can AFG survive economically without USA?

[khushal]

English... Do you speak it? As it seems you missed all the points and was unable to read my post.

Yes, we speak English. I guess in your world demonstrations are not expression of opinion.
Don't get mad. Its OK if your wrong once in a while, it just confirms you are human.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

DSM, throwing insults does not work with me. The best insulter on this forum is RTR and he ran away many times.

But the fact is you claimed that people don't express political opinions to dagarwal and WSJ has debunked you. Don't get mad at me, get mad at WSJ.
When your claim was debunked by WSJ, you tried to change goal posts, it didn't work, but that's OK, you did your best and thats all anyone can do.

But the fact you randomly mention me in a discussion totally unrelated to me demonstrates that you're still seething over being debunked by me. So I don't know if you consider dispatching you and moving on as running away, maybe that's where your confusion stems from.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Actually reading the thread DMS0305 is very right in discrediting Khushal's sources.

VOICE of AMERICA is ..the U.S. State Department's Propaganda Machine; at that time the Taliban were being courted for U.S. State Department and Private Multinatonal Interests. Both Zalmai Khalilzad an Ashraf Ghani were working in interest of multinational corporations.

What Khushal presented was just slick propaganda to motivate Americans to accept the attempt at courting the Taliban.

[DSM0305]

The lady is a journalist so you must provide proof of her political motive if you claim it. Ashraf Ghani was a professor at the time so he had no political motive at the time like he does today. Khalilzaid was a US gov employee so he would be the only one with a political motive, but at the time of the interview, 911 had not happened.
You do realize they both work against the Taliban today and at the time of the interview they are describing the Taliban as a group that is bringing security to the country, facing little resistance from the people and are enjoying popular support which is also confirmed by the journalist and the new York times.

Their political motives would have them saying the opposite of what they are actually saying in the interview but because they did not know 911 was going to happen.

So describe what was their political motive of the time and the reasons behind them?

The fact she is a journalist working for a particular people with a motive already suggest that she isn't neutral. Even you yourself proved my point. Somebody who change their historical view just because of an event that happened afterward, means that they are unreliable. It is way to much political motivated to be even suggested as a source.

[DSM0305]

Yes, we speak English. I guess in your world demonstrations are not expression of opinion.
Don't get mad. Its OK if your wrong once in a while, it just confirms you are human.

We? Do you hear voices in your head or something? And that is why you refer to yourself as we?

[khushal]

Actually reading the thread DMS0305 is very right in discrediting Khushal's sources.

VOICE of AMERICA is ..the U.S. State Department's Propaganda Machine; at that time the Taliban were being courted for U.S. State Department and Private Multinatonal Interests. Both Zalmai Khalilzad an Ashraf Ghani were working in interest of multinational corporations.

What Khushal presented was just slick propaganda to motivate Americans to accept the attempt at courting the Taliban.

Hmmm. Ashraf Ghani was a professor at the time, where did you get that he worked for multinational corps and khalilzaid worked for the US gov but the US gov never recognized the Taliban, and your comment about the lady that works for the VOA, without proof of your claims, that's an ad hominem fallacy.

Also what about the NEW York Times reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/wo...ghan-army.html

These amount to about two-thirds of Afghanistan, most of which they took without a fight.

[khushal]

But the fact you randomly mention me in a discussion totally unrelated to me demonstrates that you're still seething over being debunked by me. So I don't know if you consider dispatching you and moving on as running away, maybe that's where your confusion stems from.

that was a compliment. relax and read.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/20/world/with-kabul-largely-in-ruins-afghans-get-respite-from-war.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

What armies from afar could not do, Afghan fighters accomplished in a 13-month siege that ended suddenly last week at the hands of a new and mysterious Afghan force, the Taliban.
Today, small boys could be seen flying gaily colored kites, or rushing about with balloons from handcarts that have brought commerce back to Kabul. In a city that came close to starving after a blockade last year, merchants did a busy trade until past dusk from mounds of freshly slaughtered meat, stacks of fruits and vegetables, and baskets heaped with raisins or nuts.

