August 17, 2007 | Read Time: 2 minutes
CARE International’s decision
to turn down U.S. federal food aid for Africa is getting much attention from blog writers.
The charity says the government assistance conflicts with its humanitarian mission because subsidized American farm goods compete with African crops and force prices to decrease.
“Not only is the charity forgoing millions of dollars in aid money from the government, it is taking steps to ease the recipients of their charity out of complete dependence on them,” writes Emily Sellars, a former Peace Corps volunteer who discusses development issues on her blog Buy the Change You Want to See in the World.
While the majority of bloggers appear to agree with Ms. Sellars, a few have questioned CARE’s move.
G. Pascal Zachary, a journalist who writes about helping Africans on his blog, Africa Works, wants to know why the charity isn’t ending its food program immediately, instead of phasing it out by 2009.
“CARE is wise to end its complicity in this morally-tainted system of turning charities into food peddlers on behalf of fat-cat American farmers. But why not end the practice now? Why wait? The harm to African farmers continues,” he writes.
Stephen F. DeAngelis, a business consultant, complains that CARE has been too confrontational with its decision.
“CARE’s concern for local farmers is certainly justified, but a compromise solution must be found that both promotes local agriculture and helps feeds the hungry using surpluses from developed nations that also have agriculture sectors to be concerned for,” writes Mr. DeAngelis on his blog Enterprise Resilience Management. “Instead of helping find that compromise, CARE’s decision could anger politicians and generate an unwelcome backlash that ends up hurting the poor and hungry more than anyone else.”
What’s more, some say that the debate shouldn’t be about how America and charities provide food assistance abroad, but whether the West should donate at all to poor countries.
“If the West freely gives anything to poor nations, it should be the American style of government. Nothing can build and sustain economic growth better. Handouts can relieve short-term misery, but they should be limited only to the most urgent situations,” argues an editorial by Investor’s Business Daily on the newspaper’s blog.
What do you think? Was CARE right to reject American food aid? Should other charities follow suit? Can a distribution system be created that helps both African and American farmers?
Several Chronicle readers are already discussing these issues on Philanthropy Today.
