World Food Program Running Out of Money
I don't follow politics very closely, but an article in the Times yesterday shocked me and made me want to do something.
We all know the situation in Darfur is dire. But yesterday there was a report of a riot in which an interpreter was killed and an Oxfam representative stabbed. Mentioned in the article is the fact that the food supply for the camp in Kalma is running out. "The World Food Program is running out of money," the article said.
I looked up the World Food Program on Google. It turns out they're the food arm of the U.N. But how could they be running out of money? Obviously the miserable and angry refugees are hungry as well as grieving dead family members, staving off disease and everything else they're dealing with. Things might go better if they had full bellies.
I can't believe the wealthy part of the world can't cough up enough money to help keep this aid group going. I know things aren't a cakewalk for anyone these days, but in New York we can surely pony up $30-50 per person or so and get together a couple hundred thousand (or more?)
This week I can hardly feed myself. But next week I'll have money and I want to organize something. I can't believe we can ignore these people ... I can't believe we can read "The U.N. food program can't deliver food" and do nothing.
posted by La Misma at 12:27 PM
3 Comments:
I found out the following from the WFP's own site on Sudan (through the United Nations web page at www.un.org)
"The two core elements of the country programme are school feeding and food for work. The total cost of the programme for the period 2002-2006 is US$47 million."
There is no explanation as to why there are problems with funding. One may speculate that because the UN is dependent on member-states' dues and contributions, any budget shortfall will affect their programmes
7:34 PM
Sorry for another serious posting, but this is from the UN's own website describing their budget (admittedly out of date) but you get a sense of the figures and how they get their money:
"The budget for the two years 2000-2001 is $2,535 million. The main source of funds is the contributions of Member States, which are assessed on a scale approved by the General Assembly.
The fundamental criterion on which the scale of assessments is based is the capacity of countries to pay. This is determined by considering their relative shares of total gross national product, adjusted to take into account a number of factors, including their per capita incomes.
In addition, countries are assessed -- in accordance with a modified version of the basic scale -- for the costs of peacekeeping operations, which stood at around $2 billion in 2000."
7:38 PM
I'm not sure I totally understand the second quote. Is the implication that some countries are spending more on peacekeeping forces than food programs? Ironically, because both are intended to keep people alive but one is far more basic and foolproof -- I can't seem to find the right word.
Since the U.S. is so awful re the U.N. -- aren't we still way behind in our membership fees or some other kind of fees? -- it's easy to believe it's the U.S. who are lagging here.
12:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home