UN officials are usually known for their measured and understated approach, even in the face of major crises and upheavals. Hence we must take with the utmost gravity the warning by Stephen O’Brien, undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, that “we stand at a critical point in history. Already at the beginning of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations.”
A combination of war, political strife and natural disasters has pushed nearly 20 million people across four countries into extreme famine. In Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and northeast Nigeria people are facing the dangers of starving to death, or suffering and succumbing to disease.
It beggars belief that well into the 21st century anyone can starve to death, especially considering that according to data provided by the UN, 1.3 billion tons of food fit for human consumption goes to waste annually. These staggering figures of the availability of food, when the lives of many millions of people are at risk due to starvation, strongly signifies that the underlying cause of this looming humanitarian disaster is political in nature.
The four countries were singled out by O’Brien because the situations there are acute and the correlation with the dire political situations are obvious. But worldwide, according to the World Food Programme (WFP), 795 million people still go to bed on an empty stomach each night. This represents one in every nine people on our planet. Still this does not tell the entire story, as a third of the world’s population suffers from some form of malnutrition.
It was only two years ago that the international community committed itself formally, as part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” There was recognition, at least in principle, that it was time to rethink how we grow, share and consume our food.
On the condition that the right agriculture, forestry and fishery policies are applied, there is the potential not only to feed the world’s population, but to provide a decent livelihood to many millions of farmers.
It is a massive challenge to cope with fast-growing populations and simultaneously protect the environment. Right now, every aspect of the environment — soil, freshwater, forests and biodiversity — is abused daily by human activity. War and political crises exacerbate these conditions to the detriment of millions of people, especially the most vulnerable.
It beggars belief that well into the 21st century anyone can starve to death, especially considering that according to data provided by the UN, 1.3 billion tons of food fit for human consumption goes to waste annually.
It is not only those in uniform who are caught in the fire, literally and figuratively. Mainly innocent people pay the price through displacement and famine. In the four countries highlighted by O’Brien, conflict is leading to hunger, displacement and the destruction of health facilities, which leads to the spread of disease.
Countries that suffer from a low level of political, economic and social development reach the humanitarian tipping point quicker during times of conflict, in the absence of adequate mechanisms to contain rapid deterioration of living conditions.
The consequences for children, who are the most vulnerable, are obvious and horrendous. Millions of them are malnourished, sick, displaced, deprived of education and exposed to merciless exploitation. Children caught in these extreme situations may suffer severe trauma that will affect their long-term personal wellbeing and their contribution to their societies. Any displacement by itself is a cause of major instability.
Women are also exposed under these conditions to horrific experiences. There is mounting evidence by international and human rights organizations of the most appalling acts of sexual violence, which continue to be used as a weapon of war.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the resolution of man-made humanitarian crises. Nevertheless, the most immediate and dangerous threat to the alleviation of suffering is apathy by the international community.
In the long run, only the end of conflict can bring about genuine hope of security and development. Without it, countries such as Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan will remain failed states, characterized by a lack of good governance and transparency, and susceptible to instability, fragmentation and violence. But in the short term, there is a need for a concerted global effort to prevent people from falling victim to starvation and disease.
Only by guaranteeing immediate and unlimited access to food — in accordance with humanitarian law; adequate financial support, estimated at $4.4 billion for this year; and the ending of fighting — can a humanitarian disaster be averted in these three countries. Watching on the sidelines can only result in worsening suffering, which the international community should be held accountable for if it continues to choose this option.
LIKE/SHARE/COMMENT
Comments
Post a Comment