Looking Toward Tomorrow

As delegates to the World Food Conference prepared to return home last weekend, some, at least, were dogged by an uncomfortable awareness that the twelve-day meeting had produced more food for thought than for the starving millions whose chances of survival diminished with the passing of each wasted day in Rome. Toward the end of the conference, former Bangladesh Food Minister Amirul Islam tried desperately to focus the attention of the farsighted reformers on the immediacy of the task before them. At a press conference, Islam announced that 100,000 people in his impoverished, famine-stricken country had died in the previous six weeks, and that unless immediate emergency aid was provided, 1 million more will starve to death by the end of the year.

Islam's heartfelt but unanswered plea dramatically highlighted the conflict over priorities that characterized the conference from its opening day. Building on the momentum generated by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's visionary plea for international cooperation (TIME, Nov. 18), the delegates chose to sidestep current problems and concentrate instead on trying to develop organizational mechanisms that would cope with future crises.

Those who argued that the imminent prospect of widespread starvation should not distract the delegates from formulating long-term goals were, however, frustrated by conceptual wrangling. Last week Conference Secretary-General Sayed Ahmed Marei of Egypt said that several oil-producing countries had agreed to help finance a billion dollar program for an agriculture-development fund to help food-deficient countries. Unfortunately, Marei's announcement proved to be premature. By week's end the various OPEC delegations had become embroiled in disputes over what criteria should be used to fix the participants' contributions. The conference closed recommending creation of a development fund based on voluntary donations, but it was unclear how much money the oil-rich nations would supply.

In the final hours the delegates also managed to make some potentially significant recommendations on a system of world food reserves; the details are to be worked out in future meetings. They agreed in general terms to establish a permanent gram stockpile to help hunger-stricken areas in future emergencies. In a gesture that was strongly supported by the U.S. delegation, wealthy countries were called on to supply 10 million tons of grain to food-short areas for each of the next three years, until the permanent stockpile can be built up. In addition, an early warning system providing world crop information will be set up to give advance notice of probable famines. These programs are to be administered by a new World Food Council, which will report to the U.N. General Assembly and have an executive committee of high-level representatives from 15 to 25 nations.

It remains to be seen if the various blocs can overcome their differences and actually implement these agreements by supplying the huge amounts of grain and money needed. The long-range proposals did little to help the millions who may not survive until the next harvest. Hope was briefly raised that immediate gram needs--estimated by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization to be at least 8 million tons in South Asia and Africa--might be met when Canada and Australia together pledged 1.5 million tons of short-term aid. But the U.S., the Soviet Union and the EEC did not make any firm commitment of increased support.

Policy Planning. Despite pressure from members of the U.S. delegation in Rome--including Democratic Senators Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern and Richard Clark--Washington maintained its position that the conference is not "an aid-pledging forum" but a meeting to consider policy planning. After a week's silence, President Ford, citing inflation as an obstacle, turned down the delegation's request for an immediate 1 million ton increase in U.S. emergency food aid. Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz, who headed the American delegation, accused the three Senators of acting for "partisan political gain," while arguing that the U.S. was already shipping more grain to needy countries than it did last year.

Undoubtedly the most pungent commentary on the U.N.'s Roman debacle was provided by Pan, a feisty, independent conference newspaper. Directing its barbs impartially, the impromptu daily tried to keep the delegates honest by running such headlines as GUILTY, GULLIBLE AND STUPID--THE IMAGE OPEC COUNTRIES SHOULD BEWARE OF. As a prod to flabby consciences, the puckish Pan staff set up a scale in the delegates' lounge and encouraged overweight representatives to donate a $3-per-lb. "fat tax" to its antihunger crusade. About $150 was collected --perhaps the most tangible expression of good faith seen in Rome last week.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.