Unless the copyright status of the text of this page or section is clarified and determined to be compatible with Wikipedia's content license, the problematic text and revisions or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of its listing (i.e. after 22:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).
What can I do to resolve the issue?
If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia.
To confirm your permission, you can either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC BY-SA and the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Note that articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; consider whether, copyright issues aside, your text is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this page without copyright-infringing material. Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. follow this link to a temporary subpage. Please mention the rewrite upon completion on this article's discussion page.
Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.)
For license compliance, any content used from the original article must be properly attributed; if you use content from the original, please leave a note at the top of your rewrite saying as much. You may duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself.
It is always a good idea, if rewriting, to identify the point where the copyrighted content was imported to Wikipedia and to check to make sure that the contributor did not add content imported from other sources. When closing investigations, clerks and administrators may find other copyright problems than the one identified. If this material is in the proposed rewrite and cannot be easily removed, the rewrite may not be usable.
Place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the end of the portion you want to blank. If nominating the entire page, please place this template at the top of the page, set the "fullpage" parameter to "yes", and place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the very end or the article.
In international relations, food power is the act of withholding or making available agricultural commodities for export or aid by an exporting nation or group of nations for the purpose of influencing the actions of another country or group of countries. Food power implies a foreign policy motivation rather than a financial or humanitarian motivation to export activities. Since economic commodities are necessary to maintain life and give life a material form, by denying access to food, life is threatened.[1] If the lives of a particular nation are threatened, the government being denied food will most likely do anything in its power to get food for its people, i.e by taking political action; making alliances, signing contracts, ect.[1] A government can use economic commodities in the same way a military weapon can be used; either to punish enemies, or reward friends. The political use of this commodity potentially has the most inhumane effects starvation, and thus is a weapon strongly parallel to military instruments.[1]
Historical Background
One of the most controversial aspects of the international politics of food has been the question of "food power"—the hypothetical international power advantage enjoyed by food-exporting nations over food-importing nations. Food crises are created by affluent countries, not by demands of the poor in poor countries.[1] For many poor nations there is hardly any possibility to turn to the world market for food. There are only four exporters that are globally significant: the United States (U.S.), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.[1] This means that the rest of the world has to turn to any of these four to satisfy demand in situations of shortage.[1] Political leaders in some food-importing countries have at times argued for the importance of "food self-sufficiency" so as to reduce the vulnerability associated with import dependence.[1]
This hypothetical vulnerability to food power has seldom been tested, mostly because food-exporting nations are constrained by domestic producers from withholding commercial exports.[2] On those occasions when "food power" has been attempted, the exporter's advantage has not been confirmed.[2] In 1980—1981, when the United States imposed a partial grain embargo on the Soviet Union following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had little trouble finding alternative grain suppliers in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the European Community.[2] Total Soviet grain imports actually increased during the period that the U.S. embargo was in place.[2] However, although the embargo was technically a failure, the inefficiencies in which the Soviet Union encountered while receiving grain from other sources besides the United States did cause the Soviets to pay somewhat more than they would have if the United States had not imposed the grain embargo.[3]
In 1990, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a comprehensive economic embargo was imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council, but it excluded food and medicine exports on humanitarian grounds.[2] So long as rich countries continue to subsidize food production, international markets are likely to remain—in most years—a setting in which buyers rather than sellers enjoy a political and commercial advantage.[2]
Policy
Food politics are the political aspects of the production, control, regulation, inspection and distribution of food. The politics can be affected by the ethical, cultural, medical and environmental disputes concerning proper farming, agricultural and retailing methods and regulations. Food power is an integral part of the politics of food.[1]
“Food is a weapon” Earl Butz, the American Secretary of Agriculture stated in 1974. OPEC’s use of oil as a political weapon brought on the possibility for America to use food as a tool against other states and to further the US’s goals.[1]
