Author: WHES

Dear Hunger Notes:

Your web site states that 13 million American children are hungry. With all the social programs, including WIC, why are there still so many hungry children? Where are they living? Are many of them children of illegal immigrants who do not meet requirements for govt. help? Are they children of drug addicted parents who do not take responsibility for them? Doesn’t Family and Children Services remove children from their homes when they are not taken care of? From what I see in the school system, the govt. is helping children through free breakfast and lunch programs. What more can we do?

I would like some verification on how your statistics are gathered. I am considering reprinting them in our Yearly Resource guide and want to make sure I can back them up if someone questions them. D.L.

Dear D.L.

Thanks very much for your important questions, which definitely need to be clarified before publication. Hunger Notes itself did not write the hunger fact sheet that I believe you are referring to: Bread for the World’s domestic hunger fact sheet at http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/domestic.html .

The relevant information there says:

–36.3 million people–including 13 million children–live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten 0households in the United States (11.2 percent). This is an increase of 1.4 million, from 34.9, million in 2002.

–3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes.

–7.7 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 26.6 million people, including 10.3 million children, live in these homes.

The second two paragraphs amplify the first. The 36.3 million people live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, experience hunger, when people frequently skip meals or eat too little. The second group, 26.6 million people including 10.3 million children are at risk of hunger, which they deal with by buying cheaper (and less nutritious food) and by relying on public or private food programs.

So three million children live in homes that experience hunger. Two further points are important:

–First, this is really “experience hunger at some time during the year.” A majority of the people who were hungry at some time during the year were hungry in several different months, but only for a few times each month. So that daily statistics for hunger would be smaller.

–Secondly, the number of children that experience hunger would be smaller, as adults usually try to shield children from hunger. The first people to be hungry are usually adults.

Thus, on a typical day in November 2003, for example, between 490,000 and 698,000 households (0.4-0.6 percent of all U.S. households included one or more members who were hungry because the household could not afford enough food. Children are usually shielded from hunger even when resources are inadequate to provide food for the entire family. Nevertheless, hunger among children occurred in 33,000 to 37,000 households (.08 to .09 percent of all U.S. households from children) on a typical day. [This would represent an estimated 100,000 children with three children per family.] Source: Food Security Research Brief.

HN would suggest the following paragraph from the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service that we believe summarizes things nicely:

Throughout the year in 2003, 88.8 percent of U.S. households were food secure, essentially unchanged from 2002. The remaining 11.2 percent (12.6 million households) were food insecure. These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all members due to a lack of resources. Within the 11.2 percent, 7.7 percent were food insecure without hunger, and 3.5 percent had one or more household members who were hungry at some time, unchanged from 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger among children was 0.5 percent of all U.S. households with children, essentially unchanged from 2002. Food Security Research Brief

To summarize, the good news is that 13 million children are not hungry each day, (which I think was the thrust of your question). The bad news is that 13 million children live in families that are threatened with hunger.

In 1995, the U.S. government set a goal of reducing the prevalence for food insecurity from 12 percent to 6 percent by 2010. With food insecurity at 11.2 percent in 2003, halfway through the period, there is far to go.

Turning now to your other questions.

“I would like some verification on how your statistics are gathered.”

The statistics are gathered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, based on surveys. This survey is quite impressive. The USDA food security website is at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/. It has links to the full current survey and interesting articles on food security in the United States.

“With all the social programs, including WIC, why are there still so many hungry children? … From what I see in the school system, the govt. is helping children through free breakfast and lunch programs.”

First, of the food insecure, two-thirds are not actually hungry, and in large part this is because they rely on food assistance programs (including WIC, food stamps, the school feeding program and private programs such as church programs) and income support programs. So these programs have done quite a bit. Secondly, as discussed above, there are less hungry children than your statement would suggest.

Where are they [hungry children] living? The full 2003 report http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr42/, has statistics by state and type of geographical area (e.g. urban). Also take a look at the U.S. Catholic Conference Poverty Facts. Many small pages, but about the fifth page and following give summaries of where the most hungry live.

Are many of them children of illegal immigrants who do not meet requirements for govt. help?

As I remember, not more than 14 percent of the food insecure are non-U.S. citizens, and a significant percentage of the non-citizens are here legally.

Are they children of drug addicted parents who do not take responsibility for them? Doesn’t Family and Children Services remove children from their homes when they are not taken care of?

Children are removed from their homes if neglect is recognized, reported and serious enough. There are no statistics, to my knowledge, relating food insecurity and use of drugs that would enable national estimates to be made of the percentage of the food insecure who are debilitated by the use of drugs. I would suspect it is a very small percentage, possibly three-five percent, of the food insecure. The major causes of food insecurity are really elsewhere, in the lack of jobs (especially those paying high enough wages to avoid food insecurity), lack of job skills, and single parent families.

