Evergreen Anarchy and Food Security in Yemen
Food insecurity has impacted several regions across the world with multiple causes ranging from climate change to armed conflict. The alarming state of food security in Yemen has multiple facets one could explore. Using the problematique of anarchy through the realist, liberal, constructivist, and post-colonial lens, I aim to understand whether food security can be explained through these lenses. Not only that but also lookout for new observations being brought to the platform.
To begin with, the evergreen concept of anarchy in realism has rather interesting contributions. Food security is a domestic issue, that has a complicated chain of events. The involvement of the United States (US) and Saudi Arab in the domestic conflict. Given that rational states are self-preserving, the American involvement in the conflict clearly points towards American interests of security and not wanting Yemen to become a host of Islamic extremism. Whereas for Saudi it is a similar case, but attached to identity and the dominance of the Sunni community. This logic of self-preservation takes us back to the concept of relativity, giving us an example of gaining security at the expense of the other. It could also be looked at from the perspective of balance of power externally since it is a Saudi-led coalition that is involved in the conflict but with each state guarding its interests. If one were to use self-preservation domestically in Yemen, it would account in some way for the Houthi rebel hoarding aid, costing millions to suffer from food insecurity. Now, to slightly contradict this, realism has not been a staunch supporter of interventionism, especially in US foreign policy, and in the Yemenis crisis, the opposite seems to be the case. However, is the truth about the US intervention being voiced? Have realist scholars been able to portray the ground realities in Yemen? The intervention to prevent extremism and increase American influence is now becoming an expensive affair as conflict continues.
So far, the conflict has been explained in rather simple terms of self-preservation and security. Now taking a different stance, we shall look at a liberal perspective on food insecurity in Yemen. Anarchy does exist in the international realm, but it can be tamed through international institutions. Amidst an armed conflict, international organizations have been able to provide aid. And it is not just international institutions but individual actors who donate and provide aid, portraying multiple actors who are engaged in supporting the individual. Therefore, one can to a certain extent say that the conditions of anarchy if not tamed have been addressed briefly. In this case, the liberal standpoint has taken a more solution-based approach, but if one were to view it from the unit of analysis, the scars of the Yemenis conflict run deep. Individuals are at the receiving end of the conflict, not being able to access basic amenities. Following international norms and standards, individuals in Yemen are deprived of their right to nutritious food. Post the fall of their national government, individuals and private groups remain the unit of analysis. There is no state presence that can act as a transmission belt to convey to the international community the plight of the Yemenis people. It was the domestic arena that fell apart, causing other international actors to act. To view the American influence, it may be said that the spread of liberal democratic values in Yemen was the goal, but it seems to not have met its goal, costing lives and starvation. However, there are larger questions at hand that I think the liberal theory has failed to answer, the question of armed intervention, budget cuts in aid funds, and the significant ignorance of this issue as more international issues dominate the stage. Lastly, has anarchy been successfully tamed amidst all this? I don't think so, the budget cuts in aid provided by international institutions speak for themselves.
 |
| Millions are still dependent on foreign aid, in Yemen. Source: Reuters via BBC |
The construction of anarchy involves collective meaning-making and will be intersubjective in nature for each actor. The constructivist approach provides ample space for us to understand the concept of meaning-making. In the case of Yemen, what has anarchy meant? Has it meant constant armed conflict? Food insecurity? It is difficult to comprehend. However, the concept of ontological security does explain an aspect of the issue; prolonged and intractable conflict. The American identity of being a liberal democratic nation promoting the same exists in binary opposition to nations who are not democracies or who do not have a state, to begin with. On the other hand, Saudi involvement is based on similar grounds the difference being that it is a community-based identity that is constructed (Sunni VS Shias). If we were to view it from a unit, systemic or holistic lens, the issue of food security involves multiple domestic and international actors, and it's not precisely interstate since multiple nations are involved in aiding or funding arms. Therefore, I think it fits well within the holistic aspect because a domestic issue of this kind has had international repercussions and continues to do so. A mutually constructed view of food security requires individuals to consume a certain amount of calories a day, but even that varies when we take into account different age groups.
Moving away from the concept of anarchy, the post-colonial lens views the international as hierarchical, and that is evident in the case of Yemen. The very perception that an Islamic nation with political turmoil is a security concern for the US and the United Kingdom (UK) has hierarchical underpinnings to it. Of course, labeling groups as "barbaric" or "terrorists" casually indicates it too. The media coverage of the Yemenis crisis has been rather skewed. Media attention has been diverted towards fresher conflicts like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. What is important to notice here is that a nation in the European region seemed to need urgent aid in comparison to the prolonged crisis in Yemen. This is not to say that those in Ukraine do not need the aid, but it's interesting to see how both issues have individuals suffering, yet, one gets more attention than the other.
To sum up, the problematique of anarchy has not been able to explain the phenomenon of food security in Yemen. In the case of realism, the domestic aspect of issues remains untouched. Of course, it does provide logic behind military intervention in the region, but only where self-preservation was necessary. The liberal approach had been a bit more inclusive of the issue, be it from the individual perspective or states, and provided a more solution-based approach through international institutions. However, it failed to account for an embedded and embodied individual within broader power structures. Not only that but, it also seemed to justify American military intervention. The constructivist approach has provided some interesting observations regarding identity and the conflict, similarly is the case with post-colonial theory with views that the international structure is hierarchical and not anarchical. I think all perspectives have been able to illustrate different themes of the issue. However, as one shall observe, there has been a limited discussion on the aspect of access to food, and it seemed slightly more tilted towards the armed conflict. It has been based more on international themes and states, unlike previous posts which were fairly domestic, individualistic, and personal. There are multiple layers to an issue and an issue like food security in Yemen consists of complex layers, making its analysis different and holistic in every attempt.
Bibliography
“FaO Human Energy Requirements Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation.”
2001.
https://www.fao.org/3/y5686e/y5686e.pdf.
Barkawi, Tarak. 2004. ‘On the Pedagogy of “Small Wars”’. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 80 (1): 19–37.
BBC. 2018. “Yemen Crisis: Why Is There a War?” BBC News. December 18, 2018.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423.
BBC. 2019. “UN Appeals to Yemen Rebels over ‘Diverted’ Aid,” BBC News. May 22, 2019,
sec.
Middle East. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48360912.
Biraj Patnaik.“805 Million People Go Hungry. Who Will Uphold Their Right to Food?” The Guardian. January 20, 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jan/20/right-to-food-biraj-patnaik-india-zero-hunger.
COZETTE, MURIELLE. 2008. ‘Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship’. Review of International Studies 34 (1): 5–27.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’. International Security 23 (1): 171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2018. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 94 (1): 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241.
Keohane, Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–70.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51 (4): 513–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447.
“Why Is Yemen at War? | Start Here.” Al Jazeera. 2019. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJzSwOQMPrI.
Comments
Post a Comment