First of he states that "our world produces more than enough food to feet its 6 billion people." So far, so good. In spite of this, "tens of millions are at risk of starvation." His solution? Grow more food! Moreover, bio-engineered food. As he put it, "we can greatly reduce the long-term problem of hunger in Africa by applying the latest developments of science," namely "high-yield bio-crops" via "the power of markets." This will "dramatically increase agricultural productivity and feed more people."
It is "our partners in Europe," Bush continued, who are "impeding this effort." Why? They have "blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fears." Ignoring dubious use of the word "scientific," the question is why should this affect food production in Africa? Well, it's simple. This opposition to GM has "caused many African nations to avoid investing in biotechnologies" as they would not be able to sell it in European markets.
Just to recap. According to Bush, even though we have more than enough food to feed the world, we must produce even more to combat hunger in Africa. The root problem is that Europeans are refusing to eat GM food, so stopping African farmers buying seeds from US corporations. To end hunger in Africa, Europeans should eat crops produced but not eaten there. Moreover, they have a duty to eat GM crops even if they do not want to. Which is an interesting take on consumer sovereignty, allegedly the source of the market's "power."
Sadly Bush was a bit vague on why growing and exporting cash crops from famine stricken regions will end hunger in them. Surely it would make more sense for them to grow appropriate crops and consume them at home? And why do we need more food if we already produce more than enough already? Surely it is not a problem of production but rather of distribution? Namely that "the power of markets" distribute food to where "effective demand" lies, not where people need it? And that big landowners make more money from exporting cash crops than producing for the local market?
This means that the root cause of world hunger is not productivity. It is, in fact, a question of social and economic inequality. It is a question of concentrated ownership and power. No technological fix will be sufficient when the root of the problems lies in private property (and the state that protects it). Little wonder Bush preferred to spoke inanities than address the root causes for famine.
Bush's concern for the world's poor is as convincing as his logic. However, he should be congratulated in so succinctly exposing the crazy logic of capitalism, of exposing a system that results in poverty for the many and power for the few. The social problems such a system creates can only be effectively combated once their causes are identified by those effected by them and they organise themselves to end them. This is the anarchist message. Ultimately poverty and hunger will only be eliminated when we own the world in common and use its resources to make life better for all. And this will only happen when we destroy the hierarchical power of both state and private property and run our own lives.