dw.com
Weaponizing Famine: Growing Calls for War Crime Prosecution
International calls to prosecute starvation as a war crime are intensifying, citing conflicts in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine, as evidence of a deliberate strategy to weaponize famine, despite legal frameworks existing for accountability.
- What are the most significant recent examples of starvation being used as a weapon of war, and what are their immediate consequences?
- The deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war is increasingly recognized as a crime, with calls for prosecution rising due to documented cases in conflicts such as those in Sudan and Gaza. Specific incidents, like the year-long siege of El Fasher, Sudan, resulting in food shortages, are being cited as evidence of this war crime.
- How has the international legal framework evolved to address starvation as a war crime, and what are the obstacles to prosecuting such cases?
- The rising awareness of using starvation as a weapon is linked to a surge in conflict-induced famine since 2015, documented in nations including Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Experts argue that attacks on Ukrainian agriculture also fall under this category.
- What are the long-term implications of increased efforts to prosecute starvation as a war crime, and what challenges remain in achieving justice for victims?
- Future implications include a potential shift in how international law addresses famine in conflict. The issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials for using starvation as a weapon of war marks a significant step, signaling a move towards holding perpetrators accountable. However, jurisdictional challenges remain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a growing recognition of starvation as a war crime, highlighting the increasing calls for accountability and legal action. This framing emphasizes the moral and legal aspects, potentially downplaying other contributing factors to famine, such as poverty, climate change, or inefficient aid distribution. The use of strong quotes from human rights groups and UN officials strengthens this framing.
Language Bias
While the article strives for objectivity, certain word choices subtly influence the reader's perception. For example, describing the situation in Gaza as "Israel is starving Gaza" is emotionally charged. More neutral phrasing would be "Israel's blockade of Gaza has resulted in widespread food shortages". Similar examples can be found throughout the article. The frequent use of terms like "crime," "genocide," and "war crime" contribute to a more accusatory tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the legal aspects and international efforts to classify starvation as a war crime, but it could benefit from including perspectives from those who might argue against this classification or offer alternative explanations for famine in conflict zones. It also doesn't delve into the complexities of food distribution and infrastructure challenges that exacerbate famine, even in situations where there's no deliberate intent to starve civilians.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but it might benefit from acknowledging the spectrum of intent in cases of famine during conflict. The narrative mostly focuses on deliberate starvation as a war crime, but there's a range between intentional actions and negligence or unintended consequences.
Gender Bias
The article features several experts, and while the gender distribution isn't explicitly skewed, the focus is predominantly on the legal and political aspects, minimizing space for perspectives that might incorporate broader societal factors that disproportionately impact women and girls.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the increasing use of starvation as a weapon of war, directly violating the right to food and hindering progress towards Zero Hunger. The deliberate denial of food and essential supplies to civilians in conflicts such as those in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine is explicitly cited as a violation of international law and a war crime. This deliberate action exacerbates existing hunger crises and undermines efforts to achieve SDG 2 targets.