Conflict arising from the issue of food scarcity and food availability is an all too common occurrence in the present day world. Oppressive rule or unjust leaders often use the varying tactics of destroying markets, obliterating food stocks, and mining water (or other natural resources in an effort to force people from a certain area. This is most often the case when food resources are directed to military personnel or army troops as opposed to civilians who are in need of it. For example, the conflict occurring in Sudan in the year 1990 involved the government distributing food (in this case grain reserves) solely to their military and armed forces. The poor and disaffected weren't acknowledged whatsoever and an emergency relief notice wasn't notified either. Seeing as this conflict was more recent, there were also numerous skirmishes and battles occurring over food during the 1860's in the United States. For example, as settlers were moving into the great plains and southwestern areas of the United States, they ran into numerous Native American tribes. These particularly included the Apaches, Navajo, and some Comanche. The biggest problem was the extermination of the Buffalo on the Great Plains by officers and white settlers. According to smithsonianmag.com, "about 200,000 buffalo were killed annually". One scientific study said that there were fewer than 100 buffalo by the year 1886. This loss of food for the Indians (and other factors) eventually led to the many Indian wars in the West. In the next few paragraphs, modern day conflict experienced as a result of food availability will be discussed in detail.
The conflict formed as a result of food insecurity is classified as a "food war". A food war is defined as conflict where food is used as a weapon, or where famine is caused by dispute. While "food wars" may seem to have a marginal effect overall, this is unfortunately not the case. According to refugee and food relief organizations, as many as 50 million refugees sought food and other assistance mostly due to wars (as of 1995). This issue is still going on in multiple countries such as Angola, Iraq, Turkey, and Ghana. The interesting thing is that food shortages aren't always stimulated by greed and carelessness by a powerful group. For example, in the case of Southeastern Africa, Mozambique suffered from a drought between 1991-1993. While man to man conflict wasn't the dominant issue going alongside the drought, people in the country still suffered; as many as 17-20 million people were facing starvation at the time of the drought. This wasn't the fault of an extremist militant group, but rather a fault of mother nature.
These food wars don't have short term effects either. Countries face such detrimental effects as the diminished ability to produce food, and thousands upon thousands of refugees fleeing from the conflict as well. Don't just take my word for this. According to data from worldhunger.org, as many as 2,416,000 refugees fleeing from five countries in Africa, are leaving due to post-civil war conflict. Most of the conflict arising from food shortage in Africa-both in the past and presently- is due to complete control of it by war parties or strict groups (as said above). Here are a few examples of conflict that stand out: The Mengistu government in Ethiopia using food as a way to starve civilians and move them to wear they please, and the conflict in Southern Sudan, which was called the "worst food crisis" in the world by the U.N. Security council (according to bbc.com).
My opinion on the food crisis' going on in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia is that the United States is simply not doing enough. Granted, every year the nation gives 550 billion dollars to poverty, but the problem is really where the money is going. According to an article published in 2013 by the Washington Post, only a third of donations go to poverty related causes. What's worse is that less than 5 percent of donations go to the poor; the rest goes to non-poor causes. So, this begins to explain how the 550 billion dollars that the United States donates is not enough. In terms of the mass killings of buffalo in the 1860's compared to the conflict now, the two situations aren't very far off. The native populations were decimated and the white settlers won out. If you were to apply this to a continent like Africa where the the extremist groups could win out, just imagine the chaos that would arise. I see the whole situation as a ticking time bomb. The people can only hold out for so long before the whole country falls apart. Refugees fleeing from conflict should receive more aid as well. There should be more organizations that are specifically designed to provide refugees with food and shelter. This isn't just because I think so, but because of the amount of refugees coming in. The amount will only increase in the future, so why not prepare for it now? Airdropping food on countries in Africa is also a good measure being taken, and should be used more. For example, look at the Berlin Airlift executed during the Cold War. It resulted in Joseph Stalin halting his control over Western Berlin. Of course, things aren't just slice and dice easy, but this is another way conflict abroad can be improved.
The conflict formed as a result of food insecurity is classified as a "food war". A food war is defined as conflict where food is used as a weapon, or where famine is caused by dispute. While "food wars" may seem to have a marginal effect overall, this is unfortunately not the case. According to refugee and food relief organizations, as many as 50 million refugees sought food and other assistance mostly due to wars (as of 1995). This issue is still going on in multiple countries such as Angola, Iraq, Turkey, and Ghana. The interesting thing is that food shortages aren't always stimulated by greed and carelessness by a powerful group. For example, in the case of Southeastern Africa, Mozambique suffered from a drought between 1991-1993. While man to man conflict wasn't the dominant issue going alongside the drought, people in the country still suffered; as many as 17-20 million people were facing starvation at the time of the drought. This wasn't the fault of an extremist militant group, but rather a fault of mother nature.
These food wars don't have short term effects either. Countries face such detrimental effects as the diminished ability to produce food, and thousands upon thousands of refugees fleeing from the conflict as well. Don't just take my word for this. According to data from worldhunger.org, as many as 2,416,000 refugees fleeing from five countries in Africa, are leaving due to post-civil war conflict. Most of the conflict arising from food shortage in Africa-both in the past and presently- is due to complete control of it by war parties or strict groups (as said above). Here are a few examples of conflict that stand out: The Mengistu government in Ethiopia using food as a way to starve civilians and move them to wear they please, and the conflict in Southern Sudan, which was called the "worst food crisis" in the world by the U.N. Security council (according to bbc.com).
My opinion on the food crisis' going on in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia is that the United States is simply not doing enough. Granted, every year the nation gives 550 billion dollars to poverty, but the problem is really where the money is going. According to an article published in 2013 by the Washington Post, only a third of donations go to poverty related causes. What's worse is that less than 5 percent of donations go to the poor; the rest goes to non-poor causes. So, this begins to explain how the 550 billion dollars that the United States donates is not enough. In terms of the mass killings of buffalo in the 1860's compared to the conflict now, the two situations aren't very far off. The native populations were decimated and the white settlers won out. If you were to apply this to a continent like Africa where the the extremist groups could win out, just imagine the chaos that would arise. I see the whole situation as a ticking time bomb. The people can only hold out for so long before the whole country falls apart. Refugees fleeing from conflict should receive more aid as well. There should be more organizations that are specifically designed to provide refugees with food and shelter. This isn't just because I think so, but because of the amount of refugees coming in. The amount will only increase in the future, so why not prepare for it now? Airdropping food on countries in Africa is also a good measure being taken, and should be used more. For example, look at the Berlin Airlift executed during the Cold War. It resulted in Joseph Stalin halting his control over Western Berlin. Of course, things aren't just slice and dice easy, but this is another way conflict abroad can be improved.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/13/if-the-us-spends-550-billion-on-poverty-how-can-there-still-be-poverty-in-the-us/#4d58ffa0fdf6
http://www.davemcgary.com/southwest-native-american-tribes.htm
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we0j.htm
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-the-buffalo-no-longer-roamed-3067904/
https://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/oldzephyr/archives/buffalo.html
http://www.worldhunger.org/armed-conflict-hunger-how-conflict-causes-hunger/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/30/only-a-third-of-charitable-contributions-go-the-poor/?utm_term=.9cfc9d3d442a