|
WORD COUNT 593
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
GLOBAL STARVATION
IGNORED IN THE U.S. – by Peter Phillips
A new report (9/2/08)
from The World Bank admits that in 2005, 3.14 billion people lived on
less than $2.50 a day, and about 44 percent of these survived on less
than $1.25 a day. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only
description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in
urban areas. Simple items like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations,
television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possibility of
billions of people.
Starvation.net logs
the increasing impacts of world hunger. Over 30,000 people a day (85
percent are children under 5) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and
starvation. The number of unnecessary deaths has exceeded 300 million
people over the past 40 years.
These are the people
whom David Rothkopf, in his book “Superclass,” calls the unlucky.
Rothkopf writes, “If you happen to be born in the wrong place, like
sub-Saharan Africa, … that is bad luck.” He goes on to describe how the
top 10 percent of adults worldwide own 84 percent of the wealth and the
bottom half owns barely 1 percent. Included in that top 10 percent are
the 1,000 global billionaires. But is such a contrast of wealth really
the result of luck, or are there policies, supported by political
elites, that protect the few at the expense of the many?
Farmers around the
world grow more than enough food to feed everyone adequately. Global
grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4 percent
from the year before; yet, billions of people go hungry every day.
Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent
article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers
grow enough food, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like
Cargill control global food prices and distribution. Starvation is
profitable for corporations when demand for food pushes prices up.
Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first
quarter of 2008 were 86 percent above 2007. World food prices grew 22
percent from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the
increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures
that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. The
result is wild food price spirals, both up and down, with food
insecurity remaining widespread.
For a family on the
bottom rung of poverty, a small price increase is the difference between
life and death, yet neither U.S. presidential candidate has declared a
war on starvation. Instead, both candidates talk about national security
and the continuation of the war on terror as if this were the primary
election issue. Where is the Manhattan Project for global hunger? Where
is the commitment to national security though unilateral starvation
relief? Where is the outrage in the corporate media with pictures of
dying children and an analysis of who benefits from hunger?
Americans cringe at
the thought of starving children, often thinking that there is little
they can do about it, save sending in a donation to their favorite
charity for a little guilt relief. Yet giving is not enough; we must
demand hunger relief as a national policy from the next presidency. It
is a moral imperative for us, as the richest nation in the world, to
prioritize a political movement of human betterment and starvation
relief for the billions in need.
Global hunger and
massive wealth inequality are based on political policies that can be
changed. There will be no national security in the United States without
the basic food needs of the world being met.
--
Peter Phillips is a
professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of
Project Censored, a media research group. His new book, “Censored 2009”
is now available from by Seven Stories Press. A photo peter Phillips is
available CLICK HERE
# # # # #
|
