G8 leaders enjoy 18-course meal as they discuss “how to solve the global food crisis.”
The leaders of the richest nations of the world sat down to an 18-course gastronomic extravaganza at the G8 summit in Japan to discuss world hunger.
The dinner and lunch included:
1. Caviar,
2. Milkfed lamb,
3. Sea urchin and tuna,
4. Champagne and wines flown in from Europe and the U.S.
5…..and a lot more
The extravagance of the menus drew disapproval from critics who thought it hypocritical to produce such a lavish meal when world food supplies are under threat, and some parts of Africa are so war ravaged that famine is killing thousands of Human Beings daily:
Bush and company would rather lie themselves into fighting the “Oil Wars,” to promote “Peace” and “Democracy,” while conveniently forgetting that the real “humanitarian” war should be fought in places like Darfur, in the Sudan — where Arab tribes have been slaughtering black Africans mercilessly, with the help of the Arab dominated Sudanese government.
The G8 summit is a colossal waste of time.
It is nothing but an expensive “Country-Club” meeting place of “Golfing-Buddies,” where they discuss who to fleece next or who to “bomb” next or who to “sanction” next.
The “aid” that the G8 group provides Africa, for instance, is largely wasted by the numerous NGO’s “accompanying” the aid — the NGO officials live “rich” in Africa, waste resources and in many cases have been known to share the “loot” with corrupt African leaders.
Don’t get me wrong — there a many credible charities doing great work in Africa.
If it’s not these NGO’s, then it’s the World Bank or the IMF — imperialist tools which have been used for many years to “control” corrupt African governments. Add these two organizations to badly managed African governments and you have the potent-mix that has crippled many economies in Africa.
Helen Caldicott states in her book titled — “If You Love This Planet:”
“Fifteen percent of the food used by U.S. homes and restaurants is thrown away …”
“Most aid serves as an instrument of foreign policy, not really as a charitable gift. For example, in 1965-66, during a famine, the United States threatened to cut off food aid to India when its government attempted to take control of U.S.-owned fertilizer companies. India capitulated because it needed the money, thereby giving more freedom to U.S. investment companies. In effect, while millions of Indians starved, food shipments were stalled to force the government to capitulate to the demands of U.S. corporations. In 1964, U.S. aid to Brazil dropped from $81.8 million to $15.1 million because America disapproved of the government at the time. These are just two instances in which the U.S. government withheld food for political purposes. Food is used to reward and manipulate poor countries rather than to feed hungry people.”
“Surprisingly, most U.S. aid actually winds up subsidizing American corporations. During the Johnson administration, 90 ,’ percent of all foreign aid benefited U.S. corporate development programs, such as the building of dams, nuclear power plants, roads, and bridges in the Third World, and the profits accrued to the relevant U.S. companies. So U.S. foreign aid serves not only as a coercive instrument of foreign policy but also to support private U.S. contractors, universities, banks, consulting firms, lobbyists, and so forth. In fact, foreign aid is now recognized to be a lucrative business, and companies are scrambling to capitalize on it. Even in 1970, multinationals invested $270 million in Africa and repatriated $995 million, $200 million in Asia and received $2,400 million, and $900 million in Latin America for $2,900 million. Corporations also tend to borrow most of their investment funds for Third World projects from Third World banks.”
“Wealthy countries impose tariffs or trade barriers on processed goods, but none on raw materials, thus ensuring that poor countries remain in poverty. For instance, in 1985, British tariffs on raw cotton were zero, on cotton yam 8 percent, and on cotton T-shirts 17 percent. So the Third World can never break the poverty cycle, because First World tariffs work against the importation of manufactured goods from the Third World. A Third World country is defined as one that exports raw materials and imports finished goods. But processed goods are worth much more money than raw materials are.”
“….And so the spiral continues: increased debt leads to more cash crops and environmental degradation, which leads to flooded markets in the First World and lower prices, with decreased return to the Third World. Therefore, the debt increases, and this leads to malnutrition, starvation, and helplessness.
Read More Excerpts Here OR Just Buy The Book: HERE!
Africa needs to wake up and “feed itself” — these frequent G8 “photo-ops” and grand “gastronomic extravaganzas” have never been in Africa’s best interests!.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
