The massive efforts to develop the Third World in the years since World War II were not motivated by purely philanthropic considerations but by the need to bring the Third World into the orbit of the Western trading system in order to create an ever-expanding market for our goods and services and a source of cheap labor and raw materials for our industries. This has also been the goal of colonialism especially during its last phase, which started in the 1870’s. For that reason, there is a striking continuity between the colonial era and the era of development, both in the methods used to achieve their common goal and in the social and ecological consequences of applying them.[1]

Following the Second World War in 1944, President Roosevelt convened a United Nations-sponsored (the UN at this time not officially formed yet) monetary and financial conference at Bretton Woods to discuss redevelopment of devastated areas due to the destruction of the wars. Ultimately it was in the conferences’ plans to create a Bank of Reconstruction and Development. This “bank” is today known as the World Bank and the addition of the word “development” was a controversial move according to some of the conference members, specifically those from Latin American countries; for the concept of “development” was to indicate assistance given to economically disadvantaged countries that had long suffered under colonial occupation. The overall result of the end of World War II and the Bretton Woods conference was a general split of the world into two camps: the US-led capitalist ideological, political and economic bloc and the Soviet-led socialist ideological, political and economic bloc- and the two camps proceeded to battle for world allegiance through development aid and military programs.[2]

Starting in Europe, the United States made an agreement, the Marshall Plan, which instituted a new aid design, ultimately benefiting the supplier of aid, not the receiver. Marianne Gronemeyer says of the new deal, In reality, the package of measures was the prototype of all future self-help, though it nevertheless remained a public gesture of giving. World politics had never before been so elegant. The boundaries between giving and taking were blurred to the point of unrecognizability.”[3]

In 1948, UN Resolution 200 aimed to recognize the “technical backwardness” of the “underdeveloped” nations of the world and the commitment of “developed” nations to assist them in modernizing. President Truman said of this new effort,

“More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas… We invite other countries to pool their technological resources in this undertaking. Their contributions will be warmly welcomed. This should be a cooperative enterprise in which all nations work together through the United Nations and its specialized agencies whenever practicable… The old imperialism – exploitation for foreign profit – has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing.”[4]

This became the basis for the hegemonic assault of the industrialized nations upon the rest of the world, not to mention the absolute refusal of these nations to recognize their part in creating the abject poverty experienced throughout the Global South.

The shift in focus from promoting individual and community subsistence that values diversity and local control, to a global-led marketplace that devalues such ideas and has allowed for the promotion and prioritization of development / aid projects that displace millions in the name of modernization; promote profits for corporations not people; undermine the autonomy of countries, subjecting them to the influence of richer and more politically and militarily powerful countries; culturally appropriate family planning and control by women over their own bodies and reproductive choices; an increased number of people unable to provide for their most basic needs with their own land and labor; destruction of  environments that for centuries have provided communities with all of their needs—these realities are the real foundation of modern aid programs. Enclosure of the commons throughout the world has also included the sale of communal lands to pay off national debt and the privatization of public services, all of which take communal control away from citizens and give it over to governments and corporations.

THE FACTS

  • USAID is an independent federal government agency that is directed by the Secretary of State. USAID provides assistance to recipient countries through agriculture, democracy and governance, economic growth, education, environment, political partnerships and humanitarian assistance. There are different forms that this aid takes, for example “bilateral” or “multilateral” aid. Bilateral aid is when the donor country gives directly to the recipient country. Multilateral aid is when the donor country gives indirectly by giving the funds to institutions governed by member countries (such as the World Bank) who then decides which countries get aid and how much.[5]
  • “A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.”[6] In fact, although the US gives the most in foreign aid (in dollar amounts) annually, the US is in last place when that amount is compared to the nation’s gross national income, giving less than 1% of America’s total economy.[7]

  • In an attempt to convince the US public that USAID benefits American tax-payers, in 1995 the director of the U.S. aid agency defended USAID on the basis that 84 cents of every dollar of aid goes back into the U.S. economy in goods and services purchased. For example, in 2000, 71.6% of U.S. bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of goods and services from the U.S.[8] While this may assuage the concerns of US tax payers, it does little to nothing to contribute to the alleviation of poverty and hunger throughout the world, instead lining the pockets of US corporations is the ultimate end of USAID. OECD (the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the World Bank criticized USAID’s self-serving agenda saying, “‘Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself – 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services.”[9]
  • Who and how countries receive US aid has always been determined by national goals and issues perceived to be important—it has little to nothing to do with poverty and alleviation of the suffering of the world’s poor. The Institute for Food and Development Policy says, “When our levels of assistance last boomed, under Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s, the emphasis was hardly on eliminating hunger. In 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz stated flatly that “our foreign assistance programs are vital to the achievement of our foreign policy goals.”[10]

