Catalyst

Corporate Power and World Hunger

Hardly a week passes without some attention in the media to hunger, famine, food security, the quality of food, nutrition, or other matters related to food and agriculture. The week of September 13 was especially rich with news pieces and background material.

On the very same day, September 13, the New York Times and the Washington Post carried stories about the “new” ventures of philanthropist and investor George Soros, through his Open Society Foundation, and the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, in conjunction with the Rockefeller Foundation.

Both programs focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region, most frequently the subject of such efforts. Mr. Soros is funding village improvement projects, designed by Jeffery Sachs, to improve life and farming in selected villages. The Gates/Rockefeller project is to replicate the Asian Green Revolution in this food-deficit, poverty-stricken region.

Those of us who are concerned with the problem of world hunger and the lack of food security experienced by about one seventh of the human race welcome the periodic coverage given by major media outlets to this set of problems. All these projects call for relief of what is accurately described in often gruesome detail as problems or situations or events calling for immediate relief, rather than conditions demanding long-term solutions.

Unfortunately neither of these new efforts is likely to achieve more than partial results; and neither will contribute materially to achieving food security for the 850 million people the FAO says are hungry every day.

The food insecurity of these millions of people is not a passing event, but a condition that has been recognized and has persisted for nearly half a century. The United Nations has twice convened conferences to deal with it (most recently the World Food Summit of November 1996).

The underlying question for these events was why so many people should be denied access to a decent human diet when the world consistently produces enough food to feed them. What they lack is access to it. Both of the UN conferences agreed that an effective solution must include increasing food production in the regions suffering from hunger.

Although the Gates Foundation is, understandably, new to this problem, the Rockefeller Foundation has been dealing with it for more than half a century. Its solution, the Green Revolution, led to a major production success in South Asia in the latter part of the 20th century. Now the “new development initiative” for Sub-Saharan Africa is described as a Green Revolution for that region, from which its sponsors will expect a similar production success.

There are some serious problems with this approach, however welcome the renewed attention and effort may be:

First, after each of the UN events food production increased––but mainly in the industrialized countries that were already producing a surplus. For now, production is still able to meet the needs of everyone on the planet, if they have access to it.

Second, although it is wise to focus on improving agriculture where the hungry people are, the vast differences in agricultural environments between South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, whose. soil is exhausted after ten millennia of cultivation, are daunting.

Third, the Green Revolution benefited the middle-income and wealthy farmers, but not the poor, who generally could not afford the expensive hybrid seeds, fertililizers, and pesticides required.

Fourth, the amounts of money discussed in the media for each of these efforts ($100 million) are grotesquely small (a couple of days' work by one of the Forbes 400).

Finally, there is a systemic problem. The global food and agriculture system is dominated in all its aspects by quasi-cartels of three or four large international companies and the banks that finance them; they control production, distribution, manufacturing, marketing, trade, nutrition, and even consumption (through restaurant and fast-food chains).

Until their power is reduced by both regulation in the industrialized countries and the strengthening of indigenous organizations in the food-deficit countries to mount effective competition to the cartels, food security for all will remain a distant dream.

There are, in fact, only four ways for people to get food: grow it, buy it, steal it, or have it donated to them. The first is clearly the most to be preferred. Perhaps the “new” concern about the obscene conjunction of widespread hunger with global abundance will lead to some of the improvements that we all know are possible.

Regrettably, the history of these efforts is not encouraging. Compare this argument with the dispute over agricultural trade that now threatens the very existence of the World Trade Organization. But that is another argument.

We, the United Statesand the world, face a problem that is clearly susceptible of solution. The problem is both economic and moral; the cartels need to be broken, and the indigenous civil society groups and others need to be empowered. That will not happen if we deal with symptoms alone. Remedies are not enough; systemic change is required.

Posted by Martin McLaughlin

Adjunct Associate, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative

Author of the book World Food Security.

Civil Liberties Are Not Optional

“The Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution.” – Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, U.S. District Court

On August 17 of this year, federal Judge Taylor handed down a ruling that was possibly the clearest of her career: The National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless surveillance of Americans, was illegal.

