Cut in Food Rations Hurting Poor Iraqis

[Judi Lynn]

Cut in Food Rations Hurting Poor Iraqis
By Daud Salman

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 3, 2006 (ENS) - A government decision to cut food rations has hurt poor Iraqis who cannot afford high prices on the open market, say economists and Baghdad residents.

Despite rising poverty, the government has decided to cut the food ration budget from US$4 billion to US$3 billion dollars in 2006, as the country shifts from a socialist to a free market economy.

The Iraqi government has provided subsidies on basic food items such as flour and sugar for decades. The United Nations expanded the program when the country was under crippling economic sanctions.

However, subsidies have now been cut on staples including salt, soap and beans. Trade Ministry spokesman Faraj Daud said the government will continuing to supply Iraqis with free rice, sugar, flour and cooking oil.

The ministry claims that items that were once scarce during sanctions are now widely available on the open market and therefore do not need to be distributed by the government.
(snip/...)

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-03-03.asp

[neoblues]

1. As usual, the poor are left out in the cold

Or, in this case, left to go hungry. Why is this so typical? Across the globe, people with plenty (or at least more than enough) everywhere stand back and allow other people to starve (even to death). "We can't do anything" just isn't a valid excuse. Of course, I'm as guilty as the next fellow of not doing or giving everything I can afford to in order to help others; but there are so very many (and usually they're the ones with more than adequate wealth and power) who not only don't do anything and don't care, but they actually would oppose any efforts to provide for the basic needs of the poor and less fortunate (including all the usual discriminations of skin color, religion and nationality). They're the worst of the worst. They're usually republicans.

When the article says "a government decision", they're referring to the "government" of IRAQ... a.k.a. U.S. puppet. So essentially, said "government" is just an extension of the U.S. government.... a.k.a. "the republican bush administration". I posit that it was the shrub administration that decided not to "waste" another billion feeding IRAQIs. That's surely going to help improve the attitudes of IRAQIs in general :sarcasm: .

While in some places of great hunger, to feed the people would inevitably lead to increased survival, ergo increased procreation (and the religious position of the powers that be would certainly at least suffer serious internal disagreement about providing something as useful as birth control (condoms)(which would help with the serious AIDS epidemic as well)). Of course, these populations are already greater than the land can support (at least not without massive investment in improved infrastructure and agriculture). So providing food exacerbates the problem over time. The decision makers in this case don't even have that rationale.

As for our government's so-called leaders, it would really be quite a shock if they would actually follow their own professed "beliefs" and therefore be their brothers keeper, feed the hungry, poor and less fortunate. A real shock.

[oscar111]

2. neoblues, i disagree with one point

first, tho, i agree.. bush is the one behind this. It sounds like our Food Stamp program transplanted in iraq, and bush is cutting it here and in iraq as well.

at a time when, last i looked , the world has many more calories per person than needed for all to eat well.

neoblues, i disagree with the next to last paragraph of your post.

If massive investment in agriculture is needed, then do it. Your paragraph seems to bottomline out as saying... "starvation is OK if it excuses us from the effort of investing". I assume you dont disagree with the point, since you didnt refute it.

Here, bush's cut in food stamps, this current year, will up hunger from twelve to a total of thirteen million folks, IIRC. also, the USDA, Three weeks ago, said thirty six millin of us are "on the edge of hunger". Disgusting.

Worldwide, nine million will starve to death yearly.. and we spend to send a probe to Pluto.. literally... not making that up, as rush would comment.

[neoblues]

5. No, I don't mean starvation is okay if it excuses us from investing...

Alas, if that's what my writing conveyed, it was merely poorly communicated. Certainly investment is, if anything, even more important than the simple provision of food aid. Now then, that doesn't mean that immediate relief isn't called for either. Any point I made reflected merely my guess as to the thinking of those who may be able to, but do not, provide viable but very costly solutions. Refuting their thinking is both obvious and pointless; starvation is intolerable but those who have the power and wealth aren't going to take that as any sort of argument--and there may be no argument that would change their minds.

Alas, there is no inexpensive or easy answer; in some cases there may not even be an answer... Some places simply cannot support their populations, regardless of any improvements in infrastructure or agricultural investments; relocation may be the only option--and that may be all but impossible. Does that mean we don't do anything? Again, no. Does that mean we or anybody else is likely to do anything? Probably, with the possible caveat that some small amount of aid may be provided to soothe a few consciences.

