 2009

by

in

What might a better US policy towards Zimbabwe look like?

I recently attended a symposium sponsored by the Africa Initiative of Syracuse University and the African Studies Center of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, entitled, “Obama and Africa: Which Way?” It was pointed out that the US imports more of its oil from Africa than it does from the Middle East; that there are thousands of US military personnel assigned to the continental strategic military command, Africom. As any scholar of the late colonial period in Africa knows, the US has a long and sordid history of anti-communist interventions, support for dictatorships and disregard of the will of many nations on multilateral funding, trade, health and debt policies. US social agendas dictate the shape of foreign aid programs, rather than the needs of recipients. Even social and agricultural research has often been tainted by “strategic” considerations. US policy thus carries a long legacy of the imposition of an unfortunate level of national arrogance.

However, the thrill of Barack Obama’s assumption of the US presidency has not faded. Symposium participants were celebratory at the departure of George Bush. Even the most cynical seemingly felt a little urge to lift a corner of the gloom, and let a bit of the sun generated by Obama’s dazzling smile shine in.

Perhaps destined to eclipse that sunshine will be the choice Obama is likely to make about where to place the continent of Africa on his list of “change” priorities. Still, his inaugural remarks did seem in some direct way to be pointed towards Robert Mugabe: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Readers of this website do not need to be told how dire the situation in Zimbabwe has become. Starvation and cholera stalk that lovely land. The country’s executive “completely ignores the orders of the courts, thus placing itself above the law, able to do whatever it wishes to citizens, ignoring all laws and constitutional rights, abusing its powers at will and with impunity.” Just as there seems to be no limit to the heights that can be reached by the inflation rate, there seems to be no depth that cannot be breached by each new day’s awful reality.

Readers will also be aware of the backlash against the Bush/Blair/Brown style of Zimbabwe criticism, and of the hearty support that Mugabe still seems to enjoy amongst those for whom denunciations of “imperialism” largely trump any evidence of local culpability in the current tragedy. The eternal question “what is to be done?” exercises the rest of us.

In the anti-apartheid solidarity movement, the slogan was developed in the progressive sports fraternity, “no normal sport in an abnormal country.” It is time this spirit was adopted towards Zimbabwe in general (not just in sporting and cultural affairs). It is clear, as the Legal Resources Foundation says, that “the Zimbabwean authorities no longer abide by the Constitution of the country.” The US and other countries can thus no longer fall back on the same policies which imply that appeals to constitutionality will succeed. Zimbabweans are telling America that those appeals will continue to fall on deafened ears. “Change” therefore has to mean doing things differently: no more assumptions that a normal dialogue with Zimbabwe lies just around the corner. The current task is to find ways to isolate Robert Mugabe and render him irrelevant in the service of making a new Zimbabwean reality.

In making this argument, I do not for a moment want to give the impression that the solution to the Zimbabwean problem lies in military force, whether covert or overt. More death will not assist the dying. In a recent otherwise reasonable syndicated column, Nat Hentoff quoted the Washington Times of December 7, 2008, “Alas, at some times in some places diplomacy just doesn’t work…Has anyone in [Zimbabwe] thought of the ‘f’ word – force?” Hentoff is mistaken. Warfare satisfies the impatient but it grinds the boot-heel of suffering ever more closely on the necks of women and children. In Zimbabwe it must be avoided.

What might a better US policy towards Zimbabwe look like?

Genuine multilateralism is the key. The first things the US must do are to pay its dues to the United Nations, and recognize the International Criminal Court, thus making an important statement and crafting a new image as a credible international partner rather than the cowboy bully of the Bush years. It must work to break the old imperialist-era logjams and coordinate more work with the European Union in Africa. It must ask the leaders of the African Union what the US can do to strengthen its negotiation and peacekeeping capabilities. In the southern African region, the most important things it can do are to build up substantial pressure on South Africa to acknowledge Zimbabwe’s pariah status – and to meet its own obligations to the woefully underserved and endangered refugees from Zimbabwe and other African countries who have fled to South Africa.