  • This focus on fulfilling donor country interests has become more apparent since September 11th with an increased push by the Bush administration to encourage capitalist democracy-building throughout the globe, especially in the Middle East. When countries goals fall in line with US political and economic ideology, the US has not hesitated to fund their efforts.[11]
  • Although the Bush administration has given preference to aid grants over aid loans, “arguing that giving loans to poor states that can’t repay them simply drives them deeper into debt,” seems to convey a sense of compassion and altruism on the part of the United States.[12] Yet when one looks deeper at the conditions placed on “free money” grants, one begins to understand the real motives of the Bush administration. Conditions are put on the grants, for example to make recipient countries liable to trade agreements that make them import only from the US in certain industries and to produce national exports that provide for the US only. Not to mention instituting widespread privatization and elimination of critical public services, all in an effort to make the country more “profitable” and able to pay back its debts—this is known as Structural Adjustment Programs. The citizenry truly suffers at the hands of these “free money” grants.
  • In 2004, US aid to the Middle East reached 38 percent of the total $38.7 billion Congressional-appropriated funds for foreign aid. At the top of the list of aid recipient countries, Iraq received $18 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars; Israel was second in line, receiving $2.62 billion, followed closely by Egypt, who received $1.87 billion; and Afghanistan received $1.77 billion.[13] The vast majority of aid is not going to the poorest countries in the world, thereby further supporting the fact that the USAID program is not ultimately set up to eliminate the world’s social crises, but to fund its global political, economic and military allies.

AID THREATENS A COUNTRY’S AUTONOMY

  • The underlying intent of aid programs takes its lead from the past exploits of colonialism, which in effect were intent on destroying the infrastructure of a colony in order to establish and maintain the colonies’ dependence on the “Mother” country. [14] This being the ultimate foundation to US aid assistance was never more clearly stated than by former Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, when in 1982 he was quoted as saying, “I have heard . . . that people may become dependent on us for food. I know that was not supposed to be good news. To me that was good news, because before people can do anything they have got to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific.”[15]
  • Development not only proposes to aid in the easing of social crisis such as hunger and disease, but also intends to advance the economic standing of an “underdeveloped” country. Yet the system under which development aid is currently enacted (and has been for centuries) disallows for the advancement of an economically weaker country to develop a strong economic base. This is mainly based on the intent of development agreements forcing countries to switch their economies to export-based commodities, ultimately setting up poorer countries to become suppliers for the needs of the richer countries and the dumping grounds for the rich countries’ surplus commodities. Measures are in place to squelch any kind of attempt by the poorer countries to develop a sustainable domestic economy, such as: the stigmatization of these countries of practicing import substitution; the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to regulate trade amongst the nations of the world from a perspective that ultimately benefits the more industrialized nations; only lending to countries that agree to invest in domestic industry that is competitive within the global market (basically export commodities).[16]
  • In the early 1950’s one of the first devastating results of the aid programs was the destruction of food producing technology and the ability of “Third World” countries to feed themselves. The very influential farm lobby convinced the US Congress to pass PL480 Food for Peace in 1945, ensuring that immense US, Canadian and eventually all industrialized nations’ crop surpluses could be dumped on the “Third World”; churches and other charitable organizations eagerly joined in the “superdumping” which eventually destroyed “underdeveloped” countries ability to rely on traditional technologies and ways of knowing how to nourish their own people.[17]
  • “…food aid-based development projects continue to depend on foreign expertise, knowledge, and outside resources to generate income. These projects are not self-sufficient, nor are they sustainable when the aid ends. Not surprisingly, food aid-based development projects have historically been failures.” Michael Maren, former food-aid manager, says, “Africa is littered with the ruins of such projects.”[18]
  • Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) created by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and instituted through loan agreements, demand that borrowing countries must dismantle the vast majority of domestic, economic and social structures in order to free up all resources for repayment of aid loans through various channels: the destruction of welfare provisions and universal health care; the removal of protective tariffs on imports that are set up to protect local economies; removal of regulations against foreign investment which threatens local industry; the conversion of local agricultural enterprises into export-oriented monocultures; the elimination of price controls; the imposition of wage controls, ensuring that more and more people remain in poverty; the privatization of government agencies that result in less and less democratic control of public services and resources.[19]
  • When a country signs on for USAID grants or loans it must then agree to certain terms in order for the aid to continue. These terms are called “conditionalities.” The way these conditionalities are instituted is by a process of breaking down the aid into small disbursements, which are only released when a country has instituted policy changes directed by the “covenants” of the aid agreement between the two countries. For example, the US and Costa Rican government aid agreement included twenty structural changes to the Costa Rican economy implemented between 1982 and 1990, which included such stipulations as: the elimination of a grain market board that assisted small farmers; drastic reduction in prices of locally grown corn, beans and rice; further opening of the market to US imports; and the elimination of many regulations on foreign investment and capital flows.[20]
  • Bush’s initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account, is designed to improve bilateral giving to poor countries throughout the world. Despite Bush’s efforts to ensure that the MCA is as effective as possible by declaring that it will be an independently run body, one cannot ignore the fact that the MCA will have a CEO appointed by the President and approved by Senate and run by US cabinet-level officials.[21] Non-biased running of the MCA seems unlikely when all staff is approved by the President and surely influenced by his administration’s political ideology and goals. Further highlighting this gratuitous influence, conditions for eligibility into the Millennium Challenge Account include assessment by the Institutional Investor Magazine of a country’s credit rating and the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation’s assessment of a country’s liberal trade policies.[22]
  • Nancy Alexander, director of the Citizens’ Network on Essential Services (a development organization concerned about western aid’s history of being used a as a way to promote corporate interests in poor countries) says of Bush’s MCA, “With this kind of program, there’s so much more leverage on poor countries to cave in to what the West’s view of good policies is.” Also highly critical of the MCA, Doug Hellinger, president of the Washington policy group Development GAP, says “It looks like the money will be used to bribe countries to follow the neo-liberal path at a time when that whole adjustment paradigm has proved to be a failure.”
  • Refusal in the past by the G8 to forgive the overwhelming debt burden carried by the poorest countries in the world has promoted the inability of many of these countries to provide necessary services to their citizens in deference to obligations for paying back debt. For example, over the past decade, African countries have been forced to institute SAPs which have included cuts to critical health services that could have slowed or stopped the AIDS crisis.[23]
  • At the most recent G8 meeting, a decision was reached on the cancellation of the world’s poorest countries’ debt burden—100% of IMF and multilateral debts for 18 deeply indebted countries was forgiven. While this is a great victory, there is still much to be concerned about with regard to the process of relieving the overall debt held by the poorest countries in the world; for example, for a country to be considered for debt relief, it must institute devastating SAPs that ultimately benefit corporate interests over the wellbeing of the citizenry. These required policies are outlined in the HIPC Initiative (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) and, more importantly, these conditions have not been proven to increase per capita income growth or reduce poverty. The US Jubilee Network is demanding that they be dropped from debt cancellation agreements and that the G8 extend the debt relief to an additional 62 countries that are dangerously entrenched in illegitimate debt.[24]

