The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1974. The U.S. and the West African famine

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33478, 8 March 1974, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1974. The U.S. and the West African famine

The United States should not be held especially responsible by the United Nations Secretary-General (Dr Waldheim) for the suffering caused by the West African drought. The first responsibility lies with the Governments of the countries concerned. Although most have suffered little from internal dissension, they have shown themselves to be among the least able of Africa's independent Governments. This, of course, might be a reflection on the manner in which France prepared them for independence; France has been only too ready to sell its grain surplus within the European Economic Community and to the Russians, rather than offer it as relief for starvation in West Africa. Some responsibility surely lies with the United Nations itself. According to the “New York Times” earlier this year, the West Africans’ plight was first drawn to the attention of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in September, 1972; the organisation failed to respond until February. 1973, not least because it is not designed to deal with emergencies. In any event, the financing of United Nations operations has all but collapsed because most of the Communist States have failed to pay their contributions. The United Nations continues to work because the United States pays more than its share of the cost of some agencies. Communist members have declined to pay up when they disapprove of projects. Public statements about the finances of the United Nations have ceased: repeated reminders of the Communist members’ attitude apparently became more embarrassing than the shortage of funds.

The suffering of the peoples on the southern fringe of the Sahara is horrible and undeniable.,The solution is quite beyond the competence or means of their own Governments. Even the United Nations Secretariat has admitted that too much of the aid sent there, mostly from the United States, has gone to line the pockets of West Africa’s politicians, and that too little has gone to relieve the suffering. But the response—if the rest of the world decides, to care sufficiently—will have to be on a world-wide scale. The people and Governments of many other countries will have to indulge in the humanitarian gestures which they demand of the United States. Not surprisingly, the people of the United States are tiring of the role of the world’s greatest—and most abused—benefactor.

The Arab States and the wider Islamic community may be expected to play a generous part in helping the stricken. All the West African countries in which the drought is severe have predominantly Moslem populations and Governments. All have, to some degree, victimised their non-Moslem populations. although this has passed unnoticed by would-be scourges of prejudice. So far no gesture of help has been made by any Islamic State in spite of the great and growing revenues which more fortunate members of the Islamic community are receiving for their oil. The revenues of the Arab oil producers are expected to increase from SBOOO million in 1973 to $95,000 million this year. Most could afford to help people who are starving beyond their own frontiers. Last year the United States gave African 1 countries aid worth $307.5 million. West Africa received $11.9 million, most of it in food. This was a small enough amount when compared with the $3lB million given by the United States to relieve famine in Bangladesh. The new foreign aid appropriation from Congress contains provision for $25 million in emergency relief to West Africa and S5O million for a medium-term recovery programme. Should more of the burden fall on the United States? If American farmers can produce grain surpluses, must their Government endlessly finance the disposal of the grain when other countries can afford to share the cost? Harvest failures in Russia and China led both countries to buy heavily from North America, where as a result, food reserves are now slender. Should the United States be expected to go on indefinitely growing a food surplus at its own expense, as a hedge against need elsewhere when Russia is reducing the target for its harvest from last season’s record output? Since the Marshall Aid plan of the late 1940 s the United States has offered its economic resources' to those in need: from about the same time it has been cast, almost by default, in the role of the world’s policeman. For both activities it has seldom received any appreciation and has commonly been vilified and accused of pursuing only it» own goals. But no other State or alliance—including the United Nations — has shown any inclination to attempt to achieve the same goals. For the United Nations, through its Secretary-General, to turn round now and attempt to load responsibility for the horror of the famine on America is hypocrisy and nonsense.