Since then, the election year rhetoric has heated up on both sides, but especially with conservative supporters of the Bush administration’s policies and its Global War On Terror, who have decried this verdict as a permanent setback to our collective safety.

When I hear politicians imply that our civil liberties are vague notions of fantasy that wilt under the pressures and threats present in today’s world, or hear the rhetoric that suggests ‘if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about,’ I admit that I feel like yelling: “Were you sleeping in history class?”

What we call our “civil liberties” is ultimately the protection of an individual’s privacy, and safeguards to privacy are what separate and protect us from our government. Further, the desire for safeguards and the need to codify them is the cornerstone of the Constitution, our democracy and our nation. Therefore, our ‘civil liberties’ are not an added benefit of our American citizenship – they are the reason for it.

In the decades prior to the American Revolution, the basic rights of colonists to privacy, commerce and self determination were limited by a distant and restrictive government. It was this atmosphere that led to an advanced thinking about the concepts of citizen rights and government power.

In the 1760s, the British government used “Writs of Assistance” to enforce the taxation of goods. Although similar to a search warrant, these writs went much further: they were permanent, unlimited in scope and transferable to another party. The holder of a writ could search anyone, anywhere, and was not responsible for property damaged during searches.

When the colonists challenged the Writs of Assistance under the British constitution – a set of laws and conventions both written and unwritten – their legality was upheld. Later, John Adams would write that the failure of this legal challenge is where the American Revolution began.

The enforcement of these writs and other efforts of the British to collect taxes were met with such resistance that eventually British soldiers were garrisoned in Boston. To offset the cost of garrisoning, the British government had passed the Quartering Act, forcing the colonies to accept British soldiers into private homes and provide them with food, alcohol and places to sleep. This further intrusion on its citizens, and the presence of what most Bostonians saw as a foreign army, propelled the notion of an American Revolution forward.

During this period of our history, those who would become our founding fathers were faced with very real threats to their safety, privacy and commercial interests. Their solution to these issues wasn’t to concede personal freedom to their government, it was to gather together to codify the rights they wanted for the specific reason of restricting the very government they hoped they could form – and eventually lead.

Not only were they willing to fight for those freedoms, but they were committing treason and risking death if they failed.

In nearly comic contrast, the Bush administration when faced with threats to our nation’s security has ignored the laws it doesn’t like, restricted freedom in the name of law enforcement, and hidden these actions with a cloak of secrecy. The list of specifics is too long to write or discuss here, but just examining the NSA’s illegal surveillance reveals how the Bush administration’s policies insult us as citizens.

Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop and conduct physical surveillance of Americans, allowing law enforcement and the intelligence community to bypass the judiciary.

This regime of domestic spying was found by Judge Taylor to violate the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – a law passed in the aftermath of President Nixon’s domestic spying scandal, Watergate.

"It was never the intent of the Framers (of the Constitution) to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Judge Taylor went on to say. Our founding fathers understood that privacy means a separation of the government from the individual by limiting government’s power.

Imagine a time when a government agent has access to your person, your home and your place of business. Soldiers live in your house and among your family and you must feed them and give them alcohol.

As citizens, our civil liberties are not the ‘dessert’ of our citizenship, something extra that we get to enjoy as long as we’re good. They are the basis for the code of laws that make our democracy possible – the Constitution – a code of laws with the specific intention of protecting the individual citizen from the government itself.

A long, bloody war was fought for the sake of the rule of law, and now a contrived war of politics and deception is being fought to erode them.

Posted by Bob Lyon, Donor Outreach Coordinator, Center of Concern.

To read more about our civil liberties or to read Judge Taylor’s ruling on this case, visit the American Civil Liberties Union click here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26477lgl20060817.html

For information on Pre-Revolutionary America – click here: http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/prerevolution/

For information about Congress or the Constitution visit the Library of Congress at www.thomas.loc.gov

Non-violence In A Violent New World

Because I have a three year old, I literally have to answer some of life's more complex questions. A few weeks ago it was a question about death, followed by questions asking what is war, and how do wars start.