This lull is the more astonishing because it succeeded, in province after province, with barely a shot fired.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hmmm. Ashraf Ghani was a professor at the time, where did you get that he worked for multinational corps and khalilzaid worked for the US gov but the US gov never recognized the Taliban, and your comment about the lady that works for the VOA, without proof of your claims, that's an ad hominem fallacy.

Also what about the NEW York Times reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/wo...ghan-army.html

tsk tsk, changing goal posts


DMS, relax, Khushal is a paper tiger, he caves when more than one person affirms something contrary to his argument. I'm going to ignore his goal post change and present this.

Biography of Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai

International Career:
In 1991, Dr. Ghani joined the World Bank as lead anthropologist, advising on the human dimension to economic programs. He served for 11 years, initially working on projects in East Asia, but moving in the mid-nineties towards articulating the Bank’s social policy and reviewing country strategies, conditionalities, and designing reform programs.

Hmmmmm indeed

[khushal]

tsk tsk, changing goal posts


DMS, relax, Khushal is a paper tiger, he caves when more than one person affirms something contrary to his argument. I'm going to ignore his goal post change and present this.

Biography of Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai



Hmmmmm indeed

There was no goal post change senorita.
The argument was about whether the Taliban took the country without a fight which I have proven with the new York times article in addition to the statements by a VOA journalist who was an eye witness, a professor and a US gov employee.

You came out and claimed that VOA is a propaganda machine which is a ad hominem fallacy.
You claimed that ashraf ghan and khalilzaid were working for multinational corp interests. I will concede on this but still that is an ad hominem fallacy. Just because they say it does not make it untrue, you have to prove their statements as untrue. I have backed up their statements with articles and if you wish I can post more. You on the other hand have not really shown anything just like DSM.

And no, I don't cave when many people team up. There is no ego here, I always concede if the argument can be proven one way or another.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There was no goal post change senorita.
The argument was about whether the Taliban took the country without a fight which I have proven with the new York times article in addition to the statements by a VOA journalist who was an eye witness, a professor and a US gov employee.

You came out and claimed that VOA is a propaganda machine which is a ad hominem fallacy.
You claimed that ashraf ghan and khalilzaid were working for multinational corp interests. I will concede on this but still that is an ad hominem fallacy. Just because they say it does not make it untrue, you have to prove their statements as untrue. I have backed up their statements with articles and if you wish I can post more. You on the other hand have not really shown anything just like DSM.

And no, I don't cave when many people team up. There is no ego here, I always concede if the argument can be proven one way or another.

It's not ad-hominem because you denied that they had any motive; both Khalilzad and Ashraf Ghani both had motive, not only motive but were working.

Thus you posting New York Times article about how quickly the Taliban went to power is a goal post change. lol

Ad-Hominem is when you make disparaging attack like "oh he's a kafir, obviously he would say that".

This is direct explanation of probable motives, which isn't an attack on either of these men for who they are, but rather what they were doing and in this case WHAT they were doing in RELATION to Afghanistan; this is far from ad-hominem ....as this directly relates to their work and their actions in relation to afghanistan You can't just BLINDLy copy stuff I say Khushal and just repeat it because you saw me say "Ad-Hominem" or "Goal Post Changing" before; you have to correctly understand what both those mean.

[khushal]

It's not ad-hominem because you denied that they had any motive; both Khalilzad and Ashraf Ghani both had motive, not only motive but were working.

Thus you posting New York Times article about how quickly the Taliban went to power is a goal post change. lol

Ad-Hominem is when you make disparaging attack like "oh he's a kafir, obviously he would say that".

This is direct explanation of probable motives, which isn't an attack on either of these men for who they are, but rather what they were doing and in this case WHAT they were doing in RELATION to Afghanistan; this is far from ad-hominem ....as this directly relates to their work and their actions in relation to afghanistan You can't just BLINDLy copy stuff I say Khushal and just repeat it because you saw me say "Ad-Hominem" or "Goal Post Changing" before; you have to correctly understand what both those mean.

