Is CARE callous in snubbing U.S. gift of $45 million?

Recent actions by the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, an international humanitarian agency, makes one wonder about the accuracy of its acronym.

The U.S.-based group, better known as CARE, has decided to summarily reject some $45 million a year in U.S. assistance designed to help fight hunger and poverty in several struggling African nations.

Why is CARE taking such a seemingly careless stand? The private relief agency argues that the program, which brings tons of American farm products to African markets for sale at greatly reduced prices, represents unfair competition to local farmers. As such, CARE contends, it may end up hurting the very people it is designed to help.

One group that CARE’s decision definitely will hurt is the Alliance for Food Aid. The alliance argues fervently that the program, contained in the U.S. farm bill for the past decade, has worked well and does not hurt local farmers.

The United States Agency for International Development concurs, saying that its experts conduct detailed assessments to ensure that U.S. commodities do not disrupt local production.

The food aid alliance’s 15 members, including the Christian Charity World Vision, work in the trenches and get a close-up view of the program. From that vantage point, it cites other program benefits: It keeps hard currency in poor countries, it helps control overpricing of local food products and it benefits the alliance, which receives operating funds from proceeds of the sale of U.S. products.

Jimmy Carter’s criticism

Critics also argue that the program has become a political pork barrel for U.S. shipping and agribusiness interests. Former President Jimmy Carter, head of the Carter Center that provides private funds to help African farmers become more productive, called the U.S.-funded, CARE-administered program flawed.

But don’t try to convince Walter Otieno, a Kenyan farmer, that the program is flawed. Otieno used funding from the CARE program to learn new techniques of sunflower farming. The profit he received from the new system enabled him and his family to open a general store, generate a steady income and escape the ravages of poverty.

Otieno’s success story and others like it provide evidence for the survival of the program. If indeed there are inefficiencies in its administration, as the Government Accountability Office has said, then the answer is to correct those inefficiencies, not deep-six the program.

Since 1945, CARE has been an aggressive and formidable player in the global war on poverty. It has prided itself on its myriad of innovative programs to boost standards of living and promote self-help in 66 countries in the world.

That’s why CARE should not risk tarnishing its respected image. It can start by opening dialogue with drafters of the farm bill all the way down to African farmers to work out as many kinks in the program as possible.

Short of that, we’re certain that American agribusiness, Department of Agriculture officials and architects of the U.S. farm bill can find other relief and humanitarian groups — including those fighting hunger within the United States — that would welcome with open arms an extra $45 million annually.