Regardless of the concerns of man, the world continues to turn and people continue to suffer. Achieving a human civilization that cares for all it's people and manages it's population and resources in an enlightened way seems as far away as ever. Perhaps one day, technology will provide almost magical solutions enabling desired quantities of fresh food, water, medication, clothes, shelter, heating and cooling (energy) and other needs to be produced from mere rock/dirt/sand easily and economically. Even then it would be necessary to educate all people and infuse a sense of these ethics that all should be cared for and conflict/war/killing and destruction must be avoided at all costs. The latter may not even be possible unless we overcome human nature. Included with those sentiments, a willingly accepted, voluntary population control must be implemented; as is there isn't enough habitat remaining for the world's wildlife to survive in a satisfactory manner. Inherent in those values must also be care for the environment and an end to pollution (which hopefully the technological advances will address such that they aren't contributors and can also provide means to clean up/repair damage already done). So, while we are currently far removed from our utopia, we're left with reality and the need to do the best we can.

The best we can? Are we not doing the best we can? If it's possible to do better, then my answer is no, we're not doing the best we can. The difference may be nothing more than the expression of leadership by someone with the power to reach people. Egad, we're back to the fact that Corporations control the media and they tend to share in the selfish motivations of the typical Republican and those two groups (or that group) are in charge around here.

All that leads to many conclusions, one of which is that the way forward--in the direction of a more perfect society/civilization/world requires that people of enlightened, liberal and progressive thinking must instead be the ones in charge (a lot of words to state what is probably the obvious and universally accepted position of the members of this forum). Poverty is, or should be, the biggest concern of mankind; it's not, but it probably should be. Alas, progress is reserved for those who are progressive in thier approach; inherent in the definition and also probably obvious because without change (in a good way), things aren't going to improve/advance (except backwards or in a 'bad' way).

So, to feed the hungry and help the poor--we have to find a way to restore our political power. It's urgent and not just for our own sakes.

[VegasWolf]

7. Republicans plain don't care about poor people. nt

[neoblues]

10. Ah, distilled to the essence.

The scary part is that they not only don't care about the poor, but psychological studies of Republicanism has shown that they actually *like* the fact that such large differences in status and condition exist! It makes them feel good about themselves to know that they are so much "better" than so many others! (yech!)

[HuffleClaw]

3. under US direction no doubt.

the new 'sovereign' iraqi 'government' does NOTHING without first consulting its american masters.

[izzie]

4. I do not think that this laissez faire style will work with food yet

My god it has been a control society for years and years and it can not be good to just dump this type of gov. over night on these people. Most can hardly leave their homes to work. Course we are doing the medical thing for them and I guess that comes under the free and anything goes with our drug and hospital co. milking who ever is paying for it for all it is worth. My guess that is the Am. (no health care and buying their drugs) tax payers doing that. Every one pays but the people with stocks. 1880 is back and in good health

[xxqqqzme]

6. '...ministry claims that items that

were once scarce during sanctions are now widely available on the open market...'

Except there are no jobs so there is no money 2 buy those 'widely available' items.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. A little history on the food program

Saddam was a very, very bad man, but it looks like maybe he got this right...

Father Saddam, as he liked to be called, provided citizens with subsidized homes, cheap energy and, most important, free food. After international sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, he started a program that now uses 300 government warehouses and more than 60,000 workers to deliver a billion pounds of groceries every month — a basket of rations guaranteed to every citizen, rich or poor.
American and Iraqi authorities are now struggling to get out of the grocery-delivery business without letting anyone go hungry.

Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran observed before the war,

The handouts have kept food on the table for … most … Iraqi families, who can no longer afford to purchase wheat, rice and other staples at market prices because of debilitating U.N. economic sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Chandrasekaran continued:

The ration program is regarded by the United Nations as the largest and most efficient food-distribution system of its kind in the world. It has also become what is perhaps Hussein’s most strategic tool to maintain popular support over the last decade.
The United States and other Western nations had hoped the sanctions, which devastated Iraq’s once-prosperous economy, would lead Iraqis to rebel against their leader or, at the least, compel him to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction. But Hussein has held firm in large part by using food to stem discontent with the pain of sanctions, employing a massive network of trucks, computers, warehouses and neighborhood distributors to provide basic sustenance for every Iraqi.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401b.asp

[burrowowl]

9. Looks like Bu$hies behind this

and an interesting article on UK trying to reduce child poverty and what is the U$ of A doing, homelss mothers and kids on the increase.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201091_pf.html