Dear President Bush,

Air Force One will touch down in the Indian capital in the early hours of Wednesday, March 1, on your maiden presidential visit to my country, the new star on the horizon for Washington. I am concerned that your preparation for the occasion might be as half-baked as the intelligence reports on WMD in Iraq or the state of levees in New Orleans, so I am writing to fill you in on some important details.

Your visit follows the state visit of President Chirac, who was in India for three days in February with a delegation of 30 businessmen. The day after you leave, Australian Prime Minister John Howard will grace India, followed by Chinese President Hu Jintao two months later. Presumably, the success of your visit, just like the rest of the parade, will depend on your ability to help induct the Indian government into the elite nuclear club of nations and for you to secure new contracts for your defense manufacturers.

Just a month ago, India was the proud host of DefExpo. All sorts of goodies ranging from anti-aircraft guns, artillery, military vehicles, decoy systems, rocket launcher systems, submarines, tanks, infantry combat vehicles and torpedoes were on display. The hawkers came from all parts of the world: France, Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Israel, Bulgaria, Switzerland, etc. But did you know that it was your 20 major defense companies, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and, of course, the U.S. Army, who outshone the others, promoting everything from fighter jets to over-the-horizon radars?

India's desire for military hardware and software has made it the third-largest spender on defense in the world, next only to the United States and China. It was the largest arms importer in 2004 and now is in the market for 126 new multi-role combat aircraft, which could be a lucrative $6.5 billion contract. Recent announcements from the Indian government indicate that additional perks might come for your defense corporations. The new budget presented in the Indian Parliament on February 28, 2006, has allocated a substantial amount -- Rs. 89,000 crores ($20 billion) -- to defense.

The 2006 budget is graced with the words of Swami Vivekanand, "We reap what we sow. We are the makers of our own fate. The wind is blowing; those vessels whose sails are unfurled catch it, and go forward on their way, but those which have their sails furled do not catch the wind. Is that the fault of the wind? … We make our own destiny."

But India's destiny, determined by the "karma" of the Indian government is described on the World Food Program's country page: "Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India … Around 35 percent of India's population -- 350 million -- are considered food-insecure … Nearly nine out of 10 pregnant women aged between 15 and 49 years suffer from malnutrition and anemia … More than half of the children under five are moderately or severely malnourished, or suffer from stunting."

Yes, an estimated 330 to 350 million people in India survive on less than $1 a day, joining the ranks of starving millions in the country who face the prospect of "starvation deaths" each year.

India's destiny is that it is a nation plagued by child labor. An estimated 60 to 115 million children are classified as working children -- the highest number in the world. Deprived of their childhoods, most have never seen the inside of a school. However, if confronted by those overzealous NGO types such as Human Rights Watch, you can always counter with the argument that no current figures are available for the number of children engaged in child labor, since the Indian government does not collect such data. And yes, it is for similar reasons that the efficient Indian government, proud of its human resources that are running Silicon Valley from the United States to Bangalore, does not bother to keep data on the numbers of people displaced by large dams either.

You are right about the possibility of India being a strategic coalition partner in the war on terror. You have much in common. You have come under a lot of flak for the war in Iraq. According to the U.S. group, National Priorities Budget, the $240 billion bill for Iraq could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 10 years; a worldwide AIDS programs for 24 years; or ensured basic immunizations for every child in the world for 80 years. Had that money been spent elsewhere, the lives of 2,291 American soldiers and countless Iraqis who have died in Iraq, might have been saved.

I don't expect that anyone has informed you of these realities. Quite the opposite: the Sunday edition of the New York Times exclaims, "In the India that President Bush will visit this week, an extravagant ethos of bling has arrived. Gone is a half-century legacy of independent India -- stubbornly socialist, avowedly nonaligned, deeply anti-American."

Such media coverage, devoted to modern-day Indian "nouveaux nawabs" -- some 70,000 people who earn about $232,000 a year -- has obfuscated the reality in a country of a billion people.

Mr. President, the obvious has been stated. It might be good to revisit your agenda. The poor, the marginalized and the hungry, along with civil society groups will line the streets of Delhi and Hyderabad, where your motorcade passes, to protest the visit of "W," a symbol of war. Indians want peace. Indians want bread, not bombs.

Today the United States faces a hidden epidemic. It is striking Americans of every age group and ethnicity, whether they live in cities or rural areas. And despite the diversity of targets, those suffering in this silent epidemic have two things in common: they are poor or low-income, and they are increasingly going without enough food.

Although politicians talk about "poverty in America," decision-makers avoid specifically mentioning the growing, and often deadly problem of hunger. George McGovern said in 1972, "To admit the existence of hunger in America is to confess that we have failed in meeting the most sensitive and painful of human needs. To admit the existence of widespread hunger is to cast doubt on the efficacy of our whole system."

