Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

205. Action Memorandum From the Chairman of the Policy Planning Council, Department of State (Bosworth) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, April 22, 1983

SUBJECT

• More Food Aid for Southern Africa?

The attached memo²—proposing to add $25 million to the already approved $68.2 million in food aid for southern Africa³—has occasioned considerable discussion. Larry Eagleburger asked us to write this short memo summarizing the issues and proposing recommendations.

The issues are: (1) Should we exclude Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania from such a package? (2) Can we be assured that the food will reach the truly needy? (3) Should the President be involved? and (4) Depending on the answers to the above, do we really have a viable package for southern Africa or should we approach the problem country by country? My views are:

1. Involving the President: To take the easiest first, there is agreement now in the building that the President should not be involved. Whether we exclude or include the politically sensitive countries, controversy can ensue and we should protect the President from this. Also, the package is small and we would be straining to wrest much diplomatic mileage from it. In addition, we’ve not yet received formal requests for assistance from Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Zaire or Zimbabwe.

2. Food for Political Purposes: The U.S. Government’s long-standing policy is to try to isolate humanitarian and emergency food aid under Title II from political considerations. We are currently supplying food to Ethiopia and Poland. Exceptions to this policy should be made only on a case by case basis, and only when there are compelling reasons since use of food for political purposes arouses strong public opposition. Denying humanitarian food aid is usually a measure of last resort in our dealings with individual countries. In this context:

Angola: UNICEF has formally requested us to supply an additional 9,600 MT of blended fortified food to their program which feeds 163,000 displaced mothers and young children. We’ve supported this program since 1977. The food is given directly to recipients at government feeding stations; it’s a nutritious speciality product and is not related to filling Angola’s overall food deficit.

Mozambique: Here we’re proposing to increase Mozambique’s already approved 25,195 metric ton Title II program by 16,815 tons. We’ve supplied Title II food to Mozambique for emergency purposes off and on since 1976. The food in this case is distributed through private retailers and government cooperatives at prevailing prices. Some also is distributed free to the hard core needy by the government. Mozambique has officially requested food aid from the U.S.

Zimbabwe: To date we’ve received no request from Zimbabwe although the government is preparing a large appeal to the donors for a special relief program for the hardest hit families in the communal lands.

Tanzania: We’ve already approved a PL 480 Title I program for Tanzania. There’s no proposal for an increase for Tanzania in the $25 million add-on.

Given the above, I recommend that we proceed now with Angola and Mozambique, since there’s been no change in our present relations with these countries which would warrant reversing present policy. In fact, this increased food aid could be marginally useful as support for our current policy initiatives in both countries. On Zimbabwe, I recommend that we act on this program when a request is received in light of both our long-standing policy on Title II and the review which Larry Eagleburger is overseeing on our ability to use diplomatic tools to build support for U.S. positions at the UN.

3. Does the Food Get to the Needy? Without going country by country, the answer is basically yes. AID has recently reviewed the Mozambique program and finds it well-run. We believe UNICEF’s management in Angola is adequate. In Zaire, we may work through WFP in Shaba Province and there may be problems of mismanagement here as in other Zairian programs. In other countries, our AID Missions can monitor distribution.

4. Do We Need a Package Approach? Absent a presidential initiative, should not assistance be allocated case by case? This approach would allow exact needs to be better identified, allow individual handling of red flags through consultations on the Hill, and permit a better examination of political considerations. We can announce that we’ve approved an additional $25 million for southern Africa and that we will be allocating it to specific countries over time as the needs are quantified and requests received and reviewed.

As a final note, the attached memo does not address your broader question of how we use our food surpluses more effectively and flexibly in our foreign policy. This is a difficult issue with ramifications which range from the minutely technical to the grandly moral. The relevant bureaus, including S/P, should analyze this question for you and identify options.

Recommendations:⁴

That there not be a Presidential announcement of a food aid package.

That you approve announcement of the $25 million in additional food aid for southern Africa. Place and time to be coordinated with AID and AF by PA. (We will notify the NSC via a Hill-Clark memo.)

That you approve AID’s going ahead with additional programs in Angola, Mozambique, and other countries in southern Africa as requirements are defined, with the exception of Zimbabwe which is the only new program and which you will review at the appropriate time.

Alternatively, and this is AID and AF’s recommendation, that you approve AID’s going ahead with Zimbabwe as well on the condition that any requested program meets our criteria as a humanitarian/relief effort and we are sure that the program will be managed properly.

That you instruct the relevant bureaus and AID to return to the starting point and examine the use of food surpluses in serving long-term foreign policy goals.

1. Source: Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Subject Files—Edward Derwinski, 1984–1985, Lot 87D326, Famine Relief in Africa—1985. Limited Official Use; Not for the System. Drafted by Arndt. Sent through Eagleburger. In the upper right-hand margin, an unknown hand wrote the phrases “Note: Made ES Sensitive 8313446” and “Sent to Acting Secy 6/2, [illegible initials].”
2. Undated and entitled “U.S. Response to Drought in Southern Africa;” attached but not printed.
3. In telegram 91703 to all African diplomatic posts, London, Paris, and Brussels, April 5, the Department described the existing $68.2 million in P.L. 480 aid. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D830185–0893)
4. There is no indication of approval or disapproval of any of the five recommendations. In telegram 162166 to Pretoria, June 11, the Department transmitted excerpts from a press briefing: “The United States Government will release an additional 25 million dollars in emergency food aid to drought-stricken African countries.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D830333–0129)