Editor, Hunger Notes

DEFICIT SPENDING didn’t bother the Bush administration when the issue was tax cuts. Congress had no trouble finding “savings” to supposedly offset new costs when the costs were in a corporate tax bill stuffed with special-interest provisions. But when it comes to health care for poor children, different, stricter rules seem to apply. This week’s lame-duck Congress is poised to leave town without taking any action to restore $1 billion in federal funding for children’s health care that wasn’t used before its Sept. 30 expiration and therefore reverted to the Treasury. Republican lawmakers say they don’t oppose renewing the funding but insist that it has to be paid for with cuts elsewhere. The result is that some 200,000 low-income children will be at risk of losing health coverage in the next three years.The issue involves the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was launched in 1997 to help states provide coverage to low-income children whose families earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid. With $40 billion in federal matching funds over 10 years, this was the largest expansion of health coverage for children since the adoption of Medicaid in the 1960s; last year alone the program enrolled 5.8 million children. Even as the share of Americans without health insurance is growing, the percentage of children lacking coverage has stayed stable, in large part thanks to Medicaid and SCHIP.

How will the new constitution of Iraq satisfy demands for fair representation for Shiites and Kurds? Which— and how many— of the languages spoken in Afghanistan should the new constitution recognize as the official language of the state? How will the Nigerian federal court deal with a Sharia law ruling to punish adultery by death? Will the French legislature approve the proposal to ban headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools? Do Hispanics in the United States resist assimilation into the mainstream American culture? Will there be a peace accord to end fighting in Côte d’Ivoire? Will the President of Bolivia resign after mounting protests by indigenous people? Will the peace talks to end the Tamil-Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka ever conclude? These are just some headlines from the past few months.

Managing cultural diversity is one of the central challenges of our time.

Long thought to be divisive threats to social harmony, choices like these— about recognizing and accommodating diverse ethnicities, religions, languages, and values— are an inescapable feature of the landscape of politics in the 21st century. Political leaders and political theorists of all persuasions have argued against explicit recognition of cultural identities— ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial. The result, more often than not, has been that cultural identities have been suppressed, sometimes brutally, through state policy— through religious persecutions and ethnic cleansings, but also through everyday exclusion and economic, social and political discrimination.

New today is the rise of identity politics. In vastly different contexts and in different ways— from indigenous people in Latin America to religious minorities in South Asia to ethnic minorities.

From the Balkans and Africa to immigrants in Western Europe— people are mobilizing anew around old grievances along ethnic religious, racial and cultural lines, demanding that their identities be acknowledged, appreciated, and accommodated by broader society. Suffering discrimination and marginalization from social, economic and political opportunities, they are also demanding social justice. Also new today is the rise of coercive movements that threaten cultural liberty. And, in this era of globalization, a new class of political claims and demands has emerged from individuals, communities, and countries with feelings that their local cultures are being swept away. They want to keep their diversity in a globalized world.

Why these movements today? They are not isolated. They are part of a historic process of social change, of struggles for cultural freedom, of new frontiers in the advance of human freedoms and democracy. They are propelled and shaped by the spread of democracy, which is giving movements more political space for protest, and the advance of globalization, which is creating new networks of alliances and presenting new challenges.

Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity— who one is— without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is important in leading a full life. People want the freedom to practice their religion openly, to speak their language, to celebrate their ethnic or religious heritage without fear of ridicule or punishment or diminished opportunity. People want the freedom to participate in society without having to slip off their chosen cultural mooring. It is a simple idea, but profoundly unsettling.

States face an urgent challenge in responding to these demands. If handled well, greater recognition of identities will bring greater cultural diversity in society, enriching people’s lives. But there is also a great risk. These struggles over cultural identity, if left unmanaged or managed poorly, can quickly become one of the greatest sources of instability within states and between them— and in so doing trigger conflict that takes development backward. Identity politics that polarize people and groups are creating fault lines between “us” and “them.” Growing distrust and hatred threaten peace, development and human freedoms. Just in the last year ethnic violence destroyed hundreds of homes and mosques in Kosovo and Serbia. Terrorist train bombings in Spain killed nearly 200. Sectarian violence killed thousands of Muslims and drove thousands more from their homes in Gujarat and elsewhere in India, a champion of cultural accommodation. A spate of hate crimes against immigrants shattered Norwegians’ belief in their unshakable commitment to tolerance. Struggles over identity can also lead to regressive and xenophobic policies that retard human development. They can encourage a retreat to conservatism and a rejection of change, closing off the infusion of ideas and of people who bring cosmopolitan values and the knowledge and skills that advance development.

Managing diversity and respecting cultural identities are not just challenges for a few “multiethnic states.” Almost no country is entirely homogeneous. The world’s nearly 200 countries contain some 5,000 ethnic groups. Two thirds have at least one substantial minority, def. as an ethnic or religious group that makes up at least 10 percent of the population. At the same time the pace of international migration has quickened, with startling effects on some countries and cities. Nearly half the population of Toronto was born outside of Canada. And many more foreign-born people maintain close ties with their countries of origin than did immigrants of the last century.

One way or another every country is a multicultural society today, containing ethnic, religious or linguistic groups that have common bonds to their own heritage, culture, values, and way of life. Cultural diversity is here to stay— and to grow. States need to find ways of forging national unity amid this diversity. The world, ever more interdependent economically, cannot function unless people respect diversity and build unity through common bonds of humanity. In this age of globalization the demands for cultural recognition can no longer be ignored by any state or by the international community. And confrontations over culture and identity are likely to grow— the ease of communications and travel have shrunk the world and changed the landscape of cultural diversity, and the spread of democracy, human rights, and new global networks have given people greater means to mobilize around a cause, insist on a response and get it.