AID IS DIRECTLY TIED TO INCREASED MILITARISM

  • “While less than 1% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid, making it rank low among developed nations in the amount of humanitarian aid it provides to poorer countries, the U.S. government has given aid more often to reward political and military partners than to advance social or humanitarian causes abroad.”[25]

  • Since Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the war in Afghanistan, the US has lifted a ban on aid to Pakistan and arranged for the World Bank to forgive $1 billion in loans to the country. Turkey, who previously never received any military aid from the US, is now the recipient of $17.5 million in military aid for providing assistance to the US in tracking terrorist networks in the region.[26]
  • Since 9/11, there has been a significant increase of credits given to foreign militaries for the acquisition of US weapons and equipment—up $700 million dollars to a staggering $5 billion in such credits. [27]
  • “Through trafficking, arms sales, and military aid, the United States helps keep dozens of civil wars and other armed conflicts around the world alive and kicking.” In the decade between 1985 and 1995, forty-five global conflicts were supplied with $42 billion in US military weapons and equipment. In one year alone (1993-1994) the US supplied one or more of the parties engaged in the fifty most serious conflicts across the globe with arms and other military equipment.[28]
  • During their 35 year illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel has had the support of the US. Israel is not subject to the same conditions for aid that other countries are subject to; for example: Israel receives their aid in large lump sums of money at the beginning of each fiscal year (other countries are allotted only quarterly disbursements); Israel deposits its aid money directly into its general fund, which disallows for tracking and record keeping of how the aid money is used (other countries are given money for very specific purposes and must account for all expenses); Israel receives approximately 1/3 of US foreign aid budget for the fiscal year—this is unprecedented in the history of US foreign aid. All of this despite the fact that Israel is one of the wealthiest countries (highest per capita income) and only makes up .001% of the world’s population. The US aid to Israel accounts for more money than is given to all of Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean (when you leave out Egypt and Columbia).[29]

  • “The direct and indirect aid from [2001] should put the total U.S. aid to Israel since 1949 at over one hundred billion dollars. What is not widely known, however, is that most of this aid violates American laws. The Arms Export Control Act stipulates that US-supplied weapons be used only for ‘legitimate self-defense.’”[30]
  • This year Israel is receiving $2.04 billion in military aid and only $720 million in economic aid. Historically US aid to Israel has been 40% economic and 60% military, but recently a new plan has been implemented that will ensure that by 2008 all economic aid will be phased out and replaced by all military aid.[31]

  • Despite Indonesia’s history of brutal repression and human rights abuses, the Bush administration has decided to reinstitute military ties and funding to Indonesia. Military aid will include US soldiers’ training of the Indonesian military in close-quarter combat and human rights issues, as well as adding Indonesia to the list of countries offered credits to obtain US weapons and military technology. [32]
  • US militarization of regions that have received aid? The middle east has seen the increase in US military presence since the Gulf War.

WEAPONS INDUSTRY AND CORPORATE INTERESTS BOOM THANKS TO USAID

  • “Over and above its foreign aid program, through numerous other public channels (not to mention covert ones like the CIA), the U.S. government supports policies that promote business interests, often in ways diametrically opposed to the interests of the hungry.”[33]

