The Foreign Service Journal, October 2015

42 OCTOBER 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL It is not in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to foster urban migration, driving people off the land into teeming cities with no jobs, but plenty of drugs, crime and HIV/AIDS. the same families, and the land is incredibly rich and verdant as a result of their sustainable, often organic, and responsible practices. Contrast this with farms across the South and Midwest that are mono-cropped year after year with soybeans, corn and cotton, using GMO and hybrid seeds, herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers that kill much of the life in the soil and pollute the groundwater and nearby bodies of water. The topsoil is steadily depleted, year after year after year. Most of this corn and soybean crop is grown to support large-scale meat produc- tion that abuses animals and pollutes the surrounding air, water and soil with toxic manure runoff that could be avoided if the animals were dispersed through free ranging and grass feeding. Such natural ways of producing meat animals are still the norm in most of the world. The last thing the United States should be doing is encour- aging other countries to make the same mistakes we did by exporting practices that serve only to enrich a few large corpo- rations at the expense of countless small farmers and devastate the agricultural heartland of a country. Any member of the For- eign Service who has lived in Africa and eaten locally produced meat and eggs can probably tell you that they taste much better than typical U.S. supermarket fare, thanks to traditional grazing practices and natural animal foods. The Economics of Appropriate Technology If our foreign policy objective is truly to make sure the world is fed, we should promote an agenda that will keep farmers on the land and keep the land in the hands of responsible stewards who will improve it with each passing year. We should In 2013, while driving through South Sudan, we came upon a small shop that had a beautiful, 70-horsepower New Holland tractor sitting beside it. The tractor was obviously new, the tires had no scratches or other marks on them, but it was covered in cobwebs. It had probably never been used. The man at the shop said it had been sitting there for about a year after a government official dropped it off. This tractor, like many other tractors dotting the South Sudanese countryside, was a gift of some country’s foreign aid program (thankfully, it was not a U.S. donation). Priced at roughly $35,000 new, the final cost was probably closer to $70,000 after accounting for shipping and delivery. At best, that tractor may help one farmer—until it breaks down because of poor operator skills, lack of spare parts or fuel, and lack of maintenance. Had that same $70,000 been invested in draft power—much more appropriate technology for South Sudan’s farmers—at least 30 farmers could have been set up with the full complement of tools to cultivate their land with oxen, thereby doubling or even tripling their agricultural output. Furthermore, most or all of those implements could be manufactured in South Sudan. That would, in turn, support small businesses and shops across the country, developing a light industry that would provide urban jobs and service technicians with work for years to come. This process would strengthen rural communities and lift many rural residents out of poverty. —M.M. The New Holland Tractor: A Cautionary Tale