Three decades later, evidence indicates that the existing system is failing a vast number of Americans.

A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger – from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010 – are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least four in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50 percent of the population.

Meanwhile, the already burdened food safety-net program, which was designed to alleviate hunger and food insecurity, is under attack by the threat of reduction of funding and ease of enrollment by policy makers. With food expenses being the most elastic part of a family's budget, as limited funds usually get allocated to fixed payments first, such as rent and utilities, food purchasing has become the most compromised portion of the average family's budget. So far in 2004, 35 percent of Americans have had to choose between food and rent, while 28 percent had to choose between medical care and food. Others, forced to stretch their budgets ever further, are buying less expensive but often less nutritious food.

The problem is worse in low-income neighborhoods and inner-city areas that face food red-lining. The majority of low income/minority neighborhoods do not have enough supermarkets to serve the entire community effectively. Therefore, these communities generally meet their food needs at smaller, more expensive corner stores – especially at liquor/convenience marts that tend to provide less nutritious foods and little if any fresh produce.

While three companies control 57 percent of the huge food retail market in California, the community of West Oakland, with 32,000 residents and a 60 percent unemployment rate has only one supermarket – and 40 liquor and convenience stores. The price of food in these small stores is almost 30 to 100 percent higher than the price in the grocery store.

The most vulnerable – children, immigrants and rural families – are hit hardest by this epidemic. Despite evidence that hunger causes chronic disease development and impaired psychological and cognitive functioning in children, an estimated 13 million children are living in households that are forced to skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints.

The worst off are the children of 6 million of America's undocumented immigrants: they go without necessities such as milk and meat on a daily basis.

Tulare County in California, the number-two county in the nation for agricultural production, is one of the hungriest and poorest areas of California. Many of the county's towns (Alpaugh, Earlimart, Plainview, Woodville, etc.) host mainly Hispanic farm-laborer families who came to America hoping for a better life, only to find that their jobs – putting put cheap produce on America's and the world's tables – have left them starving amidst the bounty. These families suffer from the appalling economic and social injustices. They live in lean-tos made of plastic or cardboard, dilapidated trailers, wood shacks, caves and even parking lots, and yet are surrounded by vineyards and fruit tree orchards.

This kind of hunger rarely makes the evening news. Millions starve while Bush signs a $400 billion spending bill in August 2004 that will largely go to military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration has already spent $150 billion on the war in Iraq – three times the original estimate. The United States already accounts for nearly half of the world's military spending. This means that the U.S. spends on defense nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.

It is going to be a grim holiday season for millions this year. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed 56 years ago this week, committed our government to provide a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of every person. This included commitments to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age. A widely supported statement at the time, the promises of the declaration seem outrageous to many in today's age of "personal responsibility."

It might be useful to ask: What's more outrageous? A broad and sturdy safety net and living wage jobs for all members of our society? Or one out of four children going hungry and poor in the richest country on earth?

My city of Oakland, California was in the news recently -- not just in every Bay Area newspaper, but around the country. Pictures of young peaceful Americans fired at by the Oakland's finest with wooden dowels, bean bags, concussion grenades and "sting grenades" (rubber pellets accompanied by tear gas) highlight America's hypocritical attempt at being a democracy, a champion of human rights and a nation of civil liberties. But dissent is growing -- reaching new barometric levels as national leaders abdicate their responsibility as elected officials and turn into warmongers.

The morning of Monday, April 7, about 400-500 anti-war protestors took their place in front of the American President Lines terminal at the Oakland port while a smaller contingent of other picketers marched in front of the entrance to Stevedoring Services of America, chanting, "APL and SSA how many kids have you killed today?"

Both companies are contracted to ship war cargo. As demonstrators marched slowly, police formed a line and moved forward, warning the protestors to move. Before most had time to move, they were fired at indiscriminately. A protestor, as he tried to get out of the way, was hit as many as nine times, including once in the nose.

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's depressing response? "Police acted appropriately in dealing with protestors who wanted to occupy and take over the port and shut it down. The city was not going to let it happen." The mayor said nothing about the excessive use of force or police violence.

At the same time, at the Concord Naval Weapons station, a dozen activists were arrested after they crossed yellow police tape and knelt peacefully in front of a line of police officers. In San Francisco, the California Highway Patrol arrested protestors who stopped morning commute traffic and were distributing juice and pastries to motorists, along with flyers apologizing for the inconvenience. They were charged with conspiring to block traffic, while others were cited for trespassing when they tried to meet with Sen. Diane Feinstein. In the United States of America it is an offense to try to meet your elected officials when they fail to represent you.