This is an excerpt from the 2004 World Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). For the full text of the report, see http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/

Fifty years ago, on July 10, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed Public Law 480 – the Agricultural Trade, Development and Assistance Act – popularly known as the Food for Peace Program. Remarkable for its longevity as well as its consistency in providing food to those in need throughout the world, the program has endured changes in emphasis, variations in commodity supply, major legislative revisions, and controversial approaches to its management.

Originally enacted as a means of using American food surpluses to feed those in need, PL 480 supplied massive quantities of food aid to India in the 1960s for famine relief. In the early 1970s, the Nixon Administration made it a part of the Vietnam War, attempting to support the South Vietnamese government with large and often unneeded shipments of rice. PL 480 Title I “sales” were a key component of U.S. foreign policy for developing countries from the 1960s to the 1980s, and Title II humanitarian programs reached millions in need then as they do now.

Legislative changes in the 1980s and 1990s provided a “developmental” emphasis to PL 480 programs, adding considerable complexity to program planning, but retaining appropriation levels that to this day exceed $1 billion dollars (US) annually. Title I, now at reduced levels, continues to be managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and recent years have seen a renewed emphasis on Title II famine relief and development programs, managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

True to its original intent, PL 480 has an extensive list of participants, ranging from victims of famine and malnutrition to U.S. commodity suppliers and shippers, American relief and development agencies, and the United Nations. Despite its overseas focus, the program maintains strong links to U.S. agriculture and the agriculture committees of the U.S. Congress. Over its 50 years, practically every major U.S. commodity has been shipped under PL 480 (even tobacco and cotton, in the early years). The totality of the program is enormous. In its 50 years of existence, PL 480 has provided over 106 million tons of food aid, valued at more than $33 billion (US)– all from American agriculture, shipping mostly on American ships– in addition to feeding the hungry abroad.

But five decades of absorbing changes and serving multiple purposes and interests have transformed PL 480 and additional, separately authorized, USDA programs – Food For Progress and Food For Education – into formidable and complex management challenges, and despite the best efforts of their USAID and USDA administrators, who must cope with and implement these changes, these programs are now subject to a seemingly endless array of rules, regulations, and bureaucratic process. Preoccupation with process has created a myopic view within these agencies that has one inevitable result– delay in all aspects of program development and implementation. Delay in obtaining approvals for food aid programs is often more the rule than the exception for most American relief and development agencies, and unfortunately, each year brings new changes.

This 50th year, what should be cause for greater celebration of the “golden jubilee” of PL 480 is no exception. Worldwide food reserves are extremely low; demand for food throughout the world has increased; and the past 12 months have seen a general tightening of commodity supplies and increased prices for both commodities and ocean freight. These factors all signal a reduction in food aid levels and increased complexity in PL 480 and other food aid decision-making. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), European delegates have raised concerns about the levels of U.S. food aid exports and their alleged distortion of world markets. The U.S. government, in return, has expressed its own concern about European agriculture subsidies and U.S. food aid proponents worry about the potential for a WTO subsidy agreement that would reduce PL 480 and other U.S. food aid programs and make their administration even more complicated.

A half-century of experience says that it is time to step back and examine how PL 480 and other U.S. food aid programs can meet 21st century challenges in a way that simplifies, rather than complicates, their administration. These programs are urgently needed, but they may be close to falling into a procedural abyss from which they cannot be rescued without major legislative change. Innovative and perhaps radical change is needed. The revised approach to foreign aid that uses a government corporation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, may be a model. But whatever the solution, finding an efficient way to provide food to those who need it is as important now as it was in 1954.

Daniel E. Shaughnessy is Chairman of the Board of Directors, World Hunger Education Service, and President, TCR Services, an international consulting firm, located in Arlington, VA. Shaughnessy has had extensive experience in food aid. He directed the Food For Peace Program in USAID and food aid activities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was also the Executive Director of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger and in the State Department, he helped to coordinate U.S. involvement in the World Food Conference. He also worked on food aid issues as a member of the U.S. Senate staff. In addition to his government experience, Mr. Shaughnessy was the CEO of Project Concern International, an NGO with extensive food aid programs. In the private business sector, Shaughnessy has directed trade associations involved in food aid commodity processing, nutrition, and shipping.

June 19, 2004) June 20 is World Refugee Day, a day to reflect on the state of the world’s 12 million refugees. One of these 12 million is a young Somali student named Abass Hassan Mohamed.

Abass is the second-oldest of six children. His family fled to Kenya, along with hundreds of thousands of other refugees, in the midst of the violent implosion of Somalia in 1992. He says very little about his early days in the refugee camp, apart from the fact that it was dusty, hot, violent, and that people died on a daily basis.

12 years later, he still lives in a refugee camp near Dadaab, in the Northeast Province of Kenya, just 80kms from the border with Somalia, along with almost 135,000 other refugees.This February, one year late, Abass received the results from his national secondary school exams. Competing against students from across the country, Abass sat in exams in subjects as diverse as English, Chemistry, Commerce and Swahili. His results were extraordinary. He ranked first in the Northeast Province of Kenya, and eighth in the whole of Kenya.

