In the film Sophie’s Choice, based on William Styron’s novel of the same name, Sophie has to decide, which of her children she will save. The period is the second world war, and the Nazi Officer tells to her to choose, which of her children she will send to their death.
This theme has been repeated multiple times in films. The soul destroying choice, especially in times of war, where a person has to choose who lives and who dies. Most recently, i saw it in the series Arrow, where the central protagonist has to choose between two women, one would live, the other would die.
The scene from Sophie’s choice popped into my mind today, when I was reading this piece about how the UN is faced with the same dilemma – centred around food security.
“Basically, when we haven’t got enough money, we have to decide who’s not going to get food,” says Peter Smerdon, a spokesman for the U.N.’s World Food Programme in East Africa.
The World Food Programme’s mandate is to ensure that
Assisting 80 million people in around 80 countries each year, the World Food Programme (WFP) is the leading humanitarian organization fighting hunger worldwide, delivering food assistance in emergencies and working with communities to improve nutrition and build resilience.
There is refugee crisis – with hundreds of thousands of people pouring out of war torn regions in West Asia (west of us), and Africa – pouring into poor, not particularly stable countries around them. Refugees have to be housed, clothed and fed. And, this is taking a tremendous toll on states that are housing refugees. The UN too is facing a major crunch. The UN has almost a 25% shortfall on the amount it needs to feed everyone.
It received a total of $6.8 billion from countries, organizations and private donors when it needed $9.1 billion to do its job.
And, they are put in a position to choose- who gets fed, who doesn’t.
For 420,000 refugees living in northern Kenya, insufficient funding has forced the United Nations food relief agency to cut rations by 30 per cent, as it appeals for nearly $30 million for assistance.
When there is conflict, people leave their homes, farms are abandoned. Settlements are abandoned. This results in less food being produced. less income all around. And, more mouths to feed, for which the rest of the world has to help out. The simple solution is to end conflict. But, given that the history of humankind has been primarily driven by conflict, it seems unlikely that there will be 100% peace – at least in our lifetimes.
When you have a natural disaster – an earthquake, floods, etal – relief somehow comes together, including food. Primarily because, most donors know that there is a window in which ‘normalcy’ will be restored. When you have ongoing conflicts there is relief weariness.
When the wars, hopefully, end – rebuilding is going to take for ever. Malnourished people take time to recover. Malnourished children face severe developmental issues. You are talking about a good 50 years, of relative peace, before the areas recover.
For, the Government of India, it is an opportunity to help build networks of understanding and co-operation in these regions. Direct food aid, is a method of achieving it. Food aid that doesn’t go into the UN kitty to be distributed, but direct aid. The WFP can channelise it, but it should be direct country to country aid. It has been done in the past. But, a quick google search does not show anything recent (since 2013). To be a world player, India needs to learn to intervene in the world. However, all intervention does not have to be military. There can be humanitarian intervention, that has more long term tangible results. 