Liberals at fault for failing to end world hunger

 Chuck Woolery

(August 30, 2009) After nearly 30 years with hundreds of thousands of liberals and hundreds of liberal organizations working to end world hunger there are still over a billion hungry people in the world. Over 200 million more people are now hungry than just 3 years ago. Those who believe that increased population growth, faltering food production or global warming are primary factors are simply wrong. More people are hungry today because both liberal and conservative measures to end world hunger failed.

There were some bright spots during the 1990s and early this millennium. In the early 1980s approximately 42,000 children under the age of 5 were dying each day from easily preventable malnutrition and infectious diseases. Today that number is ‘only’ 25,000 a day. But measurable, affordable, achievable and politically agreed upon goals set in 1990 for the year 2000--the World Food Summit goals--were not met. And, now similar goals set in 2000 for 2015--the Millennium Development goals--are on track to fail.

Hunger’s daily death toll today is approximately 7 times that of the daily death toll attributed to Hitler’s concentration camps. But hunger remains the hidden holocaust largely because this massive death toll is still not enough to change the minds of those in power.

So who is in power? There are basically 3 groups. Those with lots of money. Those with too little money. And those who control the money. Another observer might say there are four groups; Those who vote on appropriation and authorization bills. Those who run organizations who try to influence those who vote. The citizens who are represented by those who win the vote. And finally, those who have no vote, but raise the children without the income, literacy, health care, nutrition, clean water, sanitation or legal status to raise them healthy.

Repeatedly presidential commissions, international studies, think tank reports and prestigious scientific academies have documented the fact that we have the capacity to end hunger – but only if there is the “political will” to do so.

So, one might reasonably ask, why hasn’t there been adequate political will generated over the last 3 decades?. Some may blame it on the politicians, but anyone who understands our nation’s political system knows that politicians don’t lead. They follow. And essentially, not enough people have demanded this action from our elected leaders. Could it be that the action being asked for ‘saving lives’ was insufficiently compelling?

The fact is, the movement to “end world hunger" has largely been a liberal cause, driven primarily by humanitarian compassion. As a bleeding heart liberal involved in this movement for most of the last 3 decades it is my view that this primary emphasis has failed us. Conservatives reliance on the invisible hand of an unregulated market to end hunger doesn’t really hold much promise either …but the fact remains… if we continue as we have, without second coming of Christ, the hungry will always be with us.

What liberals have failed to adopt are two other means of ending hunger -- both means capable of providing sufficient motivation to do the global doable. One or both of these untried means have the capacity to meet the 2015 goal to “half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger” and then end all hunger by 2016. All that’s missing is the political will.

The two means are:

1. Basic Fear (some may call it enlightened self interest).

2. Political Fear (some may call it the rule of law).

Basic fear Any rational look a the costly local/global health, economic, security and environmental consequences of allowing hunger and malnutrition to continue will immediately convince any honest person that ending hunger is vital to our own survival, freedom and prosperity. Ending world hunger should be a U.S. national security priority even surpassing the war on terrorism in resource demands, military focus and political attention. It may surprise most liberals to know that our nation’s military recently added ‘stability building’ as a new ‘third’ core mission. This is the first change to its two original core missions in over 200 years. “Offence” and “defense” are now giving way to assisting failed states in building civil capacity. They have finally accepted the reality that prevention of conflict is far more cost effective than preemptive invasions or intrusive occupations. There is rational debate regarding the effectiveness and long term effects of military people doing the job of development professionals…but at this time the military has the resources and the political mandate. And, they know as the late James Grant from UNICEF noted in 1990, “The road to power for many of the world’s extremist movements…is paved with the unmet needs of the poor.” Liberals often refuse on principled ground, to use fear as a motivation for action. Even if it’s based on reality. Even if it works.

Political fear Any legal look at the lethal consequences of hunger should dictate that access to adequate food, like access to breathable air, is a basic human right. And anyone who denies food to the hungry is also depriving them of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Allowing people (especially children, babies and even fetuses) to suffering or dying from hunger or malnutrition should be a punishable crime. Those in power who allow such suffering and death to persist should be held accountable. We have an international Criminal Court for those commit mass murder by genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity…but no court yet to try those responsible for mass deaths (mostly of children) on a scale greater than all the genocides and wars combined.

Most liberals appear to shun this legal argument because of their own fear. Fear that others won’t agree. Fear they might lose their job if they start touting legal ideals ahead of compassion. Fear of reaction from anti government conservatives. Fear of being seen as unrealistic.

But how realistic is it to think that real progress will be made doing the same thing liberal humanitarians have been doing for 30 years. Compassion is good. It’s just insufficient to end hunger.

The near term difficulties of creating a world government willing and capable for holding political leaders accountable for economic crimes against humanity is obvious but not insurmountable. The only realistic option is pushing for reality based policy on the national and international level. The reality being…if widespread hunger and malnutrition persist…our own security, our freedoms and our future prosperity are catastrophically endangered.

For less than 1/6 of what Americans spend gambling each year…world hunger could be eliminated, and half the world’s infectious diseases could be wiped out. The latter done with the simple provision of clean water and safe sanitation, costing about 1/100 of what our great nation spent ‘liberating’ Iraq.

Ending preventable childhood hunger, disease and disability globally really isn’t an issue of money. The amount needed is embarrassingly small compared to current ‘rescue’ packages. The proven solutions are cheap and available.

All that’s lacking is the political will to get’r done. Especially now with political control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives liberals will likely continue to believe their humanitarian sentiments are adequate for mobilizing the political will. They are wrong.

There are now a billion hungry people in the world hoping this will change. They are not alone.

Woolery is a member of the World Hunger Education Service board of directors.

 Hunger Notes Home Page