Although he does not brag, Abass overcame incredible odds to achieve this remarkable result. Of the 44 students in his class, only 32 graduated. His days were full not only with the extra-curricular activities like football, the debating club and the school environment club, but also with more demanding tasks, like standing in the blazing sun and 45C heat for hours to receive the family’s fortnightly rations of a few kilograms of maize. He learned to survive in one of the most violent camps in Africa, where rape, murder and armed robbery were almost daily occurrences.

There were only 300 desks in the whole school, so Abass had to share with two other students, with whom he also shared textbooks. He tried to work on his homework in the evenings, when the chores were done, but his family rarely had the fuel for the single kerosene lamp.

Abass now works as a teacher in one of the primary schools in his camp run by the aid agency CARE, earning 3,775 KSh/- a month, about $48. If a scholarship can be found, Abass plans on studying medicine. In a community where there is only one doctor for 135,000 people, Abass feels that training in medicine is the best way that he can help his people, both in exile and when they return to Somalia. Abass believes that day will come.

Abass is but one example of the millions of refugees around the world, young and old, who have skills and abilities they want to contribute, but who are wasting away in isolated and insecure camps, trapped in a protracted refugee situation. The UN recently reported that, in Africa alone, there are over 3 million refugees who have spent over 5 years in the confines of a refugee camp, with no freedom of movement, dwindling donor support, and slim prospects of a solution for their plight.

This year’s World Refugee Day celebrates the 30th Anniversary of the entry into force of the Organisations for African Unity’s (OAU’s) Refugee Convention. This Convention is hailed by many as one of the most liberal refugee regimes in the world, expanding the refugee definition from those fleeing an individual fear of persecution to those also feeling civil conflict. But looking at the current state of refugee protection in Africa, there is little to celebrate.

Host countries across Africa continue to limit the quality and quantity of asylum they offer to refugees, fleeing both persecution and civil war. Refugees are increasingly ‘warehoused’ in remote camps, cut-off from local communities and fully dependent on international assistance.

Unlike the ‘golden age’ of asylum in Africa, when refugees were allocated land to pursue self-sufficiency, host countries today often cite security concerns, environmental degradation and lack of support from donor governments as a justification for placing restrictions on the asylum they offer. In cases of mass influx, states are increasingly likely to try to close their borders to new arrivals or, as in the recent case of Darfur, hinder access to humanitarian agencies.The result is a crisis in asylum in Africa.

This crisis is compounded by a reluctance on the part of Western governments to support the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in fulfilling the Mandate it received from the UN General Assembly in 1950: to provide international protection for refugees and to find a permanent solution to their plight. States have agreed, since 1951, that the granting of asylum places a heavy burden on certain states, and that the solution to the world’s refugee problem cannot be achieved without international co-operation. Yet the West does little to cooperate.

When asylum seekers flee the insecurity of regions of refugee origin, they find increasing barriers to protection in Europe and North America. When the UNHCR appeals to donor countries to fund its programs in Africa, insufficient contributions are made. UNHCR has appealed for over $50 million to respond to the unfolding humanitarian emergency on the Chad/Sudan border, but has received only $18 million.

This funding crisis directly affects the level of protection that refugees across Africa receive on a daily basis. A lack of funds means that programs will not be implemented to prevent the rape of refugee women, that protection staff will not be deployed to register new refugees, that education programs will need to be cut, and that food assistance to refugees, already below internationally recognized standards, will need to be reduced.

A lack of donor engagement also inhibits the prospects of finding durable solutions to the plight of refugees. Three durable solutions have historically been used to resolve refugee situations. First, refugees have been able to integrate into their host community. Through the 1960s and 1970s, refugees fleeing wars of national liberation and civil wars in Africa were welcomed into their newly independent neighbors and encouraged, with the support of the international community and aid agencies, to settle on under-utilized land and rebuild their lives in a new country. Thousands were given citizenship, and many refugees were able to make significant contributions to their adopted countries. Such programs are no longer possible in Africa.

Second, refugees have been able to voluntarily repatriate to their country of origin when the conflict has been resolved and when the mechanisms have been established to support their return and reintegration. With the end of the prolonged civil war in Mozambique in the early 1990s, almost a million refugees were able to return from Malawi. Sustained programs ensured the success of their reintegration. In stark contrast, many instances of repatriation are less than voluntary. Many Burundian refugees are returning from Tanzania not because they believe that they will find peace in their homeland, but because they want to escape the unbearable conditions in the refugee camps. Many say that if they are going to die, they would rather die at home.

Even when the UN does believe that conditions in the country of origin could support large-scale repatriation and reintegration, the necessary funds are not forthcoming. In March 2004, the UNHCR appealed for donor support to lay the foundations for the repatriation of refugees to seven African countries. Two of these countries were Liberia and Sudan. While repatriation is not immediately possible to these countries, investment is essential in the coming months to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support repatriation in the coming years. UNHCR appealed for $8.8 million for preparatory activities in Sudan. It has received $3 million. Likewise, it has appealed for $39.2 million to support operations in Liberia for return and reintegration of both refugees and internally displaced persons. It has received only $3 million.

