Armed Conflict and Hunger--Development Assistance: Cause or Cure of Conflict?

As the situations described illustrate, an important underlying cause of conflict is perceived resource scarcity. One important rationale of Western development and especially food and agricultural aid since World War II has been to improve the resource base of underprivileged populations and thereby thwart revolutionary potential. During the height of the Cold War (1960s-80s), Western donors financed a Green Revolution in staple food crops partly to assuage discontent and head off communist revolutions in politics. The U.S.-Latin American Alliance for Progress and P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) in the 1960s used food and economic assistance as a tool to prevent hunger and discontent. The U.S. government hoped programs would promote democratic and economic reforms and prevent armed (communist) uprisings. In the 1980s and 1990s, many analysts have argued that aid targeted at overcoming hunger can stymie potential for violence in war-prone African, Asian, and Latin American countries (IFPRI, 1995, 1996). Geographic early warning systems for famine detection and response are another development assistance mechanism to prevent food insecurity, environmental resource depletion, competition, and conflict. Other development initiatives to promote economic growth, liberalize trade, manage population growth, and improve public health and environment aim to increase wealth and well-being, and thereby reduce conflict potential.

Photo: Martin Lueders

Liberians outside war-damaged home; central Monrovia, 1997. Notwithstanding the exhortation of the poster, continuing uncertainty about security has drastically slowed rebuilding the social and economic structure of the war-torn country.

Unfortunately, much development aid is misguided and, even more than neglect, serves as a source of discontent and political-economic destabilization. From the perspective of "food first" advocates (Lappé and Collins, 1978; FIAN, 1997, 1998), Western development concepts and foreign aid are more problem than solution for food insecurity. They criticize agricultural development, particularly cash cropping and food assistance in developing countries, for thwarting community-led development that would put food first. Providing for adequate food and optimum human development, they argue, are not questions of developing the right technologies or getting international grain and other agricultural commodity prices right, but questions of bringing about entitlements, social justice, and empowerment of the disadvantaged. If poor people had fairer access to resources, from land to education, there would be no food problems. They argue that liberalized trade policies leave poor people vulnerable to food import and crop export price fluctuations beyond their control. From a food-first perspective, "population" and "scarcity" are both development myths that good policies should be able to get beyond.

Debt, a product of years of mismanaged government spending, adds to developing-country economic and financial burdens. Beginning in the 1980s, debt repayment schemes have been part of international financial institutions' demands for governments to put foreign exchange earnings first, rather than food. International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank demands for structural adjustment of developing-country economies and governance, although they address needed reforms, can disadvantage needy citizens, as governments cut social services and food subsidies, at least in the short run, to meet conditions for additional loans. Susan George, a critic of international development and financial policies, has labeled debt "a fate worse than death" and with others has argued for debt relief and government guarantees of the human right to food. She, with others, interprets the failure to achieve freedom from hunger for all as both a source of conflict and a failure of basic human rights (George, 1990a,b, 1992; Messer, 1996b).

Peace studies (such as Smith, 1994) and food and economic studies (such as Stewart, 1993) have documented that debt and structural adjustment burdens correlate with conflict. Structural adjustment loans are one indicator of high debt burden, in that they are conditional on economic reforms and predicated on the recipient having experienced some difficulty with debt repayments. Evidence linking debt with conflict (based on 1993 conflict data) shows that of 71 developing countries that received adjustment loans, 50 were experiencing conflict (Smith, 1994, 12-13). In addition, of the top 25 developing-country debtors, whether measured by gross external debt or debt service ratio, 22 were conflict countries. Imposing austerity measures where most people already have too little economic security has contributed to social unrest in Argentina, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Venezuela, and many African countries (Smith, 1994, 23-26).

Specific cases such as Rwanda (Uvin, 1996a,d), Somalia (Maren, 1997), and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) show how foreign aid, particularly in Africa, sometimes props up abusive regimes and leaves unscrupulous leaders free to pursue predatory or neglectful policies. The case of Rwanda in particular shows how declining food self-sufficiency may reflect small farmers' declining entitlements to land and other resources and their increasing vulnerability to price fluctuations for their main cash crops, such as coffee (see Box 2). Examples of mismanaged development aid as a source of food insecurity and conflict are found also in Asia and Latin America (see Whiteford and Ferguson, 1991).