The delivery of food aid to the global South, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), masquerades as a noble and generous policy that stimulates development. Such aid is inextricably bound to the legacy of colonialism, perpetuating an entrenched system of poverty and dependency on donor nations. It is crucial to recognize that the global South’s position in the global market has always been one of inferiority, which is inflamed by forms of aid, most notably food aid. Food aid is effectively the inverse of development as it undercuts local production, depresses prices, and exacerbates inequality. While aid has worsened conditions in the South, the global North enjoys economic security and continued hegemony. The intertwined web of politics, economics, and social structure further perpetuates Sub-Saharan Africa’s food insecurity which maintains its disadvantaged position in the world.
One of the most problematic elements of food aid is the underlying sense that the global North must act as a savior and therefore have the power to subdue and “develop” nations. Unfortunately, development is only viewed through a western lens thus, “what development means depends on how the rich nations feel (SACHS ENVIRONMENT week 12). It posits the North and specifically the United States as the most desirable society for which the world must live in. This idea reeks of neocolonialism, which can be seen as “a situation of infringed national sovereignty and intrusive influence by external elements” (neo-colonialism and the poverty of development in Africa).
Food aid is grounded historically in the Green Revolution and since the Cold War era, the United States has used a neocolonial framework in the name of preserving “national security”, which they accomplished through extending control over other nation-states. During this era, the United States used its influence to combat the threat of communist expansionism, using food and innovative agricultural methods as an important political instrument to promote democracy. During the sixties, “the United States sought to alleviate chronic malnourishment in the Global South and forestall communist revolutions by exporting not just food, but the industrial agricultural model, including new high-yielding seeds, fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers, machinery, irrigation, and monocropping … known as the Green Revolution.” (Gonzalez 409). While the revolution increased production, local methods of agriculture had now been penetrated by external influence, ruining longstanding practices. The North had effectively injected our problematic agricultural system into the Global South, one that relies on corporations for inputs. Markets for transnational corporations such as Shell Oil and Monsanto were launched in the agriculture was forever transformed, curtailing local production and creating dependence for the future (Shattering Fowler 131). In addition to destroying localized modes of production, the Green Revolution also fostered environmental degradation, such as biodiversity loss, that still plagues countries today. The United States trapped the South into these modes of production, leaving them vulnerable to environmental issues. Additionally, The shift away from indigenous crops to the ones offered by the Green Revolution left the South with an agricultural system controlled by transnational agribusiness (Violence of green revolution). Extending the Green Revolution to the global South had little to do with increasing food yield, ending hunger, and reducing inequality. Instead, it was just another avenue to achieve foreign policy goals, most notably promoting democracy over communism. The Green Revolution elucidates how food became, “the weapon of choice to ensure that the balance of power remained in America’s favor ”(where hunger goes Rieff).
Instead of helping the impoverished, aid has transformed into a global industry that provides value to various agencies and corporations, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Such institutions wield incredible amounts of power on the global south, therefore shaping the way they wish to develop and live. One of the most poignant examples of food aid’s failure and damage is due to the Food For Peace Program. In 1954, after two world wars, President Eisenhower established Public Law 480, which came to be known as Food For Peace. The law established the United States as the primary donor of food aid to developing countries and was underpinned with the goal of creating future markets (food for peace SORENSON). The Law’s compassionate name framed it as one that had the sole objective of helping the global South. Yet, the decision to sign Public Law 480 into law was underpinned by strategic political and economic goals to increase future markets and can be traced as the first incidence of creating aid dependency. A report from 1988 explains that PL480 “depressed local food production, making it harder for poor countries to feed themselves in the long run” (How American food aid keeps the world hungry). Eisenhower understood that “food can be a powerful instrument for all the free world in building durable peace” (the spirit of the marshall plan 20). Therefore, it is clear that food is seen as a political tool that is critical in allowing the United States to promote its agenda, which in this case was to create markets of the future. Dambisa Moyo, a prominent economist from Zambia and former consultant of the World Bank, explains that “it is clear that however good their hand may seem when trading with the West, the cards are stacked against Africa, and will always be” (dead aid 119). Food is directly tied to power dynamics, allowing those who allocate food to dominate developing countries.
Moreover, Food For Peace offers disproportionate benefits to American farmers. Food for Peace provides a perfect distribution site for surplus grain that farmers in the U.S produce. Under the program, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchases farmers' surpluses, subsidizes crops such as wheat, and stabilizes prices, offering U.S farmers significant financial security. Cheryl Christensen, former chief of Food Security Development for the USDA, explains that “food aid played an important role in increasing US agricultural trade, as countries which were once food aid recipients went on to become commercial partners” (The New Policy Environment for Food Aid: The Challenge of Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 25(3): 255–268). The program effectively dumps American agricultural surpluses on developing nations, overriding local agricultural systems. It is illuminated that Food for Peace is an exceedingly selfish program that insulates U.S farmers from price fluctuation, yet burdens Sub-Saharan Africa and other receivers of aid.