I began by explaining to my daughter that everyone dies. If we are lucky we live a long time and have lots of people who love us and whom we love. I assured her that she was much loved and that there was nothing for her to be afraid of.

Then our conversation led to war. I told her that 'war' means killing, and that a 'war' is when people kill other people and that is unequivocally wrong. This led to more questions so I described what I meant in terms she already understood. I reminded her that hitting is wrong - she added that biting and kicking are wrong too - and I've taught her not to hit, even if she is hit first.

I understand that when small children get frustrated they don't have the tools to rationalize what's going on around them, lashing out and hitting is one of the ways they deal with conflicts or feelings they don't understand. But children must develop, so my daughter has been taught to use words and not hit. If she does hit I won't accept justification for it, and she gets in trouble.

Now, I have no idea how it came to be that the innocent nature of childhood was corrupted by the notion of war, nonetheless, I tried to give the most simple answers I could, not because I believe my daughter only understands simple terms, but because the truths I want her to know about violence are quite simple, as are the truths about peace.

Here is where the conversation with my daughter ends and my conversation with you begins, and if you are still reading this, I'm sure you'll foresee certain points I'm about to make about peace and security. The first and most obvious is that I believe war to be an abomination. This is not because I view the world as a simple place, or that I think it's inherent in the human condition to avoid conflict, it is simply because I believe in peace.

Because I believe in peace, I believe in being an advocate for resolving conflicts in new ways, creative ways, using any means at our disposal other than violence. After all, how can we ever abolish war if we never commit ourselves - and our leaders - to solving our problems nonviolently?

And in the complex world we live in, there are many crises and wars going on as we speak. But are there ways in which wars can be avoided? Do international organizations such as the United Nations operate effectively enough to prevent wars and resolve conflicts?

Can an institution like the International Criminal Court be accepted widely enough to both allow the world's citizens access to justice, and serve as a mechanism for holding citizens or governments accountable for their crimes?  What international institutions need to be created to offer security to those who are threatened, or enforce laws that are broken?

These are important questions I want to know the answers to, and though they may not have answers - or at least easy ones - I ask you this: What could you and I do to propel the ideas of peace and non-violence toward something meaningful that world leaders would acknowledge and embrace?

What will happen in the world if we don't?

I do not know how anyone who has faith guiding them as much as our President does can believe that killing will do anything other than lead to more and more killing. Our nation's response to the terrible wrongs of 9/11/2001 was to launch a "global war on terrorism" which its architects and prosecutors admit may not end in our lifetime. Wars were started first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and I believe each of us as citizens is responsible for these wars in that they are made in our name.

As citizens we are obligated to hold the politicians whom we elect accountable to the same moral values that we hold. If we do not, we allow our democracy to become corrupt, and we - not those politicians - are responsible. A commitment to peace, in my mind is a commitment to discourse and democracy.

Of course I understand that declaring myself to be "pro-peace" while I sit at my desk in one of the richest countries in the world - where even after 9/11/2001 we enjoy the kind of security and freedoms that much of the world can scarcely imagine - is a very easy thing to do. As I've said, however, the truths about war and peace are very simple: The only way toward a world without war is by setting about to solve conflicts without resorting to violence.

My daughter is bright, beautiful, and challenging in all of the right ways, and I believe, at nearly four years old she is beginning to understand that her best interests are served by "using her words." I can say that she at least understands that it is expected of her.

Posted by Bob Lyon, Donor Outreach Coordinator, Center of Concern

Following the Yellow Brick Road...Over a Cliff

I’d like to believe in the American dream.  I’d like to believe that with an education and hard work you’ll be on a yellow brick road, headed toward a bright future, headed toward the emerald city.  But the recent Census Bureau report paints a rather different picture for most U.S. workers. 

On the bright side:

• Median household income rose a bit to $46,326, the first increase in six years.