  • Regarding Bush’s January 2003 reassessment of increasing aid to fight the global AIDS epidemic, some critics have proposed that the increase is just a way to subsidize pharmaceutical companies that lost out in political battles in the WTO. “What looks like a moment of heartfelt generosity on the part of the Bush regime is, in fact, a hard-nosed recognition that pharmaceutical companies around the world aren’t winning the PR battle to justify their monopolies,” said Raj Patel, a policy analyst and visiting fellow at UC Berkeley.[34]
  • It has been suggested that the famine in Zambia, while very serious, was greatly exaggerated by biotech companies in an effort to boost sales of their genetically modified products. The case of aid to Zambia was an especially complex case because Zambia as a nation decided not to allow any genetically modified agricultural products or livestock into the country and therefore their acceptance of USAID, which consisted of GM grains, was rejected. The US not only denied having sufficient supplies of non-GM grains to provide to Zambia, it threatened to completely cut off aid to the country if Zambia did not bend to America’s agenda of dumping unpopular GM food surpluses as aid. Dr Charles Benbrook, leading US agronomist and former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US National Academy of Sciences, said, “There is no shortage of non-GMO foods which could be offered to Zambia and to use the needs of Zambians to score ‘political points’ on behalf of biotechnology was unethical and indeed shameless.”[35]

  • Close to 25% of food aid provided by the US is in the form of PL480 Title I sales, which includes food sold to governments in the Global South intended for sale to local livestock industries and processing companies responsible for making such items as pasta, bread, cooking oil, etc. The catch is that the funds provided to the local business are to be used for purchasing US grains, thereby creating new and expanding markets for US agricultural corporations– Title I aid is basically corporate welfare. A study published by the University of Nebraska Press found that, “The food-aid program represents a free government service designed to help grain-trading companies expand both their current and future sales. Title I sales generate the same profits for the big U.S. grain companies as does any other commercial export. The only difference is that the U.S. government immediately pays the bill. From the point of view of the grain corporations, then, Title I creates immediate markets by having the U.S. government finance purchases that otherwise might not have been made. The recipient countries, meanwhile, come to depend on these foreign food supplies. . . . By encouraging the growth of poultry farms, wheat mills, and soap and vegetable-oil factories, PL 480 helps create a structural dependence on continued imports. When the food aid stops, these industries, needing the supplies to continue their level of operations, will pressure their governments to keep importing the commodities on commercial terms.”[36]
  • Another food aid program, Food for Progress, created in 1985 was developed to “reward” governments for instituting SAPs in an effort to make their economies more profitable—ultimately leaving the citizens and their issues of survival by the wayside. Food for Progress was “designed to expand free enterprise elements of the economies of developing countries through changes in commodity pricing, marketing, import availability, and increased private-sector involvement.” The Institute for Food and Development Policy says of the legislation, “In other words, food is once again being used as a lever to open markets for U.S.-based corporations.” [37]
  • According to many Indonesian NGOs, USAID funding of at least one environmental justice organization (the Indonesian Mining Advocacy Network, a Jakarta-based advocacy group known as JATAM) has been cut due to criticism of US mining corporations operating in Indonesia. Since democratically elected president, Abdurrahman Wahid, many government officials and environmental justice groups have openly criticized contracts signed under former dictatorships that ultimately aid in profit-making for the corporations and not the people or environment of Indonesia. In 1999, JATAM cited multiple human rights and environmental abuses due to mining, particularly critical of the Denver-based Newmont Mining Corporation. JATAM found that Newmont was dumping thousands of tons of toxic waste from mining operations directly into rivers and coastal waters from its Minahasa Raya gold mine located in North Sulawesi. Shortly after reporting their criticism to Newmont, the US Embassy in Indonesia said they received a complaint from Newmont admonishing the use of US taxpayers’ money to fund JATAM’s campaign against the US company. Kim Walz, a spokeswoman for USAID at the time confirmed that JATAM’s funding was not renewed, saying, “Doubts were raised about JATAM’s ability to give impartial assistance to communities and we determined that this was harmful to US goals.”[38]

AID DOES NOT ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUES

LABOR:

  • “While the U.S.-funded [aid] programs, at times, have contributed to improving the technical capacity and infrastructure of the region’s labor ministries; provided employer and worker trainings on collective negotiations and labor dispute management; and published materials on labor relations in the region, none of these initiatives have successfully addressed the fundamental obstacles to workers’ human rights: inadequate labor laws and enforcement agencies that lack the political will to uphold labor rights.” [39]

  • Starting in the 1980’s, USAID’s focus for development in foreign countries has included pushing agricultural laborers into competitive global export markets. So far USAID’s bullying of foreign agricultural markets to focus on these Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports have resulted in: risky ventures for already indebted and impoverished farmers; inability to produce for critically needy local consumption; a deepening of the impoverishment of already critically poor countries.[40] “… Unable to compete with better-financed growers, and heavily in debt because of high production costs, many small farmers have been driven out of business by trying to produce nontraditional exports. At the same time, chemical pesticides and fertilizers have seriously degraded the productive capacity of the soil in many regions and contaminated the environment,” says the Institute for Food and Development Policy.[41]
  • The superdumping of US agricultural surpluses and the NTAE program has overwhelmed many poor countries with cheap, subsidized products that ultimately squeeze out local producers and commodities that cannot compete. Thus millions of small farmers have been put out of business, losing their ancestral lands, driving them into urban centers to compete for scarce, low-paying jobs and often putting these women into dangerous situations where they must now work at maquilladora factories and/or the sex-trade industry, often in unknown cities by themselves.[42]
  • Title II development food aid is yet another program of USAID. This program hires those without jobs to do manual labor on infrastructure projects such as road work, bridge building, irrigation projects—work in exchange for food. The problem with this program is reminiscent of the old adage, “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.” The program serves the immediate hunger needs of the poor and jobless, but in the end it ultimately only serves to line the pockets of wealthy land owners. Funding for the infrastructure projects are distributed to community leaders (which often is a single family or a few families that hold the most resources and wealth) who ultimately invest in projects that benefit their interests. The unemployed get temporary jobs and food, but often to the detriment of their own long-term domestic obligations (such as upkeep of their own land). Food-for-work programs do not serve to create sustainable solutions to hunger or poverty.[43]

