Generosity only in good times?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20081017_Annan__Nations_not_paying_hunger_aid.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/219724/122417271741.htm

World Food Day was last week, and with the rising costs of basic staples and fuel, the number of malnourished humans on the planet has almost reached a billion. 10,000 children will die of hunger today. The global financial crisis will only make matters worse. Reduced economic activity from recession pushes down sales and prices for exports like coffee that poor nations rely on to survive. Regardless of what losses we took to our 401(k)'s and home values, the poor in the Third World (and their struggling governments) will be hurt much more. Those making less than $1/day are much more vulnerable to the global fallout from an economic downturn, so we should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and recognize the other innocent victims of our greed. We might have to cut back on our summer vacations; they might have to cut back half their caloric intake. When compared to that reality, even people in danger of foreclosure can't really complain.

It's easy to give when our cups are overfilled, and yet America was stingier than Japan or most of the EU per capita during the economic booms of the 1990's and mid-2000's. But now, when the Third World will unjustly suffer from the mistakes of the industrialized world, is when we really need to step up and show our humanity. Is it more important to keep bank deposits insured, to cut economic stimulus checks, or to keep children alive? So far the industrialized world has injected over $3T in loans and other aid into their banking systems, but renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs estimates that we could virtually wipe out hunger with an investment of just $3B a year (1/1,000 of what was given to banks). Over half a billion more people (mostly in Africa) would be able to live to see 2009 and maybe improve their situations. All they need is literally some high-yield seeds, fertilizer, agriculture education/equipment, and maybe some medicine. No more than what the Amish have; it's really that simple. Loosening some protectionist trade policies would help a lot too, though as our wallets are squeezed, I suspect that the opposite will happen.

G8 nations already have a reputation for promising way more than they actually deliver in terms of poverty aid, including the Tony Blair-promoted UN Millennium Project ($50B for Africa by 2010). Recently, big names like Kofi Annnan and Sachs came out with scathing criticisms of rich states. In response to the price hikes and food riots in June (gotta love ethanol), the G8 et al. pledged an additional $12B to stabilize world food markets/supplies, but so far have only ponied up 0.4% of that ($50M from AUS). Unfortunately, sometimes the money that rich nations "pledge" is money that they already promised in the past (but haven't yet delivered on), or pre-existing aid money that they just re-allocated for this purpose. That's like your boss giving you a raise, but the money comes from next month's salary (or your friend's salary).