If a refugee cannot return to their country of origin, and if they cannot remain in their country of asylum, the only remaining solution for them is to be resettled to a third country. Resettlement is a long
and demanding process, but it is the only possible durable solution for many refugees, especially refugees with special needs. Given the protracted nature of many of today’s refugee situations and given the severity of many of the protection environments in which they survive, this durable solution is increasingly essential, but alarmingly scarce. While most of Africa’s 3 million camp-bound refugees would qualify for resettlement, only 100,000 resettlement opportunities are made available by Western countries for resettlement programs around the world. At the same time, UNHCR lacks the capacity and the institutional will to fill even this meager quota.

But more money to UNHCR is not the answer to the plight of Africa’s refugees. UNHCR is only part of the solution, and greater financial contributions without the backing of political will is wasted. Full funding for UNHCR’s programs is an important first step, but it is not enough.

A solution to the plight of the world’s refugees must begin with the recognition that the problem of displacement is a global problem, and requires a global solution. The answer on the part of the international community should not be to pull-up the draw-bridges and sharpen the swords. The answer must be found in understanding how various aspects of foreign engagement – trade, aid, military, and foreign policy – can both cause refugee movements and affect the quality of asylum they receive.

Second, the leaders of the West must understand that it is in everybody’s interest to resolve the world’s protracted refugee situations. It is not only immoral to keep refugees warehoused in camps across Africa; it is uneconomical, can foster insecurity, and contributes to the growing resentment on the part of ‘host’ governments. Just as the plight of chronic refugee groups in Europe was resolved in the 1960s, there is urgent need for the political will and creative thinking to formulate comprehensive solutions for today’s protracted refugee situations in Africa.

Finally, refugees themselves should be involved in the process of determining their future. 30 years ago, refugees mattered. They were fleeing wars of national liberation in Africa or communism in Eastern
Europe. In the context of the Cold War, they had political utility. Today, they are seen as hopeless and helpless, anonymous victims and huddled masses on our television screens.

But hopeless and helpless they are not. Like Abass, refugees have hopes and dreams for the future, and the ability, desire and skills to contribute to resolving the world’s refugee problem. But contained in camps, they can do little. With the financial and political support of the international community, they could do great things.

The coming into force of the African Refugee Convention 30 years ago was a great step forward for refugees. Since then, we have taken many great leaps backwards. It’s time to reverse the trend.

James Milner is a Trudeau Scholar and doctoral student at the Refugee Studies Center, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. He has formerly worked as a consultant for UNHCR in India, Cameroon, Guinea and Geneva, and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles.

This editorial first appeared in Pazambuka News, which can be seen at www.pazambuka.org.

(April 22, 2004) There is no doubt that the painful memory of the 800,000 victims of the Genocide in Rwanda will live with us forever. For many years to come, we will continue to unearth the remains of children, women and men hacked to death in one of the most frenzied, planned and organized massacres ever witnessed by the world.

For the past ten years we said never again, we made resolutions, we set up commissions and tribunals, we organized conferences … yet Genocide was revisited this very year, Rwanda’s Tenth year. Still sore and raw in our memories, the Genocide of Rwanda has made way to that of Darfur. Same crimes, same atrocities and same disregard to human lives. In the name of greed, hatred and spite, the Janjaweed, the Sudanese government armed militias and very much equivalent to the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi of Rwanda, have killed, looted, burnt, and raped their neighbors. Like vultures, they have cleansed villages from their people and destroyed the dreams of entire communities.

In the space of a few months more they have uprooted from their homes more than one million people and reduced them to statistics for the UN and for various humanitarian organizations. The early warning signs were very much present in Darfur. For more than three decades, indigenous Africans — Fur, Massaleet and Zaghawa to name but a few — were at the mercy of successive ruthless regimes, military as well as the so-called “democratically elected” government of Sadiq el Mahdi (1986-89).

Ruling by the gun and with the gun they imposed a religious-ethnic-sectarian ideology on the country. Their proxy killers, Muraheleen in the South and Janjaweed in Darfur, implemented various scorched-earth strategies to take over land, pastures and water points from their legitimate owners. For years, the international community and us Africans, deserted Darfur. ‘Il n’est pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre’ (so we closed our eyes and turned away) from the plight of the people of Darfur.

Better not to see, not to hear and not to know was the general attitude. Now, there is some hope, or should we say, there was some hope when two weeks ago, a cease-fire agreement was signed in N’djamena between the Darfur fighters and the Sudanese government.

The 45-day cease-fire that was to come into effect on Sunday 11 April was mainly meant to guarantee safe passage for humanitarian aid, free prisoners of war and especially disarm militias. The ceasefire is good news and a first step to stop the killing but it requires the immediate dispatch to Darfur of an international monitoring team of observers, military and civilian, to prevent further killing, stop the continued displacement of the population and secure humanitarian assistance to the people.

Today, after ten days, where do we stand? Recently, Kofi Annan has pointed out that UN peacekeepers “are no longer restricted to using force only in self-defense” and that they are also “empowered (to protect) local civilians threatened with imminent violence.” At the time of the Genocide of Rwanda, Kofi Annan was Under Secretary General for UN Peace Keeping Operations (PKO) and we all know what happened. Today he is UN Secretary General, he is Alpha Dog, but will he give his marching orders to “armed” peacekeepers?