THE GLOBAL HIV / AIDS CRISIS:

  • As of December 2004, 37.2 million adults and 2.2 million children were reported to be infected with the AIDS virus. [44]

  • In 2004, 4.9 million people were newly infected, of this 640,000 were children. [45]

  • 3.1 million people died from AIDS in 2004. [46]

  • By the end of 2003, 15 million children became orphans, losing their parents to AIDS.[47]

  • Despite these staggering and heartbreaking numbers, the world’s eight richest countries (Germany, USA, Italy, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and UK), who promised in 2001 to make sure that the UN’s estimate of $10 billion needed to adequately fight AIDS be fulfilled, none of the countries have followed through with their promises. As of 2003, only $500 million had been contributed by the G8, that is less than 5% of the projected funds needed to cover global AIDS prevention and treatment programs. Bush tried to make amends by promising $15 billion in 2003 to go to such programs. The catch— Bush proposes the $15 billion be spread out over a four year period, thereby assuring that people who need the help now will still not receive it. For comparison sake: according to the G8’s 2001 plan, the US’s share of funding to go toward fighting AIDS is supposed to be $3.5 billion per year and yet the administration has appropriated $15 billion annually to go toward building nuclear weapons.[48]

WOMEN’S ISSUES:

  • Three of five of  USAIDs global health goals are devoted to sexual and reproductive health issues and those policies are overtly influenced by conservative religious traditions. “… multi-faceted distortions in U.S. foreign aid based on conservative interpretations of religious tradition… undercut the effectiveness of U.S. investments in foreign aid in health, wasting scarce resources and allowing preventable illness, suffering and death to continue,” says Bonnie Shepard of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin America Studies.[49]

  • In 2002, the U.S. government joined with Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and the Vatican at the UN Special Session on the Child to oppose comprehensive sexual health education and services for adolescents.[50]
  • Abstinence programs are promoted above and beyond culturally appropriate family planning and therefore threaten the security of women’s health (unwanted pregnancies, dangerous and illegal abortions, high rates of contracting STD’s, etc.)
  • Of the paltry amount promised by the US to fight the global AIDS epidemic, any organization that is part of that fight that also provides or even advocates abortions will not receive any funding. Also, it appears that Bush is advocating for programs to de-emphasize the use of condoms in prevention programs.[51]
  • Despite research showing that abstinence only programs are ineffective for adolescents that have already begun to engage in sexual activity, a large portion of USAID money goes to funding abstinence only programs. “The logic is perverse: since it is morally frowned on for adolescents to have sex before marriage, programs should not protect their health when they do, thus subverting the very health goals of USAID strategy.”[52]

  • Despite a declaration from the World Health Organization that emergency contraception is not the same thing as abortion, conservative religious groups’ lobbying has effectively removed funding of programs that support the right of women and even rape victims to have access to emergency contraception.[53]
  • Conservative political pressure on the Center for Disease Control caused the organization to change a key HIV website, “Facts about Condoms and their Use in Preventing HIV Infection,” shifting emphasis to abstinence, condom failure rates and the elimination of the section on correct condom use.[54]
  • Another of the three goals of USAID devoted to the reproductive health of women misses the mark– programs devoted to prevention of maternal mortality. The “global gag rule” prevents any programs that receive US funds from advocating abortions, thereby assuring that women must use illegal and very dangerous means to abort unwanted pregnancies.[55]
  • “Indeed, the Global Gag Rule violates two central tenets of U.S. foreign assistance: 1) to administer taxpayer funds efficiently, with maximum benefits to the recipients of U.S. aid and 2) to promote and support American democratic values abroad. Indeed, the Gag Rule is contrary to freedom of speech, a basic principle of democracy historically defended by the U.S., and also to a key foundation of international relations: respect for national sovereignty,” says Shepard.[56]

  • Historically, women have been solely relegated to the “welfare sphere” of development aid plans and thus to invisibility and lowest of priorities for development concerns. Basically women’s needs have been defined as those related to being housewives and mothers and addressing how to help women be more efficient at those two roles and most importantly the facilitation is described and implemented with no consultation of the women themselves. It seems development aid in these areas has been more medicinal than preventative or empowering. Change in this perspective began a slow climb with the UN making special mention of women’s needs increasingly throughout the decades of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Finally, the 90’s were declared to be the decade “… to translate greater understanding of the problems of women into altered priorities…Empowering women for development should have high returns in terms of increased output, greater equity and social progress.” The International Women’s Conference of 1975 was concerned with equality (not just assistance) and the creation of a reality that allowed women to be equal economic contributors to their communities. [57]
  • Despite the goals of the 1975 International Women’s Conference, recent studies have found that women are neither beneficiary nor agent of development assistance programs and, in fact, development often works against the lives of women.[58] Troublesome are these governmental and Western-influenced development agencies’ tendency to make proclamations of being in the service of uplifting women, when in fact their schemes are void of any meaningful empowerment.  Their schemes tend to be more lip-service, as they rarely allow women to be active agents through self-definition of needs/priorities and culturally appropriate solutions. Consequently, the women are twice oppressed, by the cultural discriminations they often face and the backstabbing of the development programs that promise power to affect liberation but that ultimately shut them out of the decision-making process.
  • For example, Congress responded to the gender disparity in aid programs by passing a new requirement to be added to USAID projects—that the projects’ descriptions include both “women and men” as beneficiaries. Replacement of the word “men” with both “women and men” has not successfully implemented any serious changes to how women are regarded in assistance programs; at most, it has only included their gender in formal documents and allows any compliant against the projects to be countered with the proclamation that both women and men were included in the projects considerations.[59]

ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION:

  • In 2002 the Secretary of State Colin Powell was to report to Congress on US compliance with regulations required of the aerial spraying program, designed to eradicate illegal cocoa plants in Columbia. Funding of this program is provided through US aid to Columbia and the program is required to adhere to all regulations as outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency here in the US. To ensure the accuracy of the State Department’s report to Congress, an independent group of multiple organizations, scientists and analysts reviewed the report and confirmed that the US-supported and funded Columbian cocoa eradication program was negligent on several points of environmental and human health safety regulations, including:
  1. The pesticide as well as the main additive in the pesticide (Cosmo-flux 411f) used in the eradication program is not made or sold in the US, therefore making the ingredients and means by which it is produced quite possibly below necessary safety standards;
  2. the speed and altitude at which the pesticide is applied to the crops is not in compliance with EPA standards;
  3. appropriate restricted entry intervals (time periods after spraying that would lessen human exposure to the pesticide after being sprayed) are not enforced by the eradication program officials;
  4. the program was supposed to switch to a less toxic pesticide and the new pesticide used does not comply with EPA label standards;
  5. the State Department claimed that the eradication program followed the EPA standards for spraying the pesticides in “non-agricultural” areas, but the review panel found that use of the aerial spraying in the cocoa growing regions of Columbia, described by the program as a “non-agricultural” area, was unjustified—the likelihood that spraying of food crops and farmer access to crops immediately after spraying was high;
  6. the State Department failed to mention that the Columbian Public Defenders Office and the Controller’s Office both expressed concerns that the eradication program was not complicit with federal regulatory laws;
  7. in fiscally sponsoring the eradication program, the State Department failed to mention that the Columbian Narcotics Agency stated in December  2001 that it did not have the resources to lawfully adhere to the Columbian Environmental Management Plan during implementation of the eradication program;
  8. the State Department did not determine conclusively that the pesticides that are used to spray the crops “do not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment.”[60]

RESISTANCE!

The Bandung Conference in 1955, organized by many of the world’s poorer countries, confirmed their efforts of resistance to imperialistic hegemony from either the capitalistic bloc or the socialist bloc. The nations declared that they wished to benefit from the Western countries’ aid without having to align themselves to any hegemonic ideologies.[61] The attempt to massively organize the Global South as a unified resistant force against the industrialized Western nations has not had much success in the past, but the efforts of local struggle are significant and inspiring.

PALESTINE:

  • There is increasing attention being paid to the Palestinian plight at the hands of Israel’s illegal occupation (relative to the past decade of quality and quantity of attention paid to the issue). Media coverage is tending more and more to highlight Israeli human rights abuses and there have been an increased amount of pro-Palestinian op-eds in major journalistic publications. US representatives are also taking notice and putting pressure on the Bush administration, calling attention to the “condition-less” money that is given to Israel and raising questions as to the lawfulness of the way in which Israel uses its aid money. Also the US left has taken to highlighting the human rights disaster in Palestine and has become a major focus on the fight against “the war on terrorism.”[62]
  • Organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine (based at the University of California at Berkeley) and SUSTAIN (Stop US-funded Tax Aid to Israel Now!) are modeled on divestment campaigns in order to stop US aid to Israel and the facilitation of human rights abuses against the Palestinian people. Additionally, Jewish organizations have taken up the anti-occupation battle, such as Not in My Name and Jews Against the Occupation, and have brought attention to the fact that the anti-occupation struggle is also a struggle of anti-corporate globalization, anti-war and anti-imperialism.[63]

ZAMBIA:

  • Despite pressure from USAID, the World Food Program, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa, rejected food aid from the United States that included genetically modified maize in June of 2002. Zambia’s rejection of the food aid came under such intense criticism because the country was stricken with famine at the time of the rejection. But the Zambian government and citizenry decision were based on the determination to protect their national sovereignty and indigenous varieties, as well as protect the country from possible rejection by overseas markets (many of which have banned the importation or growing of genetically modified livestock or agriculture). The US insisted that not enough non-GM food was available to send to Zambia in place of the GM stocks, but this has been proven untrue by several sources, including the former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US National Academy of Sciences, Dr Chuck Benbrook, who is also a leading US agronomist. Other excuses by the US to deny Zambia’s request have included the impossibility to separate the non-GM food from the genetically modified foods, which also has been denied by experts: “The US says it cannot provide guaranteed GM-free maize [to governments requesting it in Southern Africa] because there is no requirement in place to separate GM and non-GM grains in the US. Strange that a 2001 American Corn Growers Association survey showed that more than 50% of US elevators can and do segregate GM and non-GM grains. The US position is one of choice, not necessity.”[64]

