Is buying guns really better than buying food?
In response to Richard Dowden’s article , Sza Sza Zelleke writes: ‘It is clear that guns, and the men who sell food aid to buy them, are not the solution to Africa’s problems. What Africans needs is more accountability and less arms.’
Dear Pambazuka Editors,
I am writing about a recent article entitled ‘Get real Bob – buying guns might have been better than buying food’. The article is part of an ongoing debate surrounding a controversial BBC report on the sale of food aid to buy arms during the Ethiopian famine of 1984. In light of more current reports on food aid diversion in Africa, and because food aid politics continues to be practiced throughout the continent, this article and debate deserves the attention of all Africans. Africans, who believe that Africa’s never-ending wars, poverty and hunger are caused largely by lack of accountability, need to hear the BBC programme, read reactions to it and engage with this ongoing debate.
The article in question, for example, is suggesting that choices available to Ethiopians in 1984 forced them to sell food aid and buy guns. Such a myopic view of options available to Africans should be challenged by those who believe that Africans are capable of finding a better set of solutions for their problems, than letting rebels decide to sell their food aid and buy guns. I believe Ethiopians, indeed all Africans, always have more options than having to choose between agonising death by hunger or a tortuous life of suffering under corrupt, cruel leadership.
The notion that buying guns might have been better for Ethiopians than buying food, is based on the false premise that donations for food aid – subsequently sold for arms – are ‘the greatest contribution to preventing a new famine’. Three ugly truths are hidden by the hyperbole of this sweeping statement in the article. First, the article completely ignores the uncomfortable question, ‘what did hungry Ethiopians eat while rebels fought using guns bought with their food aid rations?’ Secondly, despite facts pointing to the contrary, the article shamelessly flogs the fiction that recurrence of famine in Ethiopia was made preventable by buying guns with stolen food aid. The ugliest truth – cleverly concealed by arguments in this article – is the fact that rebels, who ruthlessly sell food aid to buy guns for overthrowing brutal regimes, invariably turn into brutally, authoritarian regimes themselves.
The good news is that the days of African leaders collecting money in the name of African people and spending it as they wish are, mercifully, coming to an end. They are being asked to make their transactions more transparent. The same is true of donor governments and international aid agencies, whose activities are increasingly being scrutinised by tax payers, media and charitable individuals. In addition to this, I believe Africans should evaluate academics writing about Africa and analyse their articles critically, especially articles defending the sale of food aid to buy arms. Africans can no longer accept expertise that does not offer solutions to break the vicious cycle of despair that they now find themselves in. It is clear that guns, and the men who sell food aid to buy them, are not the solution to Africa’s problems. What Africans needs is more accountability and less arms.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Sza Sza Zelleke is an Ethiopian based in the United Kingdom.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.