Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi encourages
you to speak your mind at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Shirin Vossoughi
Two different types of gray and yellow objects rain from the
skies above Afghanistan. Both proudly display the stars and
stripes. One is food. The other is bombs.
According to the Bush administration, a displaced and desperate
people will know the difference. They will understand the message
that the U.S. is not against the people whose lives are threatened
by B-52s and bunker-buster bombs, but against the Taliban. And if
the 37,500 meals delivered to 7.5 million starved Afghanis are not
enough to convince them of the United States’ altruistic
intentions, some transistor radios and pro-American fliers should
do the trick.
A waiter in Egypt couldn’t find the logic either. “I
give you food and I kill you? It makes me crazy to think about
that.” (Boston Globe, Oct. 8).
While Afghanistan’s refugee problem has been raging for
decades, the recent military strikes have exacerbated the crisis
for millions of people. Yet the U.S.’s attempts at providing
food aid are nothing more than a cheap and irresponsible public
relations stunt. If anything, they make the situation worse.
First off, aid raids halted recent effective attempts to
transport food into Afghanistan on the ground by the U.N. and other
aid agencies. These attacks have intentionally destroyed
communication and transportation lines, which will make future food
distribution nearly impossible.
Second, many aid packages fall into the scores of minefields
left in Afghanistan. When people rush into the fields to retrieve
desperately needed food, they are blown up (Chicago Tribune, Oct.
10). Facing closed borders on all sides and a brutal winter that
will make food distribution impossible, the Afghan people are
facing mass starvation.
Finally, the U.S.’s attempt to link military and
humanitarian efforts jeopardizes the neutrality of aid
organizations. If Afghanis associate the source of aid with the
source of bombs, such agencies will be perceived as a part of the
American war against terrorism rather than an independent attempt
to serve the hungry. As Austen Davis, of Doctors Without Borders
implores, “The decision of how to deliver assistance must be
divorced from political objectives” (Boston Globe, Oct.
11).
Yet a closer understanding of history reveals that U.S. aid is,
in fact, most often used as a political tool. Just look at which
countries rake in the most.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Israel collects
by far the largest share of U.S. assistance, having obtained
upwards of $5 billion in 1997 alone (Washington Report on Middle
Eastern Affairs). Israel is also the U.S.’s strategic
foothold in the Middle East, an area essential for oil
interests.
Columbia, the leading human rights violator in Latin America,
also shares such preferential treatment. Columbia provides the U.S.
with both the facade of a war on drugs and a market for military
supplies. Amnesty International states that equipment, bought with
U.S. anti-narcotics funds, has been used by military units blamed
for direct participation in the disappearance and murder of
civilians. Sadly, the commitment to human rights is merely
instrumental.
In the political game, the restriction of aid is also utilized.
In 1991,when the government of Mozambique expelled several U.S.
officials for spying, the Reagan administration cut off $5 million
of food. Thousands of Mozambiquens faced starvation.
Furthermore, during the 1980s, the countries that received the
most aid in Africa (such as Egypt) held only 12 percent of the
population (Institute for Food and Development Policy). Not
surprisingly, they did have naval bases and CIA listening
posts.
While current aid efforts suggest humanitarian aims, preserving
the Afghans may not be what our leadership has in mind. At a press
conference last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld outlined
plans to “drain the swamp” of support for terrorists.
Rumsfeld recalls the Cold War tactic of “draining the
sea” of popular support for a political movement by
massacring peasants and civilians.
As a Cold War veteran, Rumsfeld must be aware of the pointed,
genocidal language he uses. I suppose the waters in Afghanistan are
murkier than those of Vietnam, Guatemala and El Salvador, where
such strategies decimated millions.
In addition to the questionable motives behind assistance, food
aid is not a permanent solution. When available, it often treats
the symptoms rather than the causes of economic inequality.
The current war in Afghanistan sheds light on a bigger picture.
The U.S. and Britain drop bombs that kill while claiming to provide
food that saves lives. Similarly, rich countries strengthen
economic policies that perpetuate more poverty while suggesting
that charity is our only way to help.
The $1 donation Bush has urged every American child to make for
starving children in Afghanistan sends a dangerously false message:
poverty and starvation are unfortunate but unexplainable realities,
rather than direct results of the current military campaign or
lasting economic and political policies.
If countries like the United States are really interested in
alleviating poverty, then they must take action to end the debt of
developing countries. They can also work to strengthen
organizations that give local communities the power to create a
sustainable alternative.
The cost of ensuring universal access to basic social services
such as health, education, water and sanitation has been estimated
at $46 billion (“Reality Check,” June 2000). Think of
what our current military budget of $375 billion could do.
The situation is not yet as grim as it could be. If we really
care about curbing terrorism, we have an opportunity to look
critically at our policies and change them. Perhaps then our
humanitarian actions could match Washington’s lip
service.
Larry Minear, director of the Humanitarianism and War Project at
Tufts University recognizes this opportunity, arguing that
“U.S. assistance policy may come to reflect a more genuine
multilateralism, which is essential to the success of the
administration’s anti-terrorism initiative” (L.A.
Times, Oct. 9).
Active concern for poverty and injustice might help us find a
long-term solution to the current crisis that does not beget more
violence, and that does not condemn the Afghani people to
starvation.