I see that your being chalak here and a liar.
The argument with DSM was about the Taliban taking most the country without a fight. My sources to back this up was the numerous new York times articles and the pbs interview. Your attacking ghani and khalilzaid because they work for corps. You cant say they are lying just because they work for those corps. Its exactly the same as saying "he is kafir, I don't believe him" in your case your saying "he is a so and so employee, I don't believe him."


If those same people say that "Saddam has WMD's," we cant say they are lying because they work for the US gov or corps, but because the UN inspectors claimed there is no proof that Saddam had them which is why most of the world community would not side with the US invasion of Iraq.

here is the definition of ad hominem:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Argumentum ad Hominem

(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

You are attacking the circumstances of ghani and khalilzaid instead of disproving their statement which is a personal attack instead of an attack on their statement. You must provide proof they are lying not just calling them liars. I know you cant find it and that is why you are forced to use chalaki because your ego wont let you submit to the truth. My advise to you would be not to back up an argument you cant win.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I see that your being chalak here and a liar.
The argument with DSM was about the Taliban taking most the country without a fight. My sources to back this up was the numerous new York times articles and the pbs interview. Your attacking ghani and khalilzaid because they work for corps. You cant say they are lying just because they work for those corps. Its exactly the same as saying "he is kafir, I don't believe him" in your case your saying "he is a so and so employee, I don't believe him."


If those same people say that "Saddam has WMD's," we cant say they are lying because they work for the US gov or corps, but because the UN inspectors claimed there is no proof that Saddam had them which is why most of the world community would not side with the US invasion of Iraq.

here is the definition of ad hominem:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html


You are attacking the circumstances of ghani and khalilzaid instead of disproving their statement. You must provide proof they are lying. I know you cant find it and that is why you are forced to use chalaki because your ego wont let you submit to the truth. My advise to you would be not to back up an argument you cant win.

Well then chalak and lying would belong to you because if that is your argument your New York times article indicates the contrary. However I was responding to your attempt at making your source seem more credible. by portraying that Ashraf Ghani and Khalilzad were without motive; which they were.


But even from your other argument your sources debunk youFrom the same New York Times Article.

Six days ago, in their most important victory, they routed a force loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, widely considered to be the most ruthless guerrilla leader..

That's your new york times source; plus numerous other sources which trumps any claim that the Taliban didn't shed blood.


You're using even circumstantial ad-hominem; I'm not attacking the circumstances of Ghani or Khalilzad," I'm saying that their work directly related into pushing the cause for Afghanistan how to make Afghanistan marketable. This is evident from their actvities

circumstantial ad-hominem wrong, circumstantial ad-hominem would be like saying "oh they're jews ...or they're western of course they'd say that"

Mentioning their activities which are relevant to the topic isn't circumstantial ad-hominem, because their activities relate directly to motive. It's not about their circumstances in life.

Seriouslyly Khushal LEARN before using my Logical Methodology; I'm qualified to use them because I UNDERSTAND when and where they apply, you dont have that Knowledge/Understanding. You just copy something said and used and think you can use it too. You have to use it CORRECTLY, yours is incorrect.


If you need help with this I'll be glad to do so, then you can LEGITIMATELY say I ran away instead of just annoying me to the point of giving up on you for being obstinately dense and then pretending you won a debate.

[khushal]

Is the same RTR, dude youre off your game. Youre acting like badlun.

Routing a warlord or taking the capital in a couple of days does not mean stiff resistance in compared to the 30 year war. What youre doing here is trying to create an illusion that some guy firing on them is stiff resistance.

I already said I concede about motive, reread my post. With that said, still motive of a person making an argument alone does not disprove that persons statement. Its still ad hominem because youre attacking the character of the person. You have to attack the statement or the argument. Youre not doing that.

From the same source are examples of ad hominem:
Examples of the ad hominem:

• A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy.
• Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty.

