elpais.com
Weaponization of Hunger: UN Resolution 2417's Failure in Sudan and Gaza
Despite the 2018 UN resolution criminalizing starvation as a weapon of war, conflicts in Sudan and Gaza demonstrate its continued use, causing widespread hunger and malnutrition; 25 million in Sudan and 1.94 million in Gaza face acute food insecurity due to deliberate aid obstruction, with devastating consequences for children and vulnerable groups.
- How do geopolitical interests and conflicting priorities hinder the effective implementation of Resolution 2417 and what role do veto powers play?
- Conflicts destroy food security by forcing displacement, disrupting agriculture, damaging infrastructure (hospitals, markets, transportation), and blocking humanitarian aid. This leads to widespread hunger and malnutrition, exacerbated by the deliberate obstruction of aid delivery, as seen in Sudan and Gaza. The impact is particularly severe on children and vulnerable populations.
- What are the immediate consequences of the continued weaponization of hunger in conflict zones, specifically highlighting the impact on vulnerable populations?
- The UN Security Council Resolution 2417, adopted in 2018, criminalizes the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Despite this, hunger is still deliberately weaponized in numerous conflict zones, resulting in devastating consequences and a largely silent international community. Two cases have reached the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, representing a significant step but insufficient progress.
- What long-term systemic changes are needed to prevent the use of starvation as a weapon of war, considering the challenges posed by political will, international cooperation, and enforcement mechanisms?
- The ineffectiveness of Resolution 2417 stems from a lack of political will and consistent enforcement, along with insufficient international pressure and impunity for perpetrators. Addressing this requires stronger international action, including sanctions and holding individuals accountable, as well as increased public awareness to pressure governments for change. The ongoing crises in Sudan and Gaza highlight the urgent need for immediate intervention to prevent widespread famine.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing strongly emphasizes the devastating humanitarian consequences of using hunger as a weapon, focusing on the suffering of civilians in Sudan and Gaza. This emotional appeal is effective in highlighting the urgency of the situation but might overshadow the political and strategic aspects of the issue, potentially simplifying the problem and limiting the scope of possible solutions. The headline (if any) would further solidify this framing. The repeated emphasis on the number of children suffering from malnutrition serves to heighten the emotional impact.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and factual, relying heavily on statistics and reports from organizations like the CIF. However, phrases such as "devastating consequences," "systematically blocked," and "crisis without precedent" carry emotional weight and could be considered slightly loaded. While effective in conveying the severity of the situation, they subtly shift the tone away from purely objective reporting.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the consequences of using hunger as a weapon of war, particularly in Sudan and Gaza. While it mentions the UN Resolution 2417 and its mechanisms, it doesn't delve into the specifics of how these mechanisms have failed or the political intricacies behind their ineffectiveness. It also doesn't explore alternative solutions beyond increased international pressure and the application of Resolution 2417. The lack of detailed analysis of the political landscape and the specific actors involved limits a comprehensive understanding of the root causes and potential solutions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between those using hunger as a weapon of war and the international community's response. It simplifies a complex issue by overlooking the nuances of geopolitical interests and the internal conflicts within the international community itself. The suggestion of a simple solution (applying Resolution 2417) neglects the complex power dynamics and veto powers that hinder its effective implementation.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't exhibit overt gender bias. While it mentions the impact on women and children, it does so in the context of general vulnerability, rather than focusing on gender-specific vulnerabilities or perpetuating harmful stereotypes. However, greater attention to gender-disaggregated data on the impact of food insecurity would strengthen the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article details how conflicts weaponize hunger, obstructing humanitarian aid and destroying food production infrastructure. This directly contradicts SDG 2, aiming to end hunger and malnutrition. Specific examples in Sudan and Gaza illustrate the devastating impact of conflict on food security and access to aid, leading to mass hunger and malnutrition.