US President Joe Biden’s administration is rewriting its national security strategy, which the White House is required to send to the US Congress annually, to account for the lessons of the war in Ukraine. One issue that this document will have to grapple with outside its traditional focus on statecraft and diplomacy is food.
The conflict in Ukraine has put the geopolitics of food in the headlines, because Russian President Vladimir Putin has used hunger as a weapon against Kyiv and much of the world. Putin is giving an object lesson in how geopolitical insecurity can cause food insecurity — which can then make a whole raft of problems worse across the globe.
A report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization makes for grim reading. The number of undernourished people in the world rose by about 150 million between 2019 and last year, due principally to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Illustration: Yusha
In 2020, moderate or severe food insecurity increased by roughly as much as in the previous five years combined. Almost 3.1 billion people were unable to afford a healthy diet and by some estimates, the number of people on the verge of starvation has multiplied tenfold since 2019.
“This year’s report should dispel any lingering doubts that the world is moving backwards” in the fight against hunger, the report concluded.
Now the war in Ukraine has compounded the problem.
A Russian blockade has trapped Ukrainian grain that typically feeds millions of people around the world, hitting developing regions such as the Middle East and Africa particularly hard. Western sanctions have made it harder for global customers to buy Russian fertilizer. Higher costs for energy and shipping are also pushing up food prices.
The UN’s World Food Programme estimates that this year an additional 47 million people could fall into acute food insecurity — meaning that they cannot get enough food to live a healthy, productive life. In Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and other countries, deaths due to hunger are rising as scarce aid dollars are redirected to Ukraine. Do not count on the pain passing quickly: It could become more severe if a long conflict disrupts progressive Ukrainian harvests.
Famine, the economist Amartya Sen argued, is a product of political pathologies. Make no mistake: Putin is using hunger to serve his political ends.
Russia aims to isolate Ukraine from its international supporters by generating waves of global turmoil that will eventually make Kyiv’s backers tire of the fight. Russian diplomats might be pretending to participate constructively in negotiations to reopen Black Sea commerce, yet Putin has no interest in seeing those talks succeed as that would deprive him of one of his most potent forms of leverage.
Do not underestimate the global fallout. Intense hunger in the Middle East and North Africa could generate refugee flows that could further upset Europe’s politics and exacerbate its internal divisions. Food shortages can cause a rush into overburdened cities, create misery for extremist groups to exploit, as well as precipitate violence and instability.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for example, has blamed Russian policy for exacerbating the food shortages that this month caused the fall of Sri Lanka’s government.
Putin’s strategy could eventually succeed, causing Kyiv’s less committed supporters to call for Ukrainian concessions. It could also fail catastrophically, provoking Washington and other Western countries to break Putin’s Black Sea blockade by force. Or it could simply produce more political and strategic turbulence in a world that was hardly steady before.
It certainly would not be the first time food and geopolitics have interacted in explosive ways. The Russian revolution of 1917 occurred when World War I had overburdened an inadequate railway system and made it impossible to feed an angry population. That revolution, in turn, knocked Russia out of the war. It also unleashed an ideology, communism, that helped make the 20th century history’s bloodiest.
A decade into the next century, the Arab Spring occurred in part due to rising food prices that set off mass unrest. The military and political upheaval in the Middle East has yet to fully subside, with civil wars in Syria and Libya among other effects. Food insecurity and international insecurity go together. Or, as Johns Hopkins University professor Jessica Fanzo has written: “No food security, no world order.”
There are things that governments and international bodies can to do alleviate the problem: increasing agricultural yields, prioritizing production of foods that are essential to a healthy diet, strengthening emergency support for the poor and directing greater international aid to affected populations.
The US is trying to increase Ukrainian grain exports by using land and river routes to ship it through neighboring countries and then abroad. Yet this might only free a fraction of the Ukrainian grain being held hostage.
The root of the problem in Ukraine is not technocratic, but geopolitical: A ruthless tyrant is squeezing the world’s food supplies in hopes of isolating and then conquering his neighbor.
The US and other leading democracies have not figured out how to solve that problem — which might be a preview of the way that food and conflict will increasingly interact in a fragmenting world.
Hal Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. The Henry Kissinger distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, he is coauthor of Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China and a member of the US Department of State’s foreign affairs policy board. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath