Suggested Title: Famine in Africa & Ireland Two articles, 2nd is '150 years on: The Irish famine, why one million died' [ws46]. ******** Why are people starving in Africa ******** from Workers Solidarity No 33 [1991?] It's hard to know how any one can consider capitalism a viable system when looking at the situation of the less developed countries. After the millions raised by Live Aid, it seems unreal that people are going hungry. A recent UN report estimates that 30 million people face starvation. Yet EC beef, butter and wine mountains rot in European warehouses, farmers are ploughing crops back into the land, in US corn belt fields of wheat are burnt. There's a bit of a modern myth that the problems of Africa are either there own fault (over population, wars) or beyond anyones control (drought, desertification). Though it's true these are contributary factors, many other countries cope with these same problems without the huge loss of life suffered by Africa (for example China, even England has been through war and drought). The reasons cited by the UN for the deaths of these people are as follows; lack of resources from the international community, poor planning and falling prices on the commodity markets (especially for cocoa and coffee). Companies selling to Africa have tightened up credit terms while external debt levels continued to increase. COCOA AND COFFEE When Africa was first colonised, land was switched from production of food to feed the local population to the production of 'cash crops' such as cocoa, tea, coffee and sugar. These crops were exported to colonising countries at low prices. In a similar way corn was grown in Ireland during the 1845 famine. Today coffee and cocoa is still a major export of 15 African countries as they need the cash provided to keep up with debt repayments. Cocoa prices have fallen to there lowest level in 15 years while coffee is at similarity low level. DEBT In the early 1970's many African governments borrowed heavily. About 40% of debt is owed directly to other governments. In almost all cases this money was lent on the condition that it be used to purchase arms from the donor country or that subsides be granted to multinationals based in the donor country. In this way the third world country is made to pay twice over. 25% of the debt is owed to the IMF and the World Bank. Today Africa's debt is estimated at 270 billion dollars. Repayments consume 30 per cent of export earnings. UNITED NATIONS It's obvious that the governments of the U.S., China and Europe aren't really interested in combating the crisis and these are the governments that run the UN. The last program of aid implemented by the United Nations (according to their own report) in 1986 met with little sucess. This was the plan the UN promised would revive Africa's economies. Instead, in their own words "By the end of 1990, it had become evident that the African crisis had indeed deepened...the average African continued to get poorer and suffer a persistent fall in an already meagre living standard". Now, five years later, they add that even if their latest plan was fully implemented (they call it ambitious) the average income per head in sub-Saharan Africa would only reach US$700 per annum in 25 years time. Rather than offering the solution the governments that make up the UN itself that are the problem. THE FUTURE So it doesn't look as if the situation will fundamentally change. But then, why should the Western governments want things any different? Africa provides the bosses with markets for the surplus goods we produce as well as cheap labour and raw materials. Live Aid showed that workers of the West are not willing to let Africa starve (as some Greens would argue), however it also showed that while the means of production and all the resulting profits are in the hands of the bosses, individual attempts at resolving the problems will do little more than make a dent in the problem. The type of massive development that Africa requires will only come about when the resources of this world are distributed according to need and not according to profit. Aileen O'Carroll ************ Putting the record straight ************ on the Irish Famine 1845-49 Why 1,000,000 died from WS 46 [1995] The Famine was not just a result of British Government incompetence or the greed of a few landlords. Andrew Blackmore explores what happens when you have a system that puts profits for the few above all else. The conditions for Irish peasants leading up to the famine accentuated what was to be the worst disaster in Europe in the 19th century. Before the famine struck nearly half of rural families lived in windowless, mud cabins of one room. They were the lucky ones. The unemployed roamed the country, begging and sleeping in ditches. With a population of 8 million, land was scarce, and many families had to survive on half an acre of land. They could only do this by growing potatoes to feed them through the winter months. When the potato blight (a type of fungus) struck in 1845, mass starvation was inevitable. Families who relied on the potato to keep them alive were left with nothing. Even those who grew grain or barley were faced with a stark choice; sell the food in order to pay the rent, or eat the food and be evicted. As the years went on, the blight continued. Millions lost everything, their homes, their few possessions, and of course, their lives. The rich too had to tighten their belts. But not as much. In 1847, while the famine reached a peak of death and despair, the Dublin 'season' continued as before in a lively fashion. With the exception of a few notable cases, the rich felt their only obligation was to make a donation to charity. After that they were free to hunt and party, as they always had done. Lord Bessborough, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who died in that year complained that what had made him poorly was not the famine but too much 'balls and drawing rooms' These landlords continued to make valuable cash through the export of foodstuffs such as grain, as well as wool and flax. All through the famine they were exporting food that could have kept people alive. John Mitchell (who published the United Irishman) claimed that for every ship that came to Ireland with food, there were six ships sailing out. As far as landlords were concerned they had the right to do so. The right of the rich few to sell food to the highest bidder, came before the needs of the majority for food for survival. And the right of the rich to collect rent came before the right to housing. The British government supported that 'right' by bringing in the 'Coercion Act' enabling it to declare martial law, and a curfew between sunset and sunrise wherever they wanted. The 'Coercion Act' and other previously existing laws were used to evict tenants who could not pay rent. The soldiers and constabulary were used to protect food for export from the starving. In order to avoid mass revolt the government set up public works schemes. Impoverished peasants were asked to build roads that went from nowhere to nowhere, for such low wages that they could hardly buy enough food to live on. Even this work was not available for many people. For example, in Mayo in 1846, 400,000 people applied for 13,000 jobs. Along with such a pathetic response, the government pushed much of the responsibility to feed the poor onto the shoulders of charities. Soup kitchens were set up, by religious groups and charities throughout Ireland. In some cases the soup was so watery that doctors would advise people not to drink it! Even if the charities had been able to feed everyone that was not the point. The right of people to food and the right to life should have come before everything else. The famine caused roughly 1,000,000 deaths and 1,500,000 emigrants. In the aftermath, the population of Ireland was to halve to 4,000,000. It is an example of a terrible tragedy, but one that is inevitable only when the profit motive comes before people.