By Shepard Ambellas
May 17, 2012
CHICAGO — The G8 Summit is fast approaching and now the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has released information that one of the most pressing topics at the summit will be African food security.
An excerpt from a CFR article details that;
The leaders of the Group of Eight world economies–Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States–are set to meet at the Camp David U.S. presidential retreat in Maryland May 18-19.
While African food security is slated to be at the top of their agenda, the Peterson Institute’s C. Randall Henning says the eurozone crisis is likely to dominate the group’s discussions. “The non-Europeans at the G8 should impress upon [Europe] the necessity of developing a growth agenda and moving toward a European-wide solution to the banking problems in a preemptive way,” Henning says.
The G8 can also lay the groundwork for next month’s G20 summit in Mexico, Henning explains, by developing a consensus for “how the rest of the world will participate in the rescue packages for the euro area.”
This has been a topic amongst globalists for years dating back to Henry Kissinger’s NSSM 200 white paper detailing the supposed overpopulation of the world and how food and supply, especially in third world countries, would continue to be a pressing issue for years to come.
Unfortunately, Kissinger’s report was stunningly accurate, either showing a legitimate projection based on priceless research or, more likely, the globalists are simply adhering to their itinerary for depopulation protocols throughout the world.
Angela Mwaniki writes in a United Nations sanctioned report titled, Achieving Food Security in Africa: Challenges and Issues;
Achieving food security in its totality continues to be a challenge not only for the developing nations, but also for the developed world. The difference lies in the magnitude of the problem in terms of its severity and proportion of the population affected. In developed nations the problem is alleviated by providing targeted food security interventions, including food aid in the form of direct food relief, food stamps, or indirectly through subsidized food production.
These efforts have significantly reduced food insecurity in these regions. Similar approaches are employed in developing countries but with less success. The discrepancy in the results may be due to insufficient resource base, shorter duration of intervention, or different systems most of which are inherently heterogeneous among other factors.
Food security; a situation in which all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active healthy life1; is affected by a complexity of factors.
These include unstable social and political environments that preclude sustainable economic growth, war and civil strive, macroeconomic imbalances in trade, natural resource constraints, poor human resource base, gender inequality, inadequate education, poor health, natural disasters, such as floods and locust infestation, and the absence of good governance. All these factors contribute to either insufficient national food availability or insufficient access to food by households and individuals.
The root cause of food insecurity in developing countries is the inability of people to gain access to food due to poverty. While the rest of the world has made significant progress towards poverty alleviation, Africa, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa, continues to lag behind. Projections show that there will be an increase in this tendency unless preventive measures are taken.
Many factors have contributed to this tendency including the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS; civil war, strive and poor governance; frequent drought and famine; and agricultural dependency on the climate and environment.
Food security on the continent has worsened since 1970 and the proportion of the malnourished population has remained within the 33 to 35 percent range in Sub-Saharan Africa3. The prevalence of malnutrition within the continent varies by region. It is lowest in Northern Africa (4 percent) and highest in Central Africa (40 percent).
This very same rhetoric was available in Kissinger’s NSSM 200. However, Kissinger takes it a step further, getting into hardcore depopulation measures.
While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two- child family on the average), by about the year
2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000 compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050.
Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.
The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential. The strategy must include the following elements and actions:
Concentration on key countries.
Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest.
Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. Together, they account for 47 percent of the world’s current population increase. (It should be recognized that at present AID bilateral assistance to some of these countries may not be acceptable.) Bilateral assistance, to the extent that funds are available, will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth, need for external assistance, long-term U.S. interests and willingness to engage in self help.
Multilateral programs must necessarily have a wider coverage and the bilateral programs of other national donors will be shaped to their particular interests. At the same time, the U.S. will look to the multilateral agencies, especially the U.N. Fund for Population Activities which already has projects in over 80 countries to increase population assistance on a broader basis with increased U.S. contributions.
This is desirable in terms of U.S. interests and necessary in political terms in the United Nations. But progress nevertheless, must be made in the key 13 and our limited resources should give major emphasis to them.
Integration of population factors and population programs into country development planning. As called for the world Population Plan of Action, developing countries and those aiding them should specifically take population factors into account in national planning and include population programs in such plans.
Increased assistance for family planning services, information and technology. This is a vital aspect of any world population program.
1) Family planning information and materials based on present technology should be made fully available as rapidly as possible to the 85 % of the populations in key LDCs not now reached, essentially rural poor who have the highest fertility.
2) Fundamental and evelopmental research should be expanded, aimed at simple, low-cost, effective, safe, long-lasting and acceptable methods of fertility control. Support by all federal agencies for biomedical research in this field should be increased by $60 million annually.
(d) Creating conditions conducive to fertility decline. For its own merits and consistent with the recommendations of the World Population Plan of Action, priority should be given in the general aid program to selective development policies in sectors offering the greatest promise of increased motivation for smaller family size. In many cases pilot programs and experimental research will be needed as guidance for later efforts on a larger scale. The preferential sectors include:
— Providing minimal levels of education, especially for women;
— Reducing infant mortality, including through simple low cost health care networks;
— Expanding wage employment, especially for women;
— Developing alternatives to children as a source of old age security;
— Increasing income of the poorest, especially in rural areas, including providing privately owned farms;
— Education of new generations on the desirability of smaller families.
Kissinger in the report essentially gets down to the meat of the subject calling for full scale global depopulation programs.
NSSM 200 Details:
National Security Study Memorandum
Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT)
December 10, 1974
CLASSIFIED BY Harry C. Blaney, III
SUBJECT TO GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 AUTOMATICALLY DOWN- GRADED AT TWO YEAR INTERVALS AND DECLASSIFIED ON DECEMBER 31, 1980.