quarterly-report.com Political and Social Commentary by James R. Audet

March 1, 2000
39th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's proposal for the Peace Corps

In Mozambique, on the southeastern coast of Africa, abnormally heavy rain has caused massive flooding.  Television news reports show a fourteen person family intertwined in the branches of a tree, clinging for life, all but the tree's shredded leafy crown and their dangling feet left untouched by the muddy, infectious water that races beneath them.  A lone man, about to be swallowed alive, is shown clinging to the upper most branches of a lone tree.  Another family, perched precariously on the crumbling reed roof of their "house," waits for a helicopter to drop a lifeline while the flood waters take the home apart reed by reed.  We watch the flood snatch a young boy from the outstretched arms of a man who tumbles upside down from a cable tethered to a hovering helicopter.  The rescuer struggles to regain his grip, fighting his angular momentum, as the waters steal the child away.  The rescuer grabs him in time.

Mozambique has been cut in two by the floodwaters.   Perhaps a million people have lost their homes.  Hunger is rampant and disease is becoming a grave problem.  There is no infrastructure in Mozambique to cope with even one percent of the the displaced persons.  Again, we watch in awe the caravans of refuges that flee from death.  There is no sign that the international community has yet to grasp the desperate situation of this abysmally poor African nation.  What is obvious is that more helicopters are needed.  Immediately.

Once again, another horrible tragedy in Africa inundates the consciousness of the unfeeling politicians of the world.  They sit in suspended animation.  Unlike past and current scourges of the African continent, for example, the religious conflict in Nigeria, the AIDS epidemic and racial hostility in Zimbabwe, this one involves the destructive effect of a natural substance that Americans know well -- the ravages of unbridled water.

Water policy in America is as slippery as the substance itself.  It seems the issue is one of local consequence, not national concern.  We have the utter failure of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect local water supplies from the gasoline additive and toxic contaminate, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).  There is the Federal government's failure to act to protect North Carolina residents from the floods of 1999.  A barrage of complaints to the White House after Hurricane Andrew revealed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was so mired in bureaucratic spin control that it was incapable of acting with any dispatch to the destruction in South Florida.  National response to local water crises is wanting.  But, this is an issue for another time.

Independent Television News (ITN) reports that 100 thousand persons in Mozambique are in danger and 200 thousand to perhaps a million already made homeless. The urgency increases as flood waters rise, yet international aid is still being "arranged."  What happened to the concept of rapid deployment?  Is this nothing more than a unique military concept that is dragged out at appropriation time to justify a budget for some new military program?

Perhaps the delay in arranging aid is due to the infamous consensus building exercise that must be staged by the two guardians of the true faith, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and the alleged master builder, President Bill Clinton.  Could it be that Ms. Albright can not berate water like a nagging grandmother, or Clinton shake his finger like an unrepentant sinner, that has caused their consensus skills to vanish?  At what point does human suffering overwhelm these individuals and cause them to act?  Could it be poll numbers?  If the matter does not involve media slobbering visuals of crackling guns or exploding bombs, they both come up short in the compassion department. The quality of mercy in this country is indeed quite strained when the subject of humanitarian aid is raised in a non-war context.

The United Sates announced yesterday that it would funnel one million dollars to the U.S. Agency for International Development to help pay for relief efforts.  In a gasping breath, it also released a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report that concluded that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had deficiencies in controls over tax refunds that resulted in 16 million dollars in potentially fraudulent refunds being disbursed in the first nine months of 1999, and that the full magnitude of invalid refunds could be in the billions of dollars.  The GAO also found that the quality of the IRS' plant and equipment records were so so poor that the IRS had to hire an independent consulting firm to develop a balance based on a statistical estimate.  The GAO claims the over one million dollar study was valid for one day and unless changes are made, the IRS may be unable to properly account for the billions of dollars it plans to spend on tax system modernization over the next decade.  The one million dollars offered to Mozambique is a disgrace.

America could truly improve its image around the world by rushing aid to these disaster areas, particularly when it has assets in the vicinity.  In the 5th Fleet Area of Operations, which includes the Middle East, are two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, which is deployed in the Red Sea, and the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, which is deployed in the Arabian Gulf.  Each ship carries 6 Seahawk helicopters.  The Seahawk crews are already trained to pluck pilots from the sea.  Could not these helicopters be used for humanitarian rescue?  ABC News reports that U.S. helicopter resources are sited in Europe -- let us not forget Albania -- and it would take days to deploy them.  The United States would rather pay South Africa for the use of their helicopters, in spite of the fact that South Africa needs them for their own flood relief.

What about the military assets we have stationed in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait?  Could not the Kennedy and Stennis transport some of helicopters stationed in these countries to Mozambique?  We can do something, and it would not imperil our readiness in the Middle East one bit.  On the other hand, yesterday's announcement that the U.S. Air Force had grounded 200 C-135 and KC-135 tanker planes -- utterly vital for mid-air refueling of combat aircraft -- poses a serious threat to readiness.

ITN further reports that a rescuer with a motorboat can do nothing more because his engine has run out of fuel.  Mozambique is just down the coast from the largest oil-producing region in the world, yet this man has no petrol!  Where is all the oil going?  Perhaps to the United States to satisfy Americans' re-awakened passion for overweight, gas guzzling cars, trucks, and sports utility vehicles?  Is this the primary role of the Kennedy and Stennis -- to keep the oil flowing?  God forbid these ships should be distracted from their patrol duties with gas prices at an all time high.

Unfortunately, humanitarian aid does not conform with the "big stick" mentality that this and past Administrations have had about the use of strategic assets.  This mentality has been festered by a fear that a President might be branded by political wumps as a "wimp" if he uses military assets for non-strategic purposes.

When the United States intervened in Kosovo, there were claims of a double standard, for America ignored the genocide in Rwanda that cost 800,000 their lives between April and July 1994 and the 1984 Ethiopian drought in which hundreds of thousands died from famine.  Albright claimed that U.S. involvement in Kosovo was an issue of credibility not of racism.  In spite of a half-baked strategy for rescuing the imperiled Kosovars, it would take a fraction of the planning and a far less political commitment to mount a modest relief effort to help Mozambique. The question: does America solely aid imperiled white populations?  That question is relevant and grows in importance, demanding an answer, as the Mozambique disaster continues to want for a coordinated relief effort.

Let us not forget our "allies."  Where is the British government?  Is it too busy destroying any chance for peace in Northern Ireland to help?  Where are the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments?  Are they too preoccupied with how much tighter they can turn the handle on the crude oil spigot to care?  Can these governments not find a moment's pause to rush aid to Mozambique?

It is the South Africans who have come to help.  Heroic efforts.  They are overwhelmed and destined to fail in rescuing the bulk of the imperiled.  Yet, they are not afraid of failure.  It is an about face change for a country notorious for its apartheid system.

Why does America have a blind eye to African humanitarian problems?  Is the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) concept the governing criterion for American intervention?  Why does it take a maniacal enemy of flesh and blood instead of a natural one for us to focus our energies?  Why must it be a repressive government or a villainous dictator before our passions are ignited?

There is no excuse for inaction.  On this 39th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's proposal for the Peace Corps, we can do nothing less than get help to Mozambique immediately -- notwithstanding any call for an "international consensus for coordinated relief."

Click on this sentence for the terms that govern your use of this web site.