The fear merchants at the United Nations are at it again. Flush with success from their broken-record rant on global warming, they are now warning of a worldwide food shortage.
After years of cheap food, higher prices are causing the "perfect storm for the world's hungry," officials say.
Costs of foodstuffs have risen 25 percent in the past year. Developed nations are circling the wagons and protecting their stocks, thus accelerating the process. Cereal stores are at their lowest point in decades.
The officials cite a variety of reasons for higher prices, including rising oil prices, the shifting of cereal crops to biofuels and cattle feed -- more people around the world are eating meat -- and, of course, drought and disease brought on by the early effects of global warming.
But out of chaos, reason tends to emerge, even at the United Nations.
Jacques Diouf, the chief of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization suggests that maybe policies will have to change.
In the past, most of the relief in these forlorn Third World countries has consisted of direct feeding of the starving masses. In some cases, so much that people have not found it necessary to retain agricultural skills, making them even more dependent on future handouts.
Now Diouf says the United Nations and other relief organizations should revisit these programs. Instead of handouts, he says they should concentrate on helping these people feed themselves.
What a unique concept: helping people help themselves.
There may be some hope for the United Nations yet.
Comments
"Cereal stores are at their lowest point in decades."
This implies that they have been this low before, and the world didn't end then, and won't end now. Whenever the UN says that there is a "crisis" of any sort, what it really means is that the UN wants more money from the US.
It's only one voice that espouses the conservative idea of teaching people to take care of themselves. Don't look for the foolish UN leadership to go along with such a radical idea. The unbelievably foolish methanol program in place in the US is driving the food shortage in the world. Don't look for this to change in the next year. The global warming comments don't carry enough credibility to warrant response.
Of all the topics the AC picks to attack; improving our environment and feeding hungry children. This is why the citizenry is abandoning the republican party. They are about attacking anything that organizations attempt to do that can bring good to this world while remaining silent on any solutions other than inferring that there really isn't a problem. As The Who sang, "We won't be fooled again!"
All things American are bad? What's up with that shivas?
The world is a spoiled child and we their give in parent. When they want something they love and respect us , then they hate us
You're right cytoranger, our "give a man a fish" approach doesn't help anyone. All we've done is breed the envious. Of course, when we "teach a man to fish" we're empire building according to one of our political parties, so it's really a no win situation. No wonder Ron Paul is gaining support. Many just want to close shop.
Yes cytornager and patriciathomas, all those spoiled children in Darfur. You should both be ashamed of yourself! Again, the country is abandoning this right-wing rhetoric!
shivas, you once again demonstrate an utter lack of reading comprehension skills "Of all the topics the AC picks to attack; improving our environment and feeding hungry children." Having read your senseless rant, let's take a look at the Op/Ed to find the "attacks." "In the past, most of the relief (...) has consisted of direct feeding of the starving masses (...) making them even more dependent on future handouts." I also see, "Instead of handouts, he says they should concentrate on helping these people feed themselves." No attacks yet, shivas. Is it possible that your IQ slips a little lower each day? Now, what you MIGHT mean is that you DISAGREE with the editor about the best way to help starving people. You MIGHT mean that you favor continuing the direct food shipments that get stolen by dictators, bartered for weapons-used to further oppress the very people we're trying to help-or get left rotting on the docks. You might mean those things, which would only make you a typical unintelligent liberal, not one who actually can't see reality. Attacking positions that your opponent does not support just makes you look like you don't know how to read...which I guess is possible...
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