But then there’s that cloud hovering above:

• To make up that increase in household income, more family members are working—at lower paying jobs.
• In 2005, the poor accounted for 12.6 percent of the population, roughly the same as in 2004. But of that, 43 percent earned less than half of the poverty limit — $19,971 for a household of four —the highest such percentage ever recorded.
• In 2005, an estimated 46.6 million people had no health coverage, up 1.3 million since 2004 and increasing the percentage of Americans without coverage from 15.6 percent of the population to 15.9 percent.
• And for children?  This year’s data found that the number of children without health insurance grew between 2004 and 2005, rising from 10.8 percent of those under 18 to 11.2 percent.

For 25 years, the U.S.has pursued a domestic economic and social strategy built around the assertion that the “market,” if left to its own, will fuel economic growth and provide the most efficient distribution of economic and social resources.  According to this theory, poverty will be eliminated as the economy grows. We’ve been asked to follow this yellow brick road to the wondrous kingdom of Oz, but now it seems that we’re not headed to Oz--we're headed over a cliff.

Over the past decade we in the U.S. have witnessed precarious employment, wage stagnation, the shrinking of the middle class, expansion of the working poor, the slow death of rural America, rising national debt, budget and trade deficits, and cut backs in spending on the social needs of our citizens – simply put, people are working harder than ever and barely keeping their heads above water.  There’s no longer a partnership between business and labor, or government and its citizens. 

Is it too late to change direction?  Is there another path to a brighter future for our children?

I believe there’s still time, but if we’re going to go down a different road, we need to re-examine what we value.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once spoke to the age old question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” and offered to his audience of junior high school students two guidelines for going forward in life:

Number one in your life's blueprint, should be a deep belief in your own dignity, your worth and your own somebodiness…Secondly, in your life's blueprint you must have as the basic principle the determination to achieve excellence in your various fields of endeavor…And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it.

I fully agree with Dr. King’s sage words, the recognition of the inherent human dignity, that spark of the divine in each of us, the reflection of God’s image.  And of course, the clear echo of Paul’s admonition in Colossians, “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”  Nevertheless, when I first heard his words I was haunted by his comments – not by what he said so much as by what he didn’t say.  Specifically, I wanted to hear some mention of how we as a society, should value the work performed by our brothers and sisters.  This first part was personal—what should my attitude be—but what about the collective? Do we have a responsibility in creating dignity in work?

A few weeks ago I ran into my neighbor, a single mother of three, out on her front porch, fanning herself to keep cool in the sweltering DC heat.  I’ve known her about a year now – and in the whole time I can’t recall a single conversation with her about her day at work, probably because she hasn’t been working.  On this sweltering day, as I turned the key in the front door, she looked at me and said, “I need a job.”  I was startled.  When she followed with, “Can you help me find a job?”  I was speechless.  Setting down my bag, we started discussing her qualifications (a high school diploma) and options: 

“What would you like to do?”

“I don’t know.”

“How about retail?  Office assistant?  Fast food?”

“No. I need a good job.  And I’m not working at McDonald’s, you don’t make enough and it’s a crappy job.”

The conversation continued for a bit—essentially she wanted a job she could be proud of, one that others would respect – and the reality was that low-wage jobs she was qualified for didn’t carry that dignity, let alone a pay check that would allow her to support three kids.  I’m not advocating for an abdication in personal responsibility, but collectively we have a responsibility too. 

The reality is that as a society, we don’t value all work, all jobs.  And that easily translates into not valuing the people who perform those tasks.

Dr. King did in fact bring this social context to his thoughts on human work and specifically how we as a society value work:

There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen whether he be a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer. There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum and livable income for every American family. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities.

It seems we are still in desperate need of a reordering of our priorities—but how?

Catholic Social Teaching is very much in line with the Dr. King’s thoughts.  Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, On Human Work, offers some challenging insights on the relationship between people, work and society.  John Paul asserts that work imitates God’s activity, gives dignity, and allows people to fulfill their total vocation.  Fundamentally, labor must be prioritized over capital, and people over things. Policies need to respect the objective rights of workers—the criterion for shaping the world economy.  Wages sufficient to support a family and other social benefits for workers are needed, including health care, the right to leisure, pension and accident insurance, and a decent work environment.  The right to form unions is an indispensable element of social life because they can be a key voice in the political order to secure rights and the common good.