This is exactly what youre doing. Youre dismissing their statements because they work for corps or their profession. I am using it correctly, the problem is that you got caught and now youre mad.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

For those who have taken Aid agencies as their deities:


Banning aid groups, in Al-Shabaab’s interest or the Somali people? – Harar24 News!


By Harar24′s Editorial Team

It’s been a little over two years since Al-Shabaab began banning most aid agencies operating in the regions and areas they controlled. Several reasons were given and different explanations were cited by Al-Shabaab. Others warned and said that there would be food shortage and that these actions were bound to starve the victims of the then-famine. After two years what has changed? Has the famine returned? And how are the people coping?

In order to correspond and communicate with aid organizations Al-Shabaab set up what they called “OSAFA”, “Office for Supervising the Affairs of Foreign Agencies”. Naturally Al-Shabaab laid down guidelines & regulations for aid organizations to abide by and follow. So where did it all go wrong? Well, to begin with Al-Shabaab accused the majority of agencies and organizations of bringing expired food and labeled it “unfit for human consumption”. Secondly, which is what’s really interesting, was that Al-Shabaab was claiming that these aid agencies and organizations had hidden motives and agendas, which they claimed was to prevent Somalia and Somalis from being self sufficient, to constantly rely on aid from the outside world and to prevent the economy from improving. A classic example; a farmer would be planting and tending to his crops until harvesting season arrives, only to find that nobody is willing to buy from him, because everybody is busy getting aid from agencies and organizations. Thus, the farmer would give up his job and abandon his farm, nobody works, no produce, no economy and the vicious cycle would continue.

To see what Somalia is capable of producing and bringing forth one only has to look at the lush farmlands in, Jamame, Jilib, Kamsuma, Afgoye, Marerey and many other cities and regions in Somalia. An abundance of different produces can be found including, mangoes, a variety of bananas, coconuts, sugarcanes, papaya, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, onions and much more. It’s a well-known fact that Somalia had a history of being self sufficient, but what changed? As mentioned before, one of the reasons was the dependency on handouts and relief. Another important factor that prevented the land from being cultivated was the lack of security. As the country became engulfed in civil war and anarchy, warlords took control of different pockets of land where they extorted people, oppressed them and often killed them for the most minute of things. As much as people hate to admit it the Al-Shabaab movement did bring a relevant element of peace and stability to the large swathes of land they controlled. This encouraged farmers to return to their farmlands, cultivate them and tend to them, however hope was lost and morale plummeted after being unable to make any profit and seeing their crops go to waste time after time, due to the population having been accustomed to receiving aid. This in a nutshell can be said is why Al-Shabaab banned aid agencies and saw it as a necessity if Somalia’s economy was to be improved.

To see if the ban had the desired effects or adverse effects on the agricultural industry we decided to travel down south, to the fertile and green land of the Jubba regions. It’s an astonishing sight, the vegetation is lush, the greenery is astounding and the more south you head, the greener it gets.

In Bu’ale, around 150 kilometers north of Kismayo, we met Ali Ahmed Dahir, a clan elder who also is a farmer himself, we asked him about the situation, the farming and the effects of the ban on aid. “We have everything here, mangos, bananas, papaya, lemons, you name it. The land and the soil are very fertile and we use irrigation to have water reach our farms. We used to use engines before to pump the water from the river to the farms, but now we use irrigation. The majority of people are taking farming as a profession and many are returning to their profession, because they’ve seen the results and the amounts of money to be made.” he said with a freshly picked mango in his hand. “The people have realized the results of farming and what these lands can produce. But that’s mainly due to two things, the security that has been established and the expulsion of these aid agencies. What they were doing is well known, it was a form of colonialism, a psychological warfare to morally break you. Now we are dependent on no one and fear none”.

It seemed as if the whole town agreed with his view, wherever we went we received the same replies and answers. “I don’t have a farm or a piece of land, but I can tell you its safe and secure here, you can even walk at night. The agricultural business is booming so much, I’m saving up and planning on buying a plot of land.” one of the local townsmen Muse Aweys told us.