There are alternative uses of food power as well. An importer can refuse to continue import unless political concessions are made. This would have the same affects that an exporter refusing to export would have.[1] An example of this would be American reduction of the Cuban sugar quota. In simple terms, the demand concentration (one importer being the dominant buyer) and supply dispersion (several exporters competing to sell the same product) an importer can try to use this exchange politically to their favor; this is especially effective if the exporter has little else so export (low action independence).[1]
Food power and food security
Food security and Food Power are not the same thing.[4] However, they are often directly related. Food security is when all people of a region at all times have enough food for an active, healthy life.[4] Food Power is related when a government, company, leader, country etc. takes this security away in order to get something in return.[4] Many countries employ the exploit of food power to threaten another country's food security. A country's welfare correlates directly with the welfare of its people therefore each country wants to have an appropriate supply of food for its citizens. This want, however, can easily be used as leverage in the politics of food, demonstrating food power. [4]
Food Power and Embargoes
Fidel Castro at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly
An embargo is not the same as Food Power, however, Food Power can be used in an embargo.[5] In fact, most embargoes that do not involve food in their list of restricted items often fail.[5] For example, on August 20 1914 the Allied Powers began an embargo on important items that were normally shipped to Germany.[5] However, the embargo was not complete nor effective until food was added to the list of restricted materials.[5] Food has the real power.[5] After food was introduced the blockade began to strangle Germany's economy because they were dependent on imports for food.[5] Because the Allied Powers used the power of food in their embargo, Germany was forced to resort to desperate measures and eventually failed despite them.[5]
Another example of an embargo is the United States embargo against the nation of Cuba. With witholding as leverage, the United States wanted Cuba to adhere to the laws of democratization and human rights. Unfortunately, this is still an ongoing embargo; and, due to the declining situation and health of Cuba's people,[6] the embargo has been subject to much protest.[7]
Conditions
Food power can only be used effectively if certain structural conditions apply:[1]
Scarcity: If demand is high and supply is limited the value of a given commodity increases. The price often reflects the potential of the goods as a weapon;[1] as it indicates the importance attached to it. Example: If a consumer is prepared to pay a high price for monetary terms he may also be willing to pay a high price in political concessions.
Supply Concentration: Supply should only be in the hands of few producers/ sellers, as this makes possible for limited competition, price fixes, or potentially a monopoly.[1]
Demand Dispersion: Allows sellers to play the consumers against each other as well as increase prices or make terms conditional.[1] This favors the use of economic goods food as a weapon.[1]
Action Independence: In order to ensure affectivity the seller/producer most control his own assets. Either the seller/producer must be able to control the production process, perhaps through governmental control over companies carrying out the production), or he must have access to means on the other dimensions to ensure that he can maintain or extend control over his assets.[1]
The four conditions listed above MUST be simultaneously present in order to turn an economic asset food into a political instrument.[1] This does not necessarily mean that the asset will be used whenever the four conditions above are present. Such a decision would be considered only if there were further conditions, for example, the nature of a given conflict and judgment, goals, alternative means, and judgment of utility.[1]
Employment
There are several uses for employing economic weapons against one country or another. One use for using economic weapons would concern the seller/buyer bargaining on the conditions of a business contract. This would include price, transportation, timetable for consignment and payment, etc.[1] Although this is an example of the successful application of “food power”, it is not a “political” objective. Another use concerns the economic objectives other than these relating to the transaction of goods; to the general economic policy of the buyer.[1] This would be balance of payments, general problems, such as, inflation or taxation, and land holding. What distinguishes this from the first is the fact that there is no link between the conditions laid down and the transfer of product.[1] The conditions refer to the economic realm of life. A political use would be one concerning the buyer’s foreign and defense policies. Many believe there is a “moral threshold” between economy and politics, making the use of economic means for political gains questionable.[1] Examples of the use of economic weapons for political aims are boycotts against certain countries as well as the buying of votes in the UN.[1] A forth purpose pertains to the basic assumption of the third category: the governments no longer accept each other as legitimate. The economic goals are no longer seen as a means of influencing an opposite government but rather to stimulate opposition and achieve the overthrow or capitulation of the government.[1]