This election season, we need to take a tough look at the issues of growing poverty, lack of decent work, and a struggling national economy.

• The federal minimum wage at $5.15/hr is far too little to support an individual, let alone a family. Maybe we need to consider something closer to a “living wage”?
• Access to health care and other benefits aren’t luxuries, but basic rights that are fundamental to a healthy society and economy.  Today companies are increasingly allowed to take them away, shifting the burden to working families.  If we don’t have a national system, maybe all employers should be mandated to provide coverage.
• Basic labor rights like collective bargaining, striking, freedom of association are not ensured for all, but should be. Notably, agricultural and domestic workers are omitted from national labor protections and increasingly the few labor rights we do enjoy are not enforced.  In some cases they have been overturned.

As we consider the best economic policy for our country and our neighbors, it’s time to begin promoting a policy of creating good jobs at home and abroad, thus creating a new road toward a brighter future for all

Posted by Kristin Sampson, Senior Research Associate, Center of Concern

Finding Our Way

Who do people say that we are, as Americans?  We used to know and be proud. 

We were a nation, welcoming

"... your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

We were the nation where anyone who worked hard and played by the rules could succeed and support themselves and their families.

Now corporate-designed globalization and outsourcing have removed the American Dream of prosperity from the reach of all but a few of the wealthiest, while workers’ pension funds are collapsing and stories of corporate and political corruption fill the media.  Our national budget shows us to be turning our backs on the poor and needy, handing more power and wealth to the already powerful and wealthy.  Ensuring that too many people never get a fair shot in life.

We were the most powerful and secure nation in the world, working for the peace and freedom of all nations. 

Now we launch, support and promise more preemptive wars, wars very costly in human lives, resources, and global reputation, wars that cannot be won by sheer military force.  As a nation, we invest vast amounts of resources in trying to dominate the world through “shock and awe” rather than win its friendship with generous, fair and mutually respectful policies of support and care.

We were a nation committed to human rights, support and opportunities for people in need, democratic values, generous neighborly relations with the rest of the world. 

Now we continue our human rights rhetoric while torturing prisoners held without charge and violating the civil rights protections of our own citizens. 

We were a religious nation, welcoming people of all faiths and nations to live in peace side by side with us as a witness to the world of the oneness of the human family. 

Now we send vigilantes to our borders and build walls instead of golden doors to keep out the tired and poor who are yearning to feed their families – because they don’t obey our laws.  If Jesus were to come as an immigrant from South of our border, he would have to wait years for a legal visa.

We are a nation headed in the wrong direction, and now the majority of us know it and are willing to say so.  We are a nation headed for an election, a chance to begin to shift direction. 

But we are also a nation deeply divided, and a nation plagued with too many leaders who see aggravating and manipulating the divisions as in their political advantage.  Sound-bite slogans, name-calling and negative campaigning are the strategies of choice over thoughtful dialogue seeking solutions that bridge our differences and serve higher community values.  If they are successful, as they have been for several years, they will win and we will all continue to lose.

How can we find our way again?  How can we find a path that embraces our best values? 

In complex societies, it is rare that a single leader can stand up and rally most of the people.  In a society as purposefully divided as ours, it is practically impossible.  We need to stop waiting and hoping for our Moses, our Jesus, our Muhammed, our Gandhi – even our Martin Luther King, Jr.  We need to bring to voice the Spirit given to each of us, and to us collectively, to shape the vision grounded in our best values that can guide our voting, our policies and our public life.

We, at the Center of Concern, hope this forum is one way to bring together diverse voices in a discussion on finding a new path toward a fair and prosperous future.  Please share your thoughts on current issues confronting our country.  We have some ideas on pressing issues, and those will be addressed in future postings, but we also want to hear your thoughts and ideas.  Together we can find our way.

Posted by Jim Hug, SJ - President, Center of Concern