LET'S ADOPT A NATION AND FEED SOME PEOPLE

(For more about this subject, go to bobcrespo.com, click on the SONGS page, and listen to "What About the Hungry.)

Here's an idea: Let the world's richest countries adopt a starving country or two and and feed them. There's lots of candidates out there since 36,000 people a day die of starvation. Even one is too many on such a bountiful planet as ours. But 36,000 every single day? That's crazy, especially when you consider that the vast majority of them are small children. Here in America we have more food than we can eat, and there are many other nations in the same position, countries blessed with fertile and productive lands. Still others are blessed with great wealth if not agricultural bounty and thus have the means to help.

Why not scrap all those other treaty talks involving politics and war and business and pursue an International Food Bank Treaty? The United Nations has thus far been pretty much of a failure in feeding the starving, so somebody else must take the initiative, somebody like The United States. Screw all that BIg Eight industrial nation nonsense, celebrating how wealthy and powerful we are. Nobody cares about that when people are dying. Let America pledge 10% of our agricultural output to directly feeding starving populations. And don't let the U.N. deliver it, they'll just surrender it to the local governments who have the habit of not feeding the hungry with the food but using it as a political tool. Then maybe they'll convene a committee for a year of two to study why they're such ineffectual boneheads while more children die.

Let the food be delivered by the U.S. Marines, or the Royal Marines or any of a dozen modern nations' elite military groups. Unlike the blue-helmeted U.N forces, the Marines won't stand idly by while warlords and dictators commandeer the food for themselves in order to keep a portion of their population weak and starving, or trade it for more weapons. America can't feed every starving nation or deploy troops in enough places to thwart every political group who would use the food as a weapon. But it can target specific areas, adopt needful nations and feed them. This policy can lead the way for other nations to do the same. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Who better than us?

On top of the feeding, which is but a short term solution, the wealthy nations must follow up these efforts by teaching the stricken nations how to feed themselves. That will require further investment in irrigation, agricultural techniques, food preservation and transportation. The Marines can't help in that effort, but organizations like The Peace Corps can be created to develop real solutions to to the root causes of hunger in each particular region. This involves a substantial investment on the part of America and whichever other nations gets involved. For our part, we would have to withdraw from Vietiraq to free up our military personnel to deliver the food and also cut our military budget.

In the absence of World War 3, there's no reason for the United States to continue spending more on armaments that the rest of the world combined, which is now the case. We can stand a 20% slash in the military budget as long as we're not waging wars of aggression against hapless dictatorships. Instead we can feed hapless dictatorships, making sure the food gets to the hungry and the technology for reliable agriculture is vigorously implemented. Many nations would welcome our efforts, but some would not. Start with the willing countries and show the world what we're up to. If these countries embrace the help, the Marines won't be needed, and some nations can be trusted under strict international supervision to distribute the food themselves where it is most needed.

The problem nations can be dealt with harshly, their nations declared international disaster areas. If 36,000 dead people a day isn't a disaster, what is? It is not the fault of the starving children that they were born into a genocidal regime and it must be made very clear by the wealthy nations that no interference from their armies will be tolerated. One or two dead dictators and war lords should do the trick to let the others know that the world is serious about starvation and will feed these children one way or another. The smart ones will stand back and watch their people get fed and taught to feed themselves The dumb ones? Let them explain to the Marines why they want to starve people.

Look at the international relief effort being mobilized today to help Myanmar recover from a cyclone that killed an estimated 22,500 people. Unfortunately the Myanmar government is reluctant to allow aid organizations into their military-run nation and just as unfortunately some western nations are taking this opportunity to try to change Myanmar's ways while people are in dire need of help right now. There are an estimated one million people whose homes are destroyed and displaced persons ted to become starving persons in a hurry. This is just the sort of problems that will face wealthy nations in the adopt-a-nation program. There are many governments whose priority is maintaining their power at all costs, even the starvation of their own children.

A world treaty organization to combat that mind-set is essential. Toppling governments should not be a priority, only making sure that every government presides over people who are fed and can continue to feed themselves. Being human, the efforts to feed the world will get screwed up here and there and big mistakes will be made in the implementation of the plan, but nothing compares to the mistake of doing nothing and allowing 36,000 of our brothers and sisters perish each and every day. Right now the wealthy nations are not doing enough, and in some cases are making matters worse by allowing food and food technology to be denied the hungry. It is wrong to let people die when help can be given. For that reason alone the world should act, and act as one. Impossible? No one will know until they try it.