In the improved international atmosphere that would result from these actions, the US could press for the following specific initiatives which could credibly flow from a better regional diplomatic climate.

• appoint a special envoy to the African Union;
• state that the “who is going to be Prime Minister” circus is at a dead end;
• call for the release of all political detainees in Zimbabwe at the UN;
• encourage the UN Secretary General to approach the heads of the Zimbabwe armed services and negotiate a transitional arrangement;
• as the current Zimbabwean state no longer recognizes its own constitution, consider setting up an AU- and UN-backed government in exile in Botswana;
• insist that Zimbabwean women’s organizations are recognized and brought into international negotiations;
• sponsor and convene a conference of Zimbabwean activists, feminist organizations and NGOs and hear what their ideas are. Zimbabwe is blessed with an extraordinary corps of articulate, knowledgeable, experienced activist women. Let their voices be heard and let their ideas circulate.
• Consult with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, etc on governance and humanitarian issues – rather than treat them warily as adversaries at best.

None of these actions would be an end in itself; rather, each would contribute to the achievement of enabling conditions for a Zimbabwean recovery. These ideas are proposed here in the spirit that “change means doing things differently.”

Terri Barnes is Associate Professor of History and Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Jan 22, 2009

by

in

Food Crisis Debates: Open Letter to Paul Collier

Open Letter to Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for the Study of African Economies, Oxford University, UK

In response to “Politics of Hunger,” Foreign Affairs (USA), November-December 2008.

From:
William Aal, Community Alliance for Global Justice, Seattle
Lucy Jarosz, Professor, Geography, University of Washington
Carol Thompson, Professor, Political Economy, Northern Arizona University

Date: 20 January 2009

Paul Collier advocates “slaying three giants” to end the food crisis: peasant agriculture, fear of scientific agriculture, and the myth of biofuels from grain to overcome US oil dependence. His analysis is, however, very much grounded in the agriculture of the last century.

Collier continues to make the 20th century-long argument that increased yields is what can feed the hungry, a point that seems self-evident. But much research now documents that the hungry remain with us, not because of the lack of food but rather, because of distribution and the inability of the poor to access food that is available, often only a few miles away. Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize for Economics (1998) for demonstrating not only the theory, but the empirical reality, of famines occurring in the midst of plenty. Moreover, research on commercial agriculture demonstrates its negative effects on the environment, public health, and farming families (Magdoff et al., 2000; Nestle, 2002). Commercial farming is highly dependent upon fossil fuels for production, processing, and transport, and is a major contributor to climate change (IPPC, 2007).

Collier is correct to lament the high price of food in 2008, causing food riots in about 80 countries. However, he places “the root cause” blame on the increasing consumption of the Asian (e.g. China and India) middle classes. The statistics tell a different story. As stated by the senior economist at the International Grains Council, Amy Reynolds, “At the start of the decade, a small amount of grain—18 million tons—was used for industrial purposes. This year 100 million tons will go towards biofuels and other industrial purposes. Can anyone really tell me that hasn’t had an impact on what we pay for food?” (Chakrabortty, 2008: 4).

There is never one root cause, and using grain to feed American cars, instead of people, is just a single factor, but one we can change quickly. We fully agree with Collier that Americans must end their addiction to oil, by refusing to put, as he states, one-third of our grain production into gas-guzzling vehicles. A longer term issue, but relevant to increasing demand , is that more than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock, rather than being consumed directly by humans (Pimentel, 1997).

Other contributing factors include the increasing costs of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides and increasing speculation on commodities markets (Stewart and Waldie, 2008). These factors demonstrate, contra Collier, that the root causes of the global food crisis are related to the political economy of commercial agriculture itself, and not simply a matter of supply and demand.

We disagree quite strongly with Collier’s derisive depiction of “peasant agriculture.” He attacks the populism that “Peasants, like pandas, are to be preserved.” This overly general category seems to include the very diversified category of small-scale family farming, which comprises the majority of farm operations throughout the world. These smallholders (often female farmers) are highly entrepreneurial and innovative. They are even more efficient than commercial agriculture, if one uses the measure of capital expenditure per bushel or ton of yield.