The produce from these farms are transported to different areas in Somalia and unlike before, the crops and products are actually being sold and bought in Somali markets. The Shabelle & Jubba rivers flow through many areas of Somalia making the area surrounding it very fertile. Even in the Hiran region where you’d maybe expect more herders than farmers, you still have very fertile farmlands bearing fruits like mango.

A recent article by FAO Somalia, claimed that it was due to their help that Somali farmers have been successful since the 2011 drought, but, it’s a well-known fact that Al-Shabaab don’t permit FAO and other similar organizations to operate in their areas, so to what or who can the success of the farmers in those areas be attributed to?

Going back to our initial questions, there is no famine nor does there seem to be any famine soon. The people and the farmers in particular seems to be doing fine, are well off, independent and self sufficient. We can only see things turning out better for the future of Somalia and Somalis.

So banning aid, was it in the interest of Al-Shabaab, or the Somali people?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Somalia: the Real Causes of Famine excerpted from the book The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order by Michel Chossudovsky

excerpted from the book

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, 2003, paperback [first edition 1997


p95
The IMF Intervention in the Early 1980s

Somalia was a pastoral economy based on "exchange" between nomadic herdsmen and small agriculturalists. Nomadic pastoralists accounted for 50 percent of the population. In the 1970s, resettlement programs led to the development of a sizeable sector of commercial pastoralism. Livestock contributed to 80 percent of export earnings until 1983. Despite recurrent droughts, Somalia remained virtually self-sufficient in food until the 1970s.

The IMF-World Bank intervention in the early 1980s contributed to exacerbating the crisis of Somali agriculture. The economic reforms undermined the fragile exchange relationship between the "nomadic economy" and the "sedentary economy" - i.e. between pastoralists and small farmers characterized by money transactions as well as traditional barter. A very tight austerity program was imposed on the government largely to release the funds required to service Somalia's debt with the Paris Club. In fact, a large share of the external debt was held by the Washington-based financial institutions.' According to an ILO mission report:

[T]he Fund alone among Somalia's major recipients of debt service payments, refuses to reschedule. (...) De facto it is helping to finance an adjustment program, one of whose major goals is to repay the IMF itself.

Towards the Destruction of Food Agriculture

The structural adjustment program reinforced Somalia's dependency on imported grain. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, food aid increased fifteen-fold, at the rate of 31 percent per annum.' Combined with increased commercial imports, this influx of cheap surplus wheat and rice sold in the domestic market led to the displacement of local producers, as well as to a major shift in food consumption patterns to the detriment of traditional crops (maize and sorghum). The devaluation of the Somali shilling, imposed by the IMF in June 1981, was followed by periodic devaluations, leading to hikes in the prices of fuel, fertilizer and farm inputs. The impact on agricultural producers was immediate particularly in rain-fed agriculture, as well as in the areas of irrigated farming. Urban purchasing power declined dramatically, government extension programs were curtailed, infrastructure collapsed, the deregulation of the grain market and the influx of "food aid" led to the impoverishment of farming communities.'

Also, during this period, much of the best agricultural land was appropriated by bureaucrats, army officers and merchants with connections to the government.' Rather than promoting food production for the domestic market, the donors were encouraging the development of so-called "high value-added" fruits, vegetables, oilseeds and cotton for export on the best irrigated farmland.

Collapse of the Livestock Economy

As of the early 1980s, prices for imported livestock drugs increased as a result of the depreciation of the currency. The World Bank encouraged the exaction of user fees for veterinarian services to the nomadic herdsmen, including the vaccination of animals. A private market for veterinary drugs was promoted. The functions performed by the Ministry of Livestock were phased out, with the Veterinary Laboratory Services of the ministry to be fully financed on a cost-recovery basis. According to the World Bank:

Veterinarian services are essential for livestock development in all areas, and they can be provided mainly by the private sector. (... Since few private veterinarians will choose to practice in the remote pastoral areas, improved livestock care will also depend on "para vets" paid from drug sales.'