  • Although Zambia has instituted the ban, it did agree to a compromise of purchasing gm maize that had been processed into flour but the US rejected that compromise. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, co-founder of the Institute for Science in Society, says, “The US has refused to provide non-GM maize or cash, and refused even to provide cash to mill the maize. It has violated the 1999 Food Aid Convention, of which it is a signatory. This Convention stipulates that food aid should be bought from the most cost- effective source, be culturally acceptable and if possible purchased locally so that regional markets do not suffer.”[65]
  • A strong coalition of over 184 NGOs have joined forces to publicly support Zambia and any other country’s right to refuse to import culturally inappropriate food aid and have also condemned USAID’s food policy of donating GM food. Also more than 140 representatives from 26 African nations signed a statement by the African civil society that fully supports Zambia’s stance on food aid and refusal to be the victim of GM food dumping by any country, including the United States.[66]

PERU:

  • Feminists in Peru fought hard and won a victory on the issue of family planning within in aid assistance programs after highlighting Peru’s human rights abuses in its family planning programs (the media exposed President Fujimori’s coercive sterilization program throughout Peru in the 1990’s). The Tiahrt Requirements forbids any family planning programs to have quotas on any services, thereby preventing any particular form of contraception to be pushed on clients and also guarantees that full information regarding all choices, risks and benefits are presented to clients. The Tiahrt Requirements also ensure that any programs funded by USAID are based on principles of an informed, voluntary choice by individuals.[67]

WHAT YOU CAN DO

  • The 50 Years is Enough Campaign against the IMF and the World Bank, with over 200 member organizations, calls for the end of illegitimate debt for the world’s poorest countries. The Institute for Food and Development Policy, a member organization, says, “Aid dollars could be made into something positive and noninterventionist if they were spent on debt relief-as long as they were not tied to structural adjustment-like conditions, which are so onerous for the poorer majorities.”[68]

Research compiled while serving as the Research Associate for Oakland Institute, 2005.

(C) 2009 By Shannon Laliberte Parks. All Rights Reserved. Please Obtain Permission to Copy.


[1] Goldsmith, Edward. “Development as Colonialism” in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco. 1996. p. 253.

 

[2] Gelinas, Jacques B. “Fifty Years of Development and Underdevelopment.” Global Citizens for Change online. 5/9/05. http://www.citizens4change.org/global/interdev/interdev_02.htm.

[3] Gelinas, Jacques B. “Fifty Years of Development and Underdevelopment.” Global Citizens for Change online. 5/9/05. http://www.citizens4change.org/global/interdev/interdev_02.htm.

[4] Gelinas, Jacques B. “Fifty Years of Development and Underdevelopment.” Global Citizens for Change online. 5/9/05. http://www.citizens4change.org/global/interdev/interdev_02.htm.

[5] USAID official website. http://www.usaid.gov/.

[6] “Foreign Aid.” Council on Foreign Relations online. 6/5/05. http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html.

[7] Goodridge, Melissa. “Who gets America’s foreign aid?” Originally published in the Mississippi Sun Herald. 5/31/05. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413585/posts.

[8] Mittal, Anuradha. “Aid Watch.” Oakland Institute online. 6/7/05. http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/186.

[9] Ho, Mae-Wan. “African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia.” Institute of Science in Society online. 6/5/05. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php. For more information on the GMO and Food Aid debate, refer to http://www.consumersinternational.org.

[10] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[11] Goodridge, Melissa. “Who gets America’s foreign aid?” Originally published in the Mississippi Sun Herald. 5/31/05. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413585/posts.

[12] “Foreign Aid.” Council on Foreign Relations online. 6/5/05. http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html.

[13] Goodridge, Melissa. “Who gets America’s foreign aid?” Originally published in the Mississippi Sun Herald. 5/31/05. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413585/posts.

[14] Mander, Jerry. “Introduction: Facing the Rising Tide” in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco. 1996. p. 13.

[15] Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, in naming US Public Law 480 which ensures that food aid never interferes with “domestic production or marketing.” Wall Street Journal, May 7, 1982.

[16] Mander, Jerry. “Introduction: Facing the Rising Tide” in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco. 1996. p. 13.

[17] Gelinas, Jacques B. “Fifty Years of Development and Underdevelopment.” Global Citizens for Change online. 5/9/05. http://www.citizens4change.org/global/interdev/interdev_02.htm.

[18] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[19] Mander, Jerry. “Introduction: Facing the Rising Tide” in The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco. 1996. p. 13.

[20] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[21] Lobe, Jim. “Millennium Challenge Account: New US aid initiative gets mixed reception.” 11/29/02.

http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1129_02.htm.

[22] Lobe, Jim. “Millennium Challenge Account: New US aid initiative gets mixed reception.” 11/29/02.

http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1129_02.htm.

[23] Jay, Dru Oja. “AIDS, Africa and Aid.” Monkeyfist online. 3/18/03. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/838.

