The forced displacement of civilians globally is at more than 65 million people, the highest number since the end of World War II, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency.
This global tragedy poses significant geopolitical threats. It is imperative to focus on the problem, not only as a matter of morality, but also because regions plagued by displacement and instability have become breeding grounds for the next generation of global terrorists.
Of the 65 million displaced people, 22.5 million have sought refuge in another country. And among these 22.5 million people are refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet, less discussed are the Four Famines—in South Sudan, Northern Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen—that have been caused by conflict and served as a major driver of both the refugee crisis, and regional instability. While famine has not officially been declared in three of these countries, such widespread hunger is unprecedented. Equally troubling, some 85 percent of Americans are unaware of these crises.
The U.N. declared famine in South Sudan earlier this year. The famine was largely attributed to the ongoing civil war, an ethnic conflict between the Dinka—who are in power—and the opposition Nuer. About 3.4 million South Sudanese were displaced by the combination of the fighting and famine, including over 1 million who have fled to neighboring Uganda. In June, the U.N. declared that while South Sudan is no longer in a state of famine, widespread hunger was still pervasive. According to the report, about 2 million people still face emergency levels of hunger, one step below famine, while 6 million are still at risk of starvation.
Famine has also loomed in Nigeria, where widespread hunger and malnourishment in the North have coincided with the rise of the Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram. The region had long faced geographic marginalization and economic underdevelopment, but Boko Haram’s rise initiated a deadly conflict. Since 2009, 20,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million have been displaced. Eight years of conflict have largely eliminated what was previously a barely functional agricultural system. Boko Haram terrorists, who notoriously kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls in 2014, have sought to prevent relief agencies from delivering food and water to inhabitants and displaced persons.
While the U.N. announced in June that Somalia has averted famine, the country remains in fragile condition and on the verge of famine. The World Food Program country director for Somalia has said that 3.2 million Somalis are in trouble, including 350,000 children who are malnourished and 70,000 children who are extremely malnourished. In March, there were reports that about 6.2 million Somalis, or roughly half the country’s population, were dealing with the prospect of acute food shortages. A famine in the country would be the third in 25 years. While a massive drought initially caused food shortages, the ongoing conflict between government forces and the terrorist group al-Shabaab has played a prominent role, especially since al-Shabaab has restricted outside aid in areas it controls. The crisis has spilled into neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia as many Somalis have sought refuge.
And in Yemen, perhaps the direst situation, potential famine has occurred against the backdrop of a civil war, where Saudi Arabia has intervened in support of forces loyal to former President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, while Iran has provided military aid to the Houthi rebels. A Saudi blockade of the port of Hodeida has made relief efforts nearly impossible, especially since 90 percent of Yemen’s food is imported. An estimated 17 million Yemenis, or 60 percent of the country’s population, are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, while about 7 million are living day to day. The civil war and widespread hunger have also coincided with a cholera outbreak that has killed thousands.
Despite the severity of these crises, there are steps the United States, in conjunction with the international community, can take to address the worst effects. It was a welcome sign that Congress appropriated $990 million earlier this year to combat these famines. Equally promising is that this administration has pledged to rally international support for fighting famine and that in his speech to the U.N. last week, President Trump announced that he would dispatch U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley to South Sudan.
There have also been troubling developments that have impeded potentially effective policy. Massive cuts to the State Department and the foreign aid budget are detrimental to dealing with such large-scale crises. The administration’s support for Saudi Arabia, as indicated by the $500 million sale of precision-guided munitions in June, has enabled the Saudis to continue bombings and blockades in Yemen, which have contributed to the famine. And the U.N. has raised just 54 percent of the nearly $5 billion that it claimed it needed to head off these famines.
Those who support cutting foreign aid argue that the U.S. is diverting money elsewhere when it should instead be focusing on reducing debt and investing in education and infrastructure at home. They argue that it is unethical and impractical for policymakers to spend money on foreign aid when the U.S. is dealing with its own problems. Yet providing adequate humanitarian aid and relief is not just a moral imperative. It is fundamentally in our strategic and national security interests, because catastrophes, such as famines, create failed states, which cause refugees and migrants to overwhelm neighboring countries that are not equipped to handle such massive population influxes. Substantial population increases create political instability that enables the proliferation of terrorist groups.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan, one of the most successful U.S. foreign policy initiatives in our history. The Marshall Plan, which provided $13 billion in aid to rebuild Europe after World War II, reflected an understanding that the U.S. is more secure and economically prosperous when people of other nations enjoy political and economic freedoms. Initiatives such the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and Feed the Future illustrate how U.S. foreign policy can be a critical tool not only for countering conventional military threats, but also for maintaining global stability by tackling fatal endemics and food insecurity. The Four Famines pose a geopolitical threat, yet they also represent an opportunity for the U.S. to play a leadership role in mitigating some of the most severe global catastrophes of our time.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.