Again and again Khartoum has broken its agreements, prevented a UN human rights team from entering the country to investigate the widespread atrocities committed in Darfur, delayed humanitarian workers to reach the displaced, denied entry to independent observers, turned away the media, closed the borders. The list of Khartoum’s violations is too long to continue.- On the humanitarian front, reports indicate that “nearly 3 million people are beyond the reach of aid agencies trying to provide assistance, and mortality rates in the region are possibly as high as 1,000 per week”.

– On the military front, the ink was hardly dry on that farcical cease-fire agreement before government-backed Janjaweed Arab militias were back into action. Mounting attacks against civilians in Mastrey, a farming locality south of Al Geneina (Western Darfur) and south of Nyala, the capital of Southern Darfur. Despite denying any violation of the cease-fire, Khartoum’s request to “postpone” the trip of the chief of the UN Emergency Relief clearly indicates that the fighting is still continuing and that the Janjaweed have not been disarmed.

Shall we give Khartoum the credit of the doubt when instead of disarming the Janjaweed the Sudanese government is providing them with military costumes and integrating them into its regular forces and into the much-hated Popular Defense Forces (PDF)? Now, as Khartoum’s “official” killing machine they have been posted in and around Nyala, capital of Southern Darfur, preventing the return of the refugees. They are attacking internally displaced people and preventing them from returning to their homes. They are occupying the farmland and villages of the Fur farmers they chased away earlier, and
refusing to allow them to retake possession of what remain from their homes.

Posted on the borders with Chad, they are preventing anyone crossing into Darfur. Aid agencies allowed in the region have reported that “Sudanese soldiers” have even beaten back women searching for food and firewood. By enrolling the Janjaweed into its regular forces, Khartoum is not only protecting its proxy killers, but also it is covering up its own crimes against the people of Darfur.

The European Union (EU) has put forward a resolution calling for a special Rapporteur to monitor human rights abuses in Sudan, but the vote was postponed until April 22 at the request of the African group. Coordinated by the government of Congo-Brazzaville, the African Group has consistently blocked scrutiny of African governments regardless of their human rights records.

Isn’t it true that the well being and the safety of a country’s nationals is the first and foremost duty of a responsible government? Isn’t it true that that duty is enshrined in national constitutions in Africa as it is elsewhere in the world and that it figures also in the Charter that governs the African Union? Indeed the African Union has announced from Addis Ababa that it will deploy military observers next week to the Darfur region to monitor the ceasefire.

According to Said Djinnit, AU’s Commissioner for Peace and Security, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal and Namibia have agreed to send military officers to be deployed in the region. Discussions are under way in
N’djamena and in Addis for the arrangements but reports from the Chadian capital are grim and nothing has been decided as we go to press.

The Sudanese government and the Darfur fighters are to meet again next week in the Chadian capital to iron out a definitive settlement to the conflict, whereby the political issues that have driven the people of Darfur to rebel, will be addressed.

The most crucial issues are land and water points and as redistribution of farmland is high on Khartoum’s agenda, Fur leaders are suspicious about the recent Idriss Deby-Omar el Beshir’s meeting in N’djamena. The Fur believe that to quell any dissent among the Zaghawa, on either side of its borders, the Chadian president would favor them in any future political settlement between Khartoum and fighters. Such arrangements would be in line with the “divide and rule” policy that Khartoum pursued for years in the South.

I doubt whether the people of Darfur can still trust any one to come to their help. Already they have lost faith in a government that has devoted its time and efforts to usurp them from their land, kill their
children and force the survivors into exile. Now it is the turn of the African community to fail them. We reported here in Pambazuka News 112 that the challenges facing Africans and the African Union are enormous. On each and every front – economic, social, scientific and political – the continent is “yet to fulfil its potential”. Ten years after Rwanda and in the wake of Darfur, many African political and civil society activists are calling for the establishment of an “early warning mechanism” for detecting any attempt, by groups or governments, to violate human rights in any part of the continent.

Eva Dadrian is an independent broadcaster and Political and Country Risk Analyst for print and broadcast media, who currently works as a consultant for Arab African Affairs (London) and writes on a regular basis for AFRICA ANALYSIS (London), for Al Ahram HEBDO Echos Economiques and Al Ahram WEEKLY (Cairo) and contributes to Africa Service BBC WS (London). Published reports include: Religion and Politics in North Africa; The Horn of Africa: Country Risk Analysis; The Nile Waters: Risk Analysis; State and Church in Ethiopia; Policing the Horn of Africa; Religion and Politics in Sudan; Can South Sudan survive as an independent state?

This article first appeared in Pambazuka News, an electronic newsletter for social justice in Africa, www.pambazuka.org.

(April 2, 2004) I was privileged to attend the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Nutrition, during the week of March 22 and learned quite a bit there. I hadn’t ever been to a session before. It was exhilarating to listen to about 250 people (and talk to a fair number) deeply interested in and informed about nutrition issues (hunger is a not a technically well enough defined—and possibly too emotive a word—to have been frequently used there) gathered together in one place. The four and one half day session took place in New York at the United Nations and UNICEF.

(Well, like so much in the modern world, what this committee is requires some explanation. Its name has not always been the same and it has certainly changed important aspects of its way of being/acting over the years. It was started, under another name which escapes me at the moment, to provide coordination between U.N. agencies such as UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Food Program on nutrition issues. For many years, until very recently, it was known as the sub-committee on Nutrition. For most of its life it was a committee of U.N. sub-organizations. Later it broadened to include representatives of developed country governmental organizations and I presume developing countries, though they may not have been as much in evidence for financial or other reasons. Recently, about seven years or so ago, it was broadened to include representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs). The secretariat of the SCN was also moved from the FAO to WHO, evidently because it was difficult to get things done at FAO.)