Many scientists now provide statistics that “Africa can feed itself” and that “organic farming can feed the world.” (Halberg et al,. 2007; Norstad, 2007). Organic food production and localized forms of small-scale food production are among the fastest growing areas in agriculture today as the health and environmental effects of commercial agriculture are increasingly rejected and as people move to more healthful plant-based diets. Small-scale urban agriculture in the form of community gardening is becoming increasingly important in seasonal food supplies and local forms of food security.

Commercial agriculture, according to Collier, may increase yields 10-20 percent. Yet long-term analyses from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) demonstrate, across the globe, that “best practices” of smallholder agriculture will double yields. “Best practices” include sharing of seeds (farmers’ rights), research following farmers’ requests, available and affordable credit and yes, agricultural extension. Collier is very wrong in saying that the latter has “largely broken down,” for many sources across the African continent document that removing the government from agriculture was a systematic policy of the World Bank (Berg report) and USAID from 1981. If agricultural credit, extension and markets do not work in Africa, the explicit policy of removing “government interference” from agriculture is a major cause.

Another way Collier reveals he is caught in the last century is that he considers “scientific” thinking as coming from those with white coats in elaborate laboratories. The barefoot woman bending over her cultivated genetic treasure is not “scientific”, even though such farmers have cultivated genetic biodiversity over thousands of years. These free gifts do not fit into the corporate logic behind commercial agriculture, where only profit can be an incentive, not curiosity nor sharing. Yet indigenous knowledge provides us with all our current food diversity and is the basis for 70 percent of our current medicines. Americans, for example, need to know that every major food crop we use today was given to us by Native Americans. In contrast, commercial agriculture makes a profit by depleting the gene pool, the result of valuing only very specific traits. As the FAO concluded (1996: 13-14), “The chief contemporary cause of the loss of genetic diversity has been the spread of modern commercial agriculture.”

A major point which Collier avoids is that genetically modified seeds rely on patenting of life forms, which most all the world rejects, except the U.S. government and the global biotechnology industry. Much of the genetically modified research currently involved in the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA of the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations) relies on freely taking seeds and experimenting them with them in the laboratory; if an innovative trait is produced (e.g., pesticide resistance), the plant is patented, with zero recognition to other breeders of the variety, over thousands of years. By adding one gene, the corporation patents the whole plant, and often, the whole specie. Africans call this act “biopiracy,” or the theft and privatization of genetic wealth, which had previously been available to all (Mushita and Thompson, 2007). We agree with farmers that the sharing of biodiversity is both the past, and the future, of human sustenance.

Food is a human right, not a corporate commodity for speculation. Mother Nature does not operate on a board-room quarterly profit margin. But food production can be very profitable, sustainable…and feed all of us. It is just not capable of feeding the “giants” of Wall Street or the City of London; it is those giants’ interference with food production that needs slaying, because food produced mainly to feed corporate profit will lead to further food crises, not less.

References:

Chakrabortty, Aditya. 2008. “Fields of gold,” The Guardian (London), 16 April, p. 4.

Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 1996. Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, June17-23, Rome: FAO.

Halberg, N., et. al. 2007. Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. London: CABI Publishing.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations. 2007. Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

Magdoff, Fred, et al., 2000. Hungry for Profit. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Mushita, Andrew and Carol Thompson. 2007. Biopiracy of Biodiversity – International Exchange as Enclosure. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Nestle, Marion. 2002. Food Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Norstad, Aksel, ed. 2007. Africa Can Feed Itself. Oslo: The Development Fund.
Articles from a June 2007

Pimental, David. 1997. “‘U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat,’ Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists.” Cornell University Science News. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html

Stewart, Sinclair and Paul Waldie. 2008. “Who is responsible for the global food crisis?” Globe and Mail, 31 May.