During the time the United States was the most dominant in all areas like military, energy, exports etc. "Food Power" was not really thought about.[8] However, since some of those powers have since diminished, the power of food has come to the surface.[8] In the realm of food, The United States remains at the top, unchallenged.[8] The US has fertile lands, advanced agricultural technology, and an effective farm policy for maximum output. The United States has the position of being the largest producer and exporter of food.[9] While others nations, predominantly developing nations but even some of the richest oil-exporting nations,[9] are beginning to have food shortages and becoming more and more dependent on imported food from the United States, giving it more and more power.[8] This allows the United States to expect friendly behavior from the countries that import American food.[8]> It is also likely that the United States would have some form of influence over these countries.[9] Even some of the poorest OPEC countries have become dependent of U.S. wheat.[9] Therefore, there is a possibility that the United States could restrict its food exports for political purposes.[9] With the existence of borders and with the possibility to control the international trade system so that benefits are geared only toward some, supply concentration is a means of influence. The US is among the most significant nations, thus the basis for independent action exists. The US formulates its goals and has the capacity to pursue them. The United States could use this Food power as a means of exerting pressure on OPEC countries.[9] Food power will be most effective in times of food shortage or famine because this is when those countries that have some dependence on the United States are most desperate.[9]
Every year the United States produces far more grain than it can consume.[10] And from the late 1960s and early 1970s the government began promoting increased agricultural production for export.[10] The stated goals were to feed a hungry world while bringing prosperity to US farmers.[10] Twenty years later there are now more hungry people in the world and, according to the US Department of Agriculture, US agriculture faces its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.[10]
The problem of massive US farm surpluses is dealt with in several ways: government inducements to farmers to limit production, food aid and export promotion.[10] Land set-asides and conservation laws have reduced planted acreage.[10] Yet these measures fail to reduce total production because each farmer is seeking to raise output from the remaining acreage, often pumping in more chemicals and using other short-term measures to squeeze out more. Farmers have also increased output as a way of offsetting the declining prices they have been receiving for their products.[10] Ironically, as the government lowers prices in order to expand exports and reduce the surplus, farmers expand production to compensate for the lower prices.[10] In the 1980s the US government drastically cut prices, yet the surplus grew to record proportions.[10]
The Punishment Approach
Reduction of US foreign aid, food aid specifically, is a frequently employed weapon in American foreign policy.[9]
Reasons for punishment of a country vary; however, they can be broken down into two main groups: Foreign containment objective and market development/humanitarian objectives.[9] Examples of American Foreign Aid Punishments:
Related to Containment Objective
1. No aid to Communist countries[9]
2. No aid to Socialist countries[9]
3. No aid to countries who support radical regimes in other countries[9]
4. No aid to regimes with an inadequate democracy who are too weak to be effectively anti-communist[9]
5. No aid to countries unwilling to accept US agreements[9]
Examples Relating to Market Maintenance/ Development Objective
1. No aid to countries trying to nationalize property of US companies[9]
2. No aid to countries who want to take over functions held by US companies[9]
3. No aid to countries trying to initiate nationalistic economic policies[9]
Food Aid and Food Power
Food aid plays a large role in popular consciousness.[10] But most food is, in fact, moved by market forces. Only 10 per cent of world food shipments and a mere 5 per cent of US shipments are in the form of aid or concessional sales.[10] And since most food is traded on the market, the poor rarely benefit from the abundance of industrialized agriculture because they lack the money to create effective demand.[10]
The impact of food aid can only be understood within the context of the broader US aid program.[10] Two-thirds of the total aid package is security assistance: military aid and cash transfers to governments deemed strategically important to the US national interest.[10] So whatever worthwhile may be achieved by feeding some people or supporting some useful development efforts is far outweighed by the propping up of anti-democratic elites and regimes whose policies perpetuate inequality.[10] Investment allocation, monetary and tax policies, exchange-rate and foreign-trade policies, or social programs, all have been biased toward urban areas, toward industry, toward large farms, toward upper-income groups - toward everyone except the poor and the hungry.[10]
The larger portion of food aid comes in the form of low-interest loans to recipient governments for the purchase of US food products which are then sold on the open market.[10] The government is supposed to use the receipts for development.[10] There are few safeguards, however, to ensure that the money is used in ways which help the poorest members of the recipient society.[10] Thus the bulk of US food aid should be seen as a financial infusion to allied governments, rather than as a sincere effort to feed the hungry.[10] The portion of US food aid that actually goes to feeding program for the hungry is the smaller portion.[10]
Moreover, because most US food aid is channeled through elites, it comes as little surprise that much of it does not reach the needy.[10] A US government study of food aid to Somalia, for example, showed that 80 per cent of the food ended up in the hands of military officers, government officials and private traders.[10] Like other government-to government aid, food aid is only as good as the government receiving it.[10]
