EDITORIAL: One victim of the Russia-Ukraine war is international supply of food grain. A few days ago, President Vladimir Putin called off the deal for safe passage of Ukrainian wheat and fertiliser exports, blockading the country’s ports and also attacking the two alternative routes via rail and the Danube River, though quite uneconomical.
The blockade is to further wreck Kyiv’s economy, adversely impact food security of African nations — major importers of wheat — as well as many other countries. IMF (International Monetary Fund) chief economist has been quoted as saying that global grain prices could increase by as much as 15 percent as a result of the besiegement.
Backers of Ukraine’s war effort, the US and the EU countries, have accused Russia of using food as a weapon of war and worsening a global food crisis. In an ostensibly unrelated move the US has prepared a communiqué to be presented at the UN Security Council’s meeting on “Famine and Food Insecurity caused by Conflict” next Thursday when it will be chaired by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Meanwhile, American officials have been taking great pains to prove that the gesture is not directed at Russia, pointing out that Blinken will also announce some $ 362 million in new US funding to tackle the drivers of food insecurity and enhance resilience in nearly a dozen African countries and Haiti. Said a senior official, “we recognise this as a challenge that’s bigger than one country”, adding that “we also know that our partners, especially in the global south, would rather hear a focus on solution instead of finger pointing.”
In food scarce countries, particularly in the Sub-Saharan Africa, several of them wracked by internal conflict, the number of people undernourished has been increasing at a much faster rate than those free of conflict. Surely, they will be interested to know what the international community can do for them.
According to a snippet of the communiqué appearing in the press, more than 75 countries are to “commit to take action to end the use of food as a weapon of war, and the starvation of civilians as a tactic of warfare.”
As desirable as the goal is, achieving it is quite another matter. The US proposal speaks of “action”, which can be taken to mean imposition of sanctions, a tool frequently employed by the US and its allies in unfavourable situations. But subjecting conflict-ridden nations in Africa or some other under-developed regions will only exacerbate food insecurity and humanitarian crises.
That leaves the option of use of force, indicating the real target of ‘action’ is Russia. As a matter of fact, some Western commentators have already argued for the use of force to break what they term Moscow’s ‘illegal’ blockade of international waters.
The present move may well be a step in that direction. It is wrong, indeed, for President Putin to knock Ukraine’s grain out of the global supply chain. But he is not entirely to blame for it. The blockade is a tit-for-tat answer to Ukraine backers’ refusal to exempt Russian grain — accounting for about 20 percent of global supplies — and fertiliser exports from sanctions.
Instead of further upping the ante, UNSC meeting should pay heed to African Union Chairman Azali Assoumani’s appeal, made at last month’s Russia-Africa Summit, for allowing the export of both Ukrainian and Russian grain.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023