A hungry, malnourished population will not make for a smooth, stable transition of power in Yemen.
Afghanistan is another example as we struggle to win a war while also winning a peace. As long as over seven million Afghans suffer in hunger and poverty, it is hard to imagine either taking place. Funding shortages for relief efforts in Afghanistan do not help the cause. In fact, rations for child feeding programs are already being reduced because of low funding for WFP’s Afghan relief mission.
The crisis by no means ends with these three countries. There is Sudan, the West Bank, Gaza, Nepal, Haiti, and many other areas in need of food.
What President Obama has to do is establish a full-time food ambassador to build international cooperation to fight the hunger. This would be a position similar to the one Herbert Hoover filled in 1946 during the post-WWII hunger crisis.
If hunger is to be defeated, there must be broadened participation among governments and the public. There must be someone constantly sounding the alarm on hunger.
President Obama now faces his most critical test when it comes to fighting hunger. He faces a threat that will derail many of his foreign policy objectives. Will he show leadership and be able to fulfill the goal he set out when he started his presidency?
Obama said, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." It can happen, but right now it's about leadership.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
I'd love to see President Obama do exactly that...but he couldn't even if he wanted to. Why? There is no way the Republicans would allow it.
Think back - he tried to get a bill passed to pay for the health care costs of 9/11 first responders and he was going to pay for it by cutting tax breaks that corporations were getting for sending our jobs overseas...and what happened? The Republican party.
It simply does not matter how good or noble or right that it is that Obama wants to do, because he is facing a party that does not want to allow him any successes at all...for any such successes, no matter how good they are for the nation or the world, would be bad for the Republicans on election day.
The lack of honor and courage they've shown in trying to block everything he's tried to do to help...is nauseating.
My apologies for taking your topic and turning it into a partisan rant - it's just that I felt I had to point out why even if he wanted to, Obama would never be able to do what you suggest.
2 - Baronius
I cannot imagine a scenario that doesn't result in at least a million dead Yemenis over the next couple of years. They have no national unity, no tradition of unified rule, no experience of non-corrupt rule, no food, no water, and nowhere to emigrate. Their population is booming. It's the point of origin for the worst extremists in the Arab world. I literally can't think of a single reason that Yemen won't make Somalia look like Myrtle Beach.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
I don't think Yemen will be quite that bad. You're quite right about all the disadvantages - no argument there. But the difference is that Yemen's next door to Saudi Arabia...and while we all have seen that the Saudis have no problem with exporting terrorists to other nations, I'm fairly certain that they will not allow such massacres in a nation adjacent to them since such civil strife can spill over into their own borders.
Not only that, but the more stable nations of the Middle East are being a bit more proactive than before. Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain (which action didn't look good to our point of view, but it did stop the civil strife), and the UAE (and I think the Saudis, too) are lending logistical support to the Libyan rebels.
So...no. For these reasons I don't think Yemen will be that bad. It won't be pretty, but I think the Saudis will prevent it from being as bad as it could be otherwise.
4 - Baronius
Glenn, I hope you're right.