Zimbabwe, Moral Leadership, and Cities on a Hill

Here we sit, still awaiting word from Zimbabwe, and gently urging Mugabe and his Zanu-PF to respect the will of the people. There are whispers, no doubt, about whether or not America retains the moral authority to counsel other nations on respecting the will of their people. There is no doubt talk of Florida in 2000, or even the current democratic primary in which one candidate still hopes – ostensibly - to overturn the popular vote and seize her party’s nomination. There are grumblings about our misbegotten war in Iraq, and our lessened moral standing in the world as of late. The question, then, is what can America do – if anything – to help Zimbabwe? Clearly, I do not suggest sending in men with guns, or financing men with guns, or anything remotely relating to guns. I suggest food.

In brief, Zimbabwe’s future is not void of hope. Yes, Mugabe could attempt to retain power through violence and bloodshed. Yes, Mugabe himself could flee, but leave his cronies and militias to divvy up the country and vie for power, resulting in the onset of civil war. But perchance, as many hope, the elder statesman will take many of his men and all that he has looted these past three decades and move on to some rural retirement elsewhere, perhaps in South Africa. If Mugabe leaves Zimbabwe peacefully, the nation’s future becomes infinitely brighter. Zimbabwe is – in the physical sense – a rich, lush, fertile country. Vast swaths of land have produced only a fraction of the crops the can truly yield, all an unfortunate result of Mugabe’s disastrous land redistribution program. With respect to its citizens, Zimbabweans are a proud people. The educated classes have fled, with many of them re-rooting in western nations like England and Canada, but thousands would return from the diasporas en masse to see their country rebuilt in this post-Mugabe era. The prospects are not entirely dim. But the single biggest problem facing Zimbabwe this instant is food. Some may argue that a bloody civil war is the country’s most pressing concern. Well, much of the feuding will be over food. Sheer uncertainty over the nation’s greatly diminished food supplies will yield to widespread turmoil and more food riots than we have already seen. In Zimbabwe, food is critical; food is politics; food is bloody.

Our country – great as it is, and blessed as we are to be Americans - can move with incredible haste to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq that kills thousands, squanders billions, and disrupts an entire region of the globe, yet, when faced with the opportunity to exercise true moral leadership and lift up our brethren in the broken corners of the globe, we find ourselves suddenly impotent and possessed of no shortage of excuses for our inaction. Food. I am talking about food. Let us call a spade a spade. American food aid is – in large part – simply a boon to giant American agribusinesses. Conversely, the past decade has seen a dramatic shift in EU food aid policy. Instead of subsidizing their own agribusinesses and exporting surplus food – obtained at heavily subsidized costs and delivered in a system fraught with woeful inefficiencies – to starving nations, the EU now purchases more than 90% of its food aid supply from developing countries. How much of America’s food aid supply is purchased from developing regions of the world? Less than 2%.

The greatest beneficiaries of American food aid are giant American agribusinesses and companies that ship the food to its final destinations. Cui bono? Cargil or Conagra. Who benefits? Ask the American shipping companies that manage to haul in some 40% of all the money allotted for food aid in order to pay their inordinate shipping costs. Our system, as it stands, is expensive, inefficient and slow. What’s more, we are one of only two nations that actually sells – or dumps – a portion of its food aid, rather than simply donating it, to starving countries.

It is time for America to begin a long-delayed overhaul of its food aid policies. Specifically, we must move to a system of purchasing food supplies in or near those regions to which it will be distributed. We need to move to a system of local and triangular purchases within those same regions, and rely upon the expertise of well-established, reputable international agencies. In a terrible twist of irony, it was George W. Bush who, in 2005, sought to alter a decades old policy under which all American food aid had to be purchased and shipped from American soil. The Bush administration wanted to greatly relax these restrictions, to allow up to 25% of American food aid to be purchased in foreign countries, most specifically developing nations and those closest to the recipient of the aid. The proposal was, of course, voted down by congress.

So we want to rattle sabers, form new defense agencies replete with countless layers of bureaucracy, and rush headlong – without discussion, debate, or reflection – into a never-ending war in Iraq where the benefit of our presence there will not be realized for decades, if ever. Apparently, some suggest that when we feel a moral imperative to act in the name of justice, duty, honor and preserving the global peace, we are capable of such swift maneuvering. Well, if that is, indeed, the case, then I’ve got one for you. A new agency dedicated purely to American food aid policy. And from that agency, a policy grounded in a true desire to ameliorate world hunger and see the benefits – the very tangible benefits – of bringing food – and subsequently, some small measure of stability – to those nations that struggle with feeding their people. An agency committed to effective polices, under which emergency aid can be rendered immediately, not in five or six months time. An agency committed to purchasing locally near the end recipient of the aid. An agency that may some day go so far as to promote south-south trade relationships among developing countries, which would go a long way toward easing the food shortages that plague many developing – and particularly African – nations.

With proper aid, Zimbabwe can recover and rebuild. It will take years, but in only one or two growing seasons, Zimbabwe’s capacity to feed its people from its rich soil could be much improved. Right now, Zimbabwe needs food. Right now, America is in dire need of some action – some olive branch to the world – to demonstrate that we remain a force of moral authority, a nation of goodwill, a nation truly bent on lifting other peoples up from broken places. To borrow a phrase from President Bush’s pre-Iraq war lexicon, I believe we are faced – both in Zimbabwe and in all starving countries – with an urgent duty. It is time for us to better align our actions with our rhetoric about what our nation truly stands for.

- Jonathan Pollard

Postscript: Please spare me all the “love it or leave it” Trace Atkins nonsense. I obviously have lived a blessed life and love America dearly. In the words of James Baldwin, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”