By: Paige Rohe

What is it like to slowly starve to death? To witness your three-year old child's face and body wither to skin and bones from hunger? The United Nations predicts such will be the horrible fate of 40 million Africans in ten countries this year due to an extreme shortage of food. The famine is likely to become as severe as the 1985 African food-shortage that killed over one million people in Ethiopia alone. In 1985, events like the internationally televised fundraising concert "Live-Aid" raised millions of dollars for humanitarian relief. However, this year the widespread starvation of Africans is not expected to attract the same outpouring of international support. Many have argued that despite the desperation of the situation in the Western and Southern regions of the continent, the needs of Africans have been overshadowed by the post-conflict, high profile humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Some call it "donor fatigue." The citizens of Small Town, America aren't millionaires so they must be choosy about who gets their hard-earned greenbacks. For many Americans, the most pressing and deserving issue is promoting the success of the newly vulnerable countries we have been bombing in an effort to rid the world of terrorism.

"Guilt Relief," money flows like milk and honey to humanitarian programs aiding the poor and miserable of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans feel badly about the suffering war has caused in the Middle East and Central Asia.  Thus, the plagues, political violence, and hunger pangs of Africa will have to wait, even if Africa's troubles are more severe and affect more millions of people than the populations of either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Besides, Joe Yankee reasons, there's no harm in investing in a cause that could benefit our long-term international security. The US government provides international aid in areas important to US interests so why shouldn't Joe? What is an even more depressing scenario is that many Americans might be simply unaware of how bleak the prospects are in Africa.

The front pages of newspapers around the world display proudly the humanitarian efforts of the US government and non-governmental organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pictures and stories of relieved Iraqis receiving nutritious food and clean water are commonplace, whereas the emaciated children of Ethiopia receive a short op-editorial in the New York Times.

What's even more ironic is that the US does provide a great deal of assistance to the UN's World Food Program and as well as offered supplies maize to Zimbabwe to help fight the hunger of Africa. What has happened to these generous offers and why aren't they even making a dent in the problem?

The World Food Program's budget has been cut due to lack of funding and the corn is genetically modified. President Mwanawasa of famine-torn Zambia has adamantly refused to accept any "GM" food from the US government, claiming that it could prove unhealthy for his people and would rather Zambians die than use such a potentially harmful gift. He is not alone in his concerns.

 The European Union has gone so far as to place a moratorium on the import of such foodstuffs, fearing long-term medical problems that could be associated with the consumption of genetically modified fruits and vegetables.  No one can tell them differently either. There has still not been any significant research on what health concerns could be caused by "GM" foods.

Whether President Mwanawasa is justified in his fear of genetically modified corn or not, the US has been making more news in its fight to get its biotech foods accepted by the reticent European Union than by the starving of Africa. 

On May 13, the United States government as well as Argentina, Canada, and Egypt filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization against the European Union's alleged 'illegal' ban on genetically modified foods.  Sadly, it appears Europeans, with their strong Euro and extra pocket money, are higher up on the US government's list of priorities than a bunch of skeletal Africans in Zambia.

It is entirely inappropriate, immoral, and harmful to our own national security if we allow these African countries to capsize from famine, because we only want to sell or give away a certain kind of corn. The argument shouldn't be whether these foods are safe, but how the US, other Western governments and non-governmental organizations can best help save the lives of the dying.

Hubert H. Humphrey has argued: "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." We spend billions fighting political tyranny, but so little on an equally sinister and devastating threat, that of global poverty. We cannot allow ourselves to grow tired in the fight to feed those living so wretchedly under the oppressive fist of hunger.

Paige Rohe is an International Studies student at Emory University and a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com. She can be reached at feedback@purepolitics.com.

Past Columns: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6