The meeting had three parts. The first and second essentially covered the same ground–a discussion of the Millennium Development Goals and their relation to nutrition. The first was a very interesting series of plenary (full meetings of everyone) and the second were the reports of the standing committees, with discussion by those attending. These standing committees appear to be the most active portion of the SCN, and certainly managed to get an incredible amount of expertise focused on specific nutrition issues It is very interesting to see how important nutrition is by sector. For health, for example, an estimated 50 percent of deaths from illness and infection (such as measles) is in fact caused by the weakened health caused by malnutrition/hunger This is presented in the 5th Report on the World Nutrition Situation (don’t download unless you have a fast internet connection–it is 141 pages). However more accessible links are available at http://www.unsystem.org/scn/Publications/foundation4dev/foundation4dev.htmThe third was a series of meetings of representatives of the three different types of institutions represented there in order to discuss issues and prepare for the next meeting which will be in Brasilia, Brazil. I attended the private sector meeting– where there were well over 100 people from about 80 non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations and universities.

In summary.

This was an excellent learning experience for me. I definitely have a better understanding of important issues.

There are many nutrition issues. There are at least 10 important micronutrients that are in short supply. How can they all be supplied to the right people in poor countries? A micronutrient by micronutrient approach is not possible due to cost reasons, yet there appears to be no broader approach. Moreover, actual food and providing it to those who need it is an even more difficult task.

While the level of effort in trying to improve the nutrition of poor people is impressive, it is very far from sufficient.

Hunger Notes believes that its readers should do three things: Learn about hunger, contribute financially to reducing hunger, and use their citizenship (U.S. or other country) to influence government policy (U.S. or other country) to benefit poor and hungry people. This article describes RESULTS, an effective anti-hunger organization whose members take political action to help poor and hungry people, and which Hunger Notes believes is worthy of your participation.

(February 29, 2004) RESULTS is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization that is committed to helping concerned individuals exercise personal and political power by speaking powerfully to help stop hunger and poverty. It consists of a domestic and worldwide network of members. The domestic network consists of more than 900 volunteers from over 100 communities across the nation. Internationally, there are RESULTS organizations in six other countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan, Canada, and Mexico. U.S. members take the initiative to write letters to their Congresspersons to inspire them to help make changes to legislation to benefit hungry people and to generate media coverage of key hunger and poverty issues. RESULTS has three categories of membership as described further below.

RESULTS has had a number of outstanding successes in directing U.S. government efforts to helping poor and hungry people. Two of these successes are:
1) Microenterprise Credit. RESULTS has been the principal political force behind the strong U.S. government support for microenterprise credit, which has permitted establishment of microcredit loans to very poor people throughout the world. This approach was begun by Mohammed Yunus in Bangladesh, and was mainly focused there before RESULTS. Microcredit lending makes loans to poor people so that they can invest in their productive small enterprises, such as retail sales, and thereby earn increased income. Poor people repay the loans, which can then be reloaned to other poor people. RESULTS recognized the benefit of this approach, and through its legislative efforts in the United States, in the six other countries where it had chapters, and internationally through its work influencing the World Bank and other international financial institutions. From a beginning in one country, Bangladesh, microenterprise credit has become a key way of assisting the world’s poor people.
2) Child Survival/Health. RESULTS has supported U.S. and worldwide child survival and health assistance throughout the existence of RESULTS, which began in 1985. Health assistance was approximately $135 million when RESULTS, along with Bread for the World, began support. It is now $1.835 billion. RESULTS efforts played a key role in this increase. RESULTS focus now is on increasing funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which provides direct assistance to poor countries and people, including antiretroviral drugs to prevent the progression from HIV infection to AIDS.
In the United States, RESULTS members constantly lobby for funding for programs such as Head Start, WIC, and the Child Care and Development Block grant, which are dedicated to improving the lives of millions of resource poor children. They are also working on asset development for the poor in America through programs including microcredit and Individual Development Accounts. These tools help families to save and invest their money to buy their first home, pay for post-secondary education, or start a small business.
There are three ways to join RESULTS. 1) You can partner with a RESULTS group near you. In doing so, you can participate in national conference calls, in writing monthly letters, and in having the opportunity to meet and connect with other partners to participate in local actions and events. 2) You can also become a member by contributing $35 or more. 3) You can become a financial contributor. If interested, please contact RESULTS at info@results.org. For more information about RESULTS, visit them at www.results.org .

A quote from RESULTS’ website is a reminder of its ideals and operating style:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

—Margaret Mead

Mabel Ng was World Hunger Education Service intern for Spring, 2004.
Photo: Paula Smith-Vanderslice Ng, with The White House in background, Washington, D.C.

Hunger Notes encourages its readers to make a “New Year’s Resolution” to do more to aid poor and hungry people in 2004.
Hunger Notes encourages our readers to take three steps this year to support hungry people.
Contribute money to an organization that supports hungry people.
Join an organization that supports hungry people in the United States political/policy arena.

