Far from a turning point on hunger, summit
flops
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome
Heading into the June 10-13 World Food Summit in Rome, virtually
all observers agreed on the need for a dramatic new commitment to combating
global hunger. Some 24,000 people die each day from malnutrition, according to
United Nations statistics, and 800 million people are undernourished.
After the summit, which was billed as a potential turning point in
global policy on hunger relief, virtually everyone agreed on something else:
The meeting was a flop.
Disagreement focused solely on whom to blame.
While 4,000 delegates from 182 countries attended the meeting,
including several dozen heads of state and 30 prime ministers, mostly from
Africa, only two G-8 nations were represented by chief executives -- Spain and
host Italy. The others sent low-level delegations, leading critics to charge a
lack of commitment on the part of the worlds wealthiest nations.
This is the poors summit. We invited all the premiers
of the rich countries, but no one came, said Jacques Diouf, a Senegalese
diplomat who heads the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the
principal organizer of the summit. We have a good indication of the
political priority given to the tragedy of hunger.
The first United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit, held in Rome
in 1996, produced solemn pledges to cut the numbers of those suffering from
hunger in half by 2015, an aim that analysts concede has not come close to
being realized. The number of hungry people is currently falling at the rate of
6 million a year, far short of the 22 million needed to reach the 1996
goal.
While the United Nations has called on developed nations to set
aside 0.7 percent of gross domestic product for aid to developing nations for
hunger relief, only four have actually met the target: Norway, Sweden, Holland
and Denmark. The United States ranks last on the list, devoting 0.1 percent of
gross domestic product to such aid.
At this years summit, Diouf called for $24 billion to fund a
global anti-hunger program.
Some participants from the developing world could not resist
pointing out that while 800 million people, almost entirely in the Third World,
go hungry, an estimated 300 million, mostly in the developed West, are obese.
Given that contrast, the nonchalance of Western nations clearly rankled.
Even John Paul II got into the act, complaining on the eve of the
summit that global hunger is caused by human inertia and
self-centeredness. It did not take much imagination to grasp just whose
inertia the pope had in mind.
Yet some Western leaders were not in the mood for mea culpas.
Englands minister for international development, Claire Short, fired back
June 12 that the summit was a waste of time, and that the U.N. Food
and Agriculture Organization first had to reform itself if it wants
to solve the hunger problem.
Meanwhile, across town a parallel summit organized by 1,600
delegates representing around 600 nongovernmental organizations struck a
pox on both your houses stance, saying that the debate between
diplomats over how much spending on hunger relief is enough misses the
point.
The Forum for Food Sovereignty, which regards food as a right
rather than a commodity, argued that food security can best be guaranteed by
allowing nations to determine their own production and distribution policies
based on their needs and agricultural practices. This challenges the capitalist
assumption that the free market is always the best way to organize the food
trade.
The best way to feed the hungry, according to the forum, is to
ensure the local agricultural producers remain viable. Giant agribusiness
companies must not monopolize common resources such as land, water, and seed,
the activists argued.
A major issue at both summits was the role of genetically modified
organisms in the fight against hunger. Developing nations, along with
ecological activists in Europe, tend to see genetically modified crops both as
potentially unsafe -- Frankenstein foods -- and as a Trojan horse
for the financial interests of multinational biotechnology companies. Those
companies, the activists complain, seek to make Third World farmers dependent
on the herbicides needed for the genetically modified crops. They also want,
according to critics, to eliminate plant stocks freely available in favor of
those for which the companies hold intellectual property rights.
Developed nations, above all the United States, argue that
improvements in biotechnology hold the key to solving world hunger by
increasing yields and lowering costs. The companies that develop those
technologies, U.S. diplomats argue, have a right to recover their
investments.
The United States found an unlikely ally on the issue of
genetically modified organisms: Cuba, whose foreign minister, Felipe
Pérez Roque, asserted that malnutrition will not be eliminated until
poor countries receive genetically improved seeds.
The lone political result from the summit was a cautious
endorsement of genetically modified crops in a final statement. The document
called for introducing new experimental technologies, including
biotechnologies, in a secure fashion.
Even the U.S. embassy to the Holy See, normally not a major player
in international trade issues, was enlisted to make the case for genetically
modified crops. The embassy organized sessions with the press for Nobel
Prize-winning American scientist Norman Borlaug, whose pioneering work with
wheat yields in the 1940s and 1950s helped trigger the Green
Revolution.
At one such session, which took place June 12 at NCRs
Rome office, Borlaug questioned the credentials of activists who purport to
speak for the poor in opposing genetically modified crops.
Its easy to put words in the mouth of suppressed
peoples, Borlaug told journalists. If the benefits were explained
to the people, Im not convinced that their answer would be
negative.
The U.S. embassy to the Holy See set up a June 13 session for
Borlaug to discuss the same issues with Vatican officials from the Pontifical
Council for the Family and the Secretariat of State.
Yet Borlaug broke with capitalist orthodoxy when asked about
objections that promoting genetically modified organisms would lead to
dependence on fertilizers and other products developed by giant biotechnology
companies such as Monsanto.
Why cant there be good public sector research, to be
competitive with the private sector? he asked. Patents can be given
to the public sector too, to be distributed for the good of all.
He also suggested that Western governments would better promote
the aim of global security, including the war against terrorism, by
investing in eradicating hunger rather than in arms.
Borlaugs arguments were not universally persuasive. Indian
delegate Vandana Shiva claimed that 80 percent of participants were unhappy
with the language on genetically modified crops, but went along as
victims of blackmail. They were afraid to lose aid, Shiva said, if
they did not approve the provision the United States wanted.
Borlaug said that the problem is actually not production, but
distribution. There is sufficient food in the world, but insufficient rail
systems and highways to get it to the hungry. Building that infrastructure, he
said, does not interest the World Bank or other international agencies, who
typically want to see results within five years when they finance projects.
On that note, Borlaug, too, rated the World Food Summit a
disappointment.
I listened to the first four papers at the plenary session,
and they were right on target, he said. But there was no sense of
how to put any of this into action. Thats whats missing.
Related Web sites
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations www.fao.org
Forum for Food
Sovereignty www.forumfoodsovereignty.org
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR Rome correspondent. His e-mail
address is jallen@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, June 21,
2002
|