There are many other problems with food aid which are documented elsewhere: it can depress local producer prices and ruin the incentive for local food production; donors prefer unloading their own surpluses even when food is available in the immediate region of the recipient country, and food aid can increase dependence by changing consumer tastes to products not produced locally.[10] Suffice it to say that food aid, while necessary in emergency situations, provides no solution for the massive inequalities in the world food system.[10] But if food aid is of relatively marginal significance in the global agricultural system, it still remains to discuss what the impact is, overall, of US agricultural trade policies on the Third World.[10] Very little of US agricultural exports ever reaches the stomachs of the poor.[10] Many exports, such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, dairy and meat products, are destined for wealthier consumers, mainly in industrial countries and among the elites in the Third World.[10] Most US grain exports are feed grain for meat consumed by the well-off.[10] Although meat consumption is often viewed as a status symbol, medical authorities have now recognized that high levels of meat consumption pose a health threat.[10]
Europe
Public pressure can be highly effective. If food power is concentrating, even large corporations are vulnerable and exposed to sudden changes in public sympathy.[11] When European food safety procedures were found wanting in the 1990s, arguments from consumer campaigners for more ecological systems of food production found popular resonance and moved from the fringe to centre-stage in public policy.[11] Politicians intervened in the supply chain because consumers realized that they had little control at the point of sale.[11] The consumerist bargain (cornucopia without consequences) looked momentarily shaky.[11] In the EU, this culminated in the crisis over BSE (mad cow disease) which forced the President and Council onto the defensive.[11] Other crises, for example, over contaminated feed in Belgium and a wave of food safety scandals in the UK, for instance, highlighted the vulnerability of the industrial food system.[11] The policy question was raised that prices might be cheap, but at what social, health and environmental cost? [11] The implications of this question are still being struggled over within the supply chain, with companies investing hugely in traceability systems while consumer and health analysts argue that the externalized costs are not just microbiological.[11] Indeed, these represent a small fraction of the total burden.[11]
Africa
Another example of food power is the continent of Africa. Food politics in Africa differs from the cases in North America and Europe in that there is a case of small scale food power in Africa, particularly in Sudan.[12] Some experts say that the cases of famine and food insecurity in Africa are due to inconsistent output of food production and the downward spiral of the interaction between population growth and environmental sustainability.[12] But upon closer inspection, it is revealed that nature is not the only catalyst for Africa’s numerous food insecurity issues.[12]
Sudan
Satellite image of Sudan
Famine is shaped by generally two theories. The first is FAD, which stands for Food Availability Decline.<[12] This is the result of a drought, a war, or some other drastic change to the agricultural system.[12] This is the “natural” cause for famine. The other theory deals primarily with the population’s ability to access or become “entitled” to food. [12]In this case, food power makes itself known on a small scale, as opposing political forces in Sudan compete for the votes of the people by instigating or encouraging the famine.[12]
For example, Sudan’s famine in the 1980’s was completely intentional, and was only a pawn for a varied collection of different elites to improve their political and economical statuses.[12] These political parties weren’t the only beneficiaries, though. Merchants were also known to hoard grain and buy livestock at inappropriately low prices when the famines shifted the terms of trade. [12]Western Sudanese merchants during the famine of 1987 were described as “heartless” because they refused to sell grain to needy villages in Darfur at reasonable prices.[12] Ergo, the Sudanese Famine was another example of food power in which food was and used as a policy, and which completely ignored the needs of the people and fostered the political and power-hungry intentions of opposite warring forces in the country.[12]
References
^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyPeter Wallensteen, "Scarce Goods as Political Weapons: The Case of Food", Journal of Peace Research, 1976, Vol. 13, pages 277-298. [1]
^ abcdefRobert Paarlberg, Food Politics, The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, 2008 [2]
^ Clifton B. Luttrell, "The Russian Grain Embargo: Dubious Success", in: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, August-September 1980 [3]
^ Rémy Herrera, The Effects of the U.S. Embargo Against Cuba, Alternatives, 2003 [6]
^ abcdeRobert Paarlberg, "Food as an Instrument of Foreign Policy", Academy of Political Science, Vol. 34, No. 3, Food Policy and Farm Programs, 1982, pp. 25-39 [7]
Joseph D. Coffey, THE ROLE OF FOOD IN THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES, SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS JULY, 1981, [8]
Thorald K. Warley, Agriculture in International Economic Relations, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 58, No. 5, Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1976), pp. 820-830 , JSTOR
Robert L. Paarlberg, Food, Oil and Coercive Power, in Mark W. Zacher (ed.), The International political economy of natural resources., Edward Elgar Publishing, 1993, ISBN 1852786027, Google Print, p.76-92