The privatization of animal health was combined with the absence of emergency animal feed during periods of drought, the commercialization

of water and the neglect of water and rangeland conservation. The results were predictable: the herds were decimated and so were the pastoralists, who represent 50 percent of the country's population. The "hidden objective" of this program was to eliminate the nomadic herdsmen involved in the traditional exchange economy. According to the World Bank, "adjustments" in the size of the herds are, in any event, beneficial because nomadic pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa are narrowly viewed as a cause of environmental degradation."

The collapse in veterinarian services also indirectly served the interests of the rich countries: in 1984, Somalian cattle exports to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries plummeted as Saudi beef imports were redirected to suppliers from Australia and the European Community. The ban on Somali livestock imposed by Saudi Arabia was not, however, removed once the rinderpest disease epidemic had been eliminated.

Destroying the State

The restructuring of government expenditure under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions also played a crucial role in destroying food agriculture. Agricultural infrastructure collapsed and recurrent expenditure in agriculture declined by about 85 percent in relation to the mid-1970s." The Somali government was prevented by the IMF from mobilizing domestic resources. Tight targets for the budget deficit were set. Moreover, the donors increasingly provided "aid", not in the form of imports of capital and equipment, but in the form of "food aid". The latter would in turn be sold by the government on the local market and the proceeds of these sales (i.e. the so-called "counterpart funds") would be used to cover the domestic costs of development projects. As of the early 1980s, "the sale of food aid" became the principal source of revenue for the state, thereby enabling donors to take control of the entire budgetary process."

The economic reforms were marked by the disintegration of health and educational programmes. '3 By 1989, expenditure on health had declined by 78 percent in relation to its 1975 level. According to World Bank figures, the level of recurrent expenditure on education in 1989 was about US$ 4 Per annum per primary school student down from about $ 82 in 1982. From 1981 to 1989, school enrolment declined by 41 percent (despite a sizeable increase in the population of school age), textbooks and school materials disappeared from the class-rooms, school buildings deteriorated and nearly a quarter of the primary schools closed down. Teachers' salaries declined to abysmally low levels.

The IMF-World Bank program has led the Somali economy into a vicious circle: the decimation of the herds pushed the nomadic pastoralists into starvation which in turn backlashes on grain producers who sold or bartered their grain for cattle. The entire social fabric of the pastoralist economy was undone. The collapse in foreign exchange earnings from declining cattle exports and remittances (from Somali workers in the Gulf countries) backlashed on the balance of payments and the state's public finances leading to the breakdown of the government's economic and social programs.

Small farmers were displaced as a result of the dumping of subsidized US grain on the domestic market combined with the hike in the price of farm inputs. The impoverishment of the urban population also led to a contraction of food consumption. In turn, state support in the irrigated areas was frozen and production in the state farms declined. The latter were slated to be closed down or privatized under World Bank supervision.

According to World Bank estimates, real public-sector wages in 1989 had declined by 90 percent in relation to the mid-1970s. Average wages in the public sector had fallen to US$ 3 a month, leading to the inevitable disintegration of the civil administration." A program to rehabilitate civil service wages was proposed by the World Bank (in the context of a reform of the civil service), but this objective was to be achieved within the same budgetary envelope by dismissing some 40 percent of public-sector employees and eliminating salary supplements." Under this plan, the civil service would have been reduced to a mere 25,000 employees by 1995 (in a country of six million people). Several donors indicated keen interest in funding the cost associated with the retrenchment of civil servants."

In the face of impending disaster, no attempt was made by the international donor community to rehabilitate the country's economic and social infrastructure, to restore levels of purchasing power and to rebuild the civil service: the macro-economic adjustment measures proposed by the creditors in the year prior to the collapse of the government of General Siyad Barre in January 1991 (at the height of the civil war) called for a further tightening over public spending, the restructuring of the Central Bank, the liberalization of credit (which virtually thwarted the private sector) and the liquidation and divestiture of most of the state enterprises.