[24] “Jubilee USA Encouraged By Apparent G-8 Agreement for 100% Cancellation of IMF, Multilateral Debts.” US Jubilee Press Statement in Reaction. 6/11/05. www.jubileeusa.org.

[25] Mittal, Anuradha. “Aid Watch.” Oakland Institute online. 6/7/05. http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/186.

[26] “Foreign Aid.” Council on Foreign Relations online. 6/5/05. http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html.

[27] Mittal, Anuradha. “Aid Watch.” Oakland Institute online. 6/7/05. http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/186.

[28] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[29] Bowles, Matt. “US Aid- Lifeblood of the Occupation.” SUSTAINCampaign.org. 6/7/05. This article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine but can also be found at http://www.sustaincampaign.org/about_usaidtoisrael.html.

[30] Bowles, Matt. “US Aid- Lifeblood of the Occupation.” SUSTAINCampaign.org. 6/7/05. This article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine but can also be found at http://www.sustaincampaign.org/about_usaidtoisrael.html. The author was provided this particular statistic by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and includes the years 1949 to 2001.

[31] Bowles, Matt. “US Aid- Lifeblood of the Occupation.” SUSTAINCampaign.org. 6/7/05. This article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine but can also be found at http://www.sustaincampaign.org/about_usaidtoisrael.html.

[32] Mittal, Anuradha. “Aid Watch.” Oakland Institute online. 6/7/05. http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/186.

[33] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[34] Jay, Dru Oja. “AIDS, Africa and Aid.” Monkeyfist online. 3/18/03. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/838.

[35] Ho, Mae-Wan. “African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia.” Institute of Science in Society online. 6/5/05. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php. For more information on the GMO and Food Aid debate, refer to http://www.consumersinternational.org.

[36] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[37] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[38] Knight, Danielle. “US Aid Cut To Indonesian Environmental Groups That Criticized US Mining Corporations.” Common Dreams online. 5/16/00. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051600-01.htm.

[39] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[40] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[41]Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[42] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[43] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[44] “Worldwide HIV and AIDS Epidemic Statistics.” Avert.org. 6/8/05. http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm.

[45] “Worldwide HIV and AIDS Epidemic Statistics.” Avert.org. 6/8/05. http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm.

[46] “Worldwide HIV and AIDS Epidemic Statistics.” Avert.org. 6/8/05. http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm.

[47] “Worldwide HIV and AIDS Epidemic Statistics.” Avert.org. 6/8/05. http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm.

[48] Jay, Dru Oja. “AIDS, Africa and Aid.” Monkeyfist online. 3/18/03. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/838.

[49] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[50] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[51] Jay, Dru Oja. “AIDS, Africa and Aid.” Monkeyfist online. 3/18/03. http://monkeyfist.com/articles/838.

[52] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[53] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[54] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[55] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[56] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[57] Kabeer, Naila. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. Verso: London. 1994. p. 2.

[58] Vats, S. and Shakuntala Mudgal. Modernisation and Its Impact on Indian Women. Om               Publications: Faridabad. 1999. p. 42.

[59] Lappé, Frances Moore,  Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza.  “World Hunger: 12 Myths, Chapter 10.” Global Policy Forum online. October 1998.  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/AidPov1998.htm. This chapter, an original production of the Institute for Food Development and Policy (or Food First, as it is also known), was reproduced on the Global Policy website with the permission of Food First.

[60] “Findings from Independent Reviews of the State Department Report on Aerial Spraying in Colombia

Regarding Compliance with Requirements in the FY2002 Foreign Appropriations Act.” Center for International Policy’s Columbia Program online. 6/5/05. http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/otheranal.htm.

[61] Gelinas, Jacques B. “Fifty Years of Development and Underdevelopment.” Global Citizens for Change online. 5/9/05. http://www.citizens4change.org/global/interdev/interdev_02.htm.

[62] Bowles, Matt. “US Aid- Lifeblood of the Occupation.” SUSTAINCampaign.org. 6/7/05. This article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine but can also be found at http://www.sustaincampaign.org/about_usaidtoisrael.html.

[63] Bowles, Matt. “US Aid- Lifeblood of the Occupation.” SUSTAINCampaign.org. 6/7/05. This article was originally published in the March/April issue of Left Turn magazine but can also be found at http://www.sustaincampaign.org/about_usaidtoisrael.html.

[64] “Force-feeding the Hungry: A Primer on the Food Aid Crisis.” Norfolk Genetic Information Network. 10/22/02. http://ngin.tripod.com/221002c.htm.

[65] Ho, Mae-Wan. “African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia.” Institute of Science in Society online. 6/5/05. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php. For more information on the GMO and Food Aid debate, refer to http://www.consumersinternational.org.

[66] Ho, Mae-Wan. “African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia.” Institute of Science in Society online. 6/5/05. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php. For more information on the GMO and Food Aid debate, refer to http://www.consumersinternational.org.

[67] Shepard, Bonnie. “When Ideology Undermines Public Health: Distortions in the U.S. Foreign Aid Program.” David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies online.  http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/?issue_id=28&article_id=841.

[68] 50 Years is Enough Campaign. 1025 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20005. http://www.50years.org.

Advertisements