Not withstanding what democracy looks like in the U.S. today, tens of thousands of American citizens have turned in petitions calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft for committing war crimes and failing to uphold the American Constitution. These actions form the basis of a new American Revolution against a new King George -- a struggle to take back the nation from war profiteers and the "oiligarchy" in Washington DC. These patriotic freedom fighters work alongside their global compatriots, united in their goal for social justice and peace for all.

Newspapers in the United States did not report that while antiwar demonstrators were being fired at in Oakland, another action was taking place in the Sydney harbor in Australia. Makes me wonder if the global media will have the courage to share the stories of activists who fought the war on Iraq and the war on the poor around the world. An African proverb says, "Until the lions can tell their stories, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter." Who will tell our stories?

On Tuesday, April 8, three weeks to the day after protestors scaled the Sydney Opera House to paint, "No War" on its sails, Australia experienced a second citizen action. After being waved off by Prime Minister Howard, HMAS Sydney pulled out of the port headed toward Iraq -- its belly crawling with its 230-strong crew and enough weaponry to repel air, surface, and submarine attacks -- Greenpeace activists in inflatables and jet boats sped out of the adjacent coves. Pulling close to the bow of the 138m-long Sydney, peace activists hoisted themselves up to attach a "No War" banner that remained on its bow for an hour. Then Greenpeace radioed HMAS Sydney to advise the crew that two divers were directly in the frigate's path. One was ex-Army, and other ex-Australian Defense Force personnel!

The Australian Prime Minister urged the media to show support for the troops by downplaying and condemning the Greenpeace action. The San Francisco Chronicle released a field poll on April 8 under the headline, "63% in the Bay Area Support War to Remove Dictator." It was based on a poll of 1,006 California residents to which 204 responded. The elected officials need the media machinery to support their immoral and unjust war.

It will take more than media spin and official lies to curb the global movement for peace. This movement will keep growing until there is an end to the unilateral use of force by the United States. This movement will not rest until Bush, Blair and Howard are tried for crimes against humanity. It will not slow down until the United States becomes a true member of the global community and abides by all human rights conventions, disarmament agreements, International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol.

In the meantime, thank you Greenpeace, Act Against War, Answer, Code Pink and the hundreds of thousands of groups and individuals around the world who continue to show us the true face of democracy. We need to tell their stories. Yes, dissent is growing.

Anuradha Mittal is co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.

As the nation mourns the loss of innocent lives on September 11, one of the first catch-phrases to take hold was "this changes everything." It has not, however, changed Bush's economic agenda.

Its not surprising that this hideous event is dominating the national conversation, clouding coverage on Bush's tax cut, how to use the federal budget surplus, the growing trade deficit, patient's bill of rights, and other vital social and economic issues -- to the distinct advantage of free trade promoters.

While the nation's attention is fixed on this tragedy, the Bush Administration is seeking to persuade Congress to grant the President fast track authority, newly named Trade Promotion Authority, to negotiate trade agreements in an effort to help fight global terrorism. US Trade Representative, Robert Zoelick has claimed that Trade Promotion Authority would serve as a major signal that the United States does not plan to retreat from its global responsibilities, including defense of free trade against terrorist threats. In a speech promoting free trade, he said, "On Sept. 11, America, its open society and its ideas came under attack by a malevolence that craves our panic, retreat and abdication of global leadership ... America's trade leadership can build a coalition of countries that cherish liberty in all its aspects."

The tragedy has not only deeply affected the American psyche and our social fabric, it has become a catalyst that has quickened the downturn in our economy, which was rapidly weakening even before the disaster. Job losses have grown in significant numbers with the job toll in the airline industry alone crossing the 100,000 threshold. Workers laid off now will face hard times in the local job market, already turbulent with layoffs in the telecommunications and high-tech sectors. Meanwhile the workers laid off since NAFTA make less than 70 percent of their former wages, if able to find jobs.

The trade agreements have been an unqualified success for the financiers who seek to make profits through cheap labor and production costs. Most Americans work for a living and don't live off their investments. NAFTA alone eliminated 766,000 jobs between 1994 and 2000 in the manufacturing sector. The growth in the U.S. trade deficit, a result of trade liberalization, has eliminated 3.2 million jobs between 1992 and 1999. Absence of restraint on capital movement has meant employers threatening to move overseas to undercut workers' bargaining power.

Attacks on September 11 should not be used as a golden opportunity for the Bush Administration to pump and justify unbridled corporate greed in the name of countering terror with trade. The administration needs to work to create jobs, provide unemployment compensation, work towards building an economy that sustains all. We need to focus on the people and industries now in crisis and not exploit a national tragedy to further a divisive corporate agenda. We need as a nation, to imagine responses to terrorism that might actually promote peace and justice around the world, instead of generating more destruction.

Anuradha Mittal is the Co-Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy (www.foodfirst.org).