In 1989, debt-servicing obligations represented 194.6 percent of export earnings. The IMF's loan was cancelled because of Somalia's outstanding arrears. The World Bank had approved a structural adjustment loan for US$ 70 million in June 1989 which was frozen a few months later due to Somalia's poor macro-economic performance. '7 Arrears with creditors had to be settled before the granting of new loans and the negotiation of debt rescheduling. Somalia was tangled in the straightjacket of debt servicing and structural adjustment.

Famine Formation in sub-Saharan Africa: The Lessons of Somalia

Somalia's experience shows how a country can be devastated by the simultaneous application of food "aid" and macro-economic policy. There are many Somalias in the developing world and the economic reform package implemented in Somalia is similar to that applied in more than 100 developing countries. But there is another significant dimension: Somalia is a pastoralist economy, and throughout Africa both nomadic and commercial livestock are being destroyed by the IMF-World Bank program in much the same way as in Somalia. In this context, subsidized beef and dairy products imported (duty free) from the European Union have led to the demise of Africa's pastoral economy. European beef imports to West Africa have increased seven-fold since 1984: "the low quality EC beef sells at half the price of locally produced meat. Sahelian farmers are finding that no-one is prepared to buy their herds"."

The experience of Somalia shows that famine in the late 20th century is not a consequence of a shortage of food. On the contrary, famines are spurred on as a result of a global oversupply of grain staples. Since the 1980s, grain markets have been deregulated under the supervision of the World Bank and US grain surpluses are used systematically as in the case of Somalia to destroy the peasantry and destabilize national food agriculture. The latter becomes, under these circumstances, far more vulnerable to the vagaries of drought and environmental degradation.

Throughout the continent, the pattern of "sectoral adjustment" in agriculture under the custody of the Bretton Woods institutions has been unequivocally towards the destruction of food security. Dependency vis-à-vis the world market has been reinforced, "food aid" to sub-Saharan Africa increased by more than seven times since 1974 and commercial grain imports more than doubled. Grain imports for sub-Saharan Africa expanded from 3.72 million tons in 1974 to 8.47 million tons in 1993. Food aid increased from 910,000 tons in 1974 to 6.64 million tons in l993.

"Food aid", however, was no longer earmarked for the drought-stricken countries of the Sahelian belt; it was also channeled into countries which were, until recently, more or less self-sufficient in food. ibabwe (once considered the bread basket of Southern Africa) was severely affected by the famine and drought which swept Southern Africa in 1992. The country experienced a drop of 90 percent in its maize crop, located largely in less productive lands." Yet, ironically, at the height of the drought, tobacco for export (supported by modem irrigation, credit, research, etc.) registered a bumper harvest. While "the famine forces the population to eat termites", much of the export earnings from Zimbabwe's tobacco harvest were used to service the external debt.

Under the structural adjustment program, farmers have increasingly abandoned traditional food crops; in Malawi, which was once a net food exporter, maize production declined by 40 percent in 1992 while tobacco output doubled between 1986 and 1993. One hundred and fifty thousand hectares of the best land was allocated to tobacco .2' Throughout the 1980s, severe austerity measures were imposed on African governments and expenditures on rural development drastically curtailed, leading to the collapse of agricultural infrastructure. Under the World Bank program, water was to become a commodity to be sold on a cost-recovery basis to impoverished farmers. Due to lack of funds, the state was obliged to withdraw from the management and conservation of water resources. Water points and boreholes dried up due to lack of maintenance, or were privatized by local merchants and rich farmers. In the semi-arid regions, this commercialization of water and irrigation leads to the collapse of food security and famine.



Concluding Remarks

While "external" climatic variables play a role in triggering off a famine and heightening the social impact of drought, famines in the age of globalization are man-made. They are not the consequence of a scarcity of food but of a structure of global oversupply which undermines food security and destroys national food agriculture. Tightly regulated and controlled by international agri-business, this oversupply is ultimately conducive to the stagnation of both production and consumption of essential food staples and the impoverishment of farmers throughout the world. Moreover, in the era of globalization, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program bears a direct relationship to the process of famine formation because it systematically undermines all categories of economic activity, whether urban or rural, which do not directly serve the interests of the global market system.