Learn more about the situation of poor and hungry people.

If you are already doing all three, excellent! Move on to an another resolution, such as improving your outside shot in basketball.

But if you are doing– in your own judgment– nothing or not enough in one or more of these three key areas we ask you to resolve to:

Make or increase your financial contribution to assisting hungry people. Many good organizations, such as CARE, Oxfam America, and Catholic Relief Services are assisting poor people abroad. A fuller list can be seen at the Interaction website at http://www.interaction.org/. In the United States, a contribution to your local food bank would be valuable, as would a contribution to national food organizations.

Join a national organization trying to influence U.S. public policy to improve the situation for hungry people. One might think that the U.S. foreign aid budget is mainly directed toward poor and hungry people. This is simply not the case, as much larger amounts go to assisting U.S. allies, including military aid. Another type of fight, that of redirecting U.S. foreign assistance to help hungry people, becomes a more difficult task. Because this fight is political– which requires the support of you, the public– it is really necessary to join an organization that can aggregate the support of many people in the United States on behalf of hungry people. Who moves in after the military moves out? An ongoing human relief effort. Hunger Notes will provide further information on three excellent anti-hunger organizations: Bread for the World, RESULTS, and Food First.

Learn more about hunger. You are– or can be– an important part of reducing hunger. Your knowledge does or can lead you to action on behalf of hungry people, to help them have a better future. Hunger Notes is one source for such knowledge. Organizations included in HN web links address key aspects of the causes of hunger and poverty. Hunger Notes will be happy to answer your questions on specific areas– part of HN’s New Year’s Resolutions!

May you make, and follow through on, a New Year’s Resolution to help hungry people! May we, and hungry people throughout the world, enjoy a happier and more prosperous New Year!

USAID has recently released a request for applications (RFA) for development education in the United States that Hunger Notes finds seriously lacking. The RFA is not oriented to true education about development, and appears to be in violation of the legislation authorizing the program—the “Biden-Pell” legislation. It is at least in violation of the spirit of the legislation. The call for proposals can be viewed at http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/AID/OP/WAS/M-OP-REG-ALPS-DEP-04-01/listing.html. USAID will provide approval for the one project to be undertaken, the $1,000,000 funding for the project, and supervision of implementation and results.

In Hunger Notes’ judgment, there are many things wrong with this proposal—five to be exact. We begin with the two principal ones first.

It requires those submitting proposals to focus on the wrong thing— support for development assistance in the United States, rather than the situation of poor and hungry people in developing countries. This focus on hungry people is actually required by the legislation, but has been ignored by USAID. (If USAID has another view on this, we will be glad to publish their response.)

To take just one quote from the proposal: “The goal of the Development Education Program is to create an atmosphere in the United States of understanding and interest in public and private international development efforts.” The development education program, as the proposal itself says, is authorized under the Biden-Pell legislation. What does the Biden-Pell legislation state? Here is the legislation:

Sec. 316. (a) In order to further the purposes of section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Director of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency shall encourage the ongoing work of private and voluntary organizations to deal with world hunger problems abroad. To this end, the Director shall help facilitate widespread public discussion, analysis, and review of the issues raised by the Report of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger of March 1980, especially the issues raised by the Commission’s call for increased public awareness of the political, economic, technical, and social factors relating to hunger and poverty.

(b) As a means of carrying out subsection (a), and to ensure the effectiveness of private and voluntary organizations in dealing with world hunger abroad, the Director is urged to provide assistance to private and voluntary organizations engaged in facilitating public discussion of hunger and other related issues.

What we see then is that the legislation requires a public discussion of why people are hungry, not “creating an atmosphere in the United States of understanding and interest in public and private international development efforts.” Thus, the USAID funding proposal seems to be in violation of the legislation authorizing the funding of the proposal! Perhaps the USAID lawyers feel that this proposal is on safe ground legally. USAID certainly has more lawyers than Hunger Notes. Or perhaps there has been no serious legal challenge to USAID’s view of what it can do under the authorizing Biden-Pell legislation.

Equally as important is understanding the reasons why we have moved—and should not—from talking about hungry people to talking about development assistance—“public and private international development assistance efforts.” Such movement is a classic case of a bureaucracy turning a good idea to its own ends. The law says pretty clearly: educate people in the United States about why people in developing countries are hungry. Yet USAID, which lives by development assistance funding levels, has transferred the focus to its own needs! Talk about hungry people, please! What we do need to understand is why people are hungry. The issues involved are several, frequently complex, and warrant education and discussion. We have tried to do this on the Hunger Notes website, but are conscious of many failings in presenting this fundamental topic clearly and completely.

To mention our other three objections, which we believe should be taken into account in a needed immediate USAID development education program redesign.

The request for proposals requires proposals to support foreign aid. No organization that understands the situation of poor people can support foreign aid uncritically.

It ignores partnership with others, enforcing a top down approach– we will decide– one proposal takes all the $1,000,000 available. There are truer partnership arrangements possible, including the model provided by USAID’s Global Development alliance.

It is, we believe, out of touch with progress in development education, including the vast strides made in development education by such organizations as ELDIS and OneWorld.

If the USAID development education program does not immediately return to its original purpose of educating people in the United States about hunger and poverty abroad, Hunger Notes believes that the program should be ended.