The Silent Weapon: Starvation as a Tool of War and Its Legal Implications

In the annals of warfare, starvation has emerged as a devastating yet often overlooked weapon. The historical context of this tactic can be traced back to events such as the Bengal famine of 1943, which serves as a grim reminder of the human cost of political decisions. As the world grapples with contemporary conflicts, the question arises: why is starvation, despite being classified as a war crime, so rarely prosecuted?

The Bengal Famine: A Historical Precedent

In September 1943, Bengal was engulfed in a man-made famine that claimed the lives of thousands weekly. Under British colonial rule, India had entered World War II in 1939, contributing troops and resources to the Allied cause. However, the colonial government implemented a modified “scorched earth” policy across several regions, including Bengal, ostensibly to prevent Japanese forces from accessing vital resources. This policy led to the destruction of food stocks and the crippling of transport routes, leaving millions of civilians without sustenance.

From London, Secretary of State for India Leo Amery urged Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s war cabinet to send 500,000 tons of grain to alleviate the suffering in Bengal. However, the cabinet dismissed this plea, allocating less than a quarter of the requested amount. Amery later lamented that the cabinet viewed the situation as a bluff on India’s part. The death toll from starvation and related epidemics would eventually reach a staggering three million.

The Statesman, an English-language newspaper in India, published harrowing accounts of the famine, despite censorship efforts aimed at downplaying the crisis. The colonial government preferred narratives that framed hunger as a long-standing issue of poverty, obscuring the scale of the famine and portraying British rule as benevolent. The then-editor of The Statesman, Ian Stephens, recalled how officials replaced the term “starvation” with “sick destitutes” in reports, shifting the focus from systemic failure to individual misfortune.

The Legal Framework: A Double-Edged Sword

Despite the clear prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare in international law, prosecuting such cases remains a formidable challenge. The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions explicitly outlaw the use of starvation against civilians, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) categorizes it as a prosecutable war crime. Yet, the complexities surrounding the evidence and intent make prosecution difficult.

Starvation operates differently from conventional weapons. It is a slow, insidious process that often hides behind the veil of policy decisions. Prosecutors face the daunting task of proving intent-demonstrating that leaders deliberately sought to deprive civilians of food rather than merely mismanaging resources. The ambiguity surrounding military measures like sieges and blockades complicates matters further, as these actions are often defended as legitimate strategies.

The Contemporary Context: Gaza and Beyond

The ongoing situation in Gaza exemplifies the devastating impact of starvation as a weapon of war. The blockade and restrictions on food and medical supplies have led to a humanitarian crisis, with civilians bearing the brunt of the suffering. The structural nature of starvation-its ability to dismantle societies over time-underscores the urgent need for legal accountability.

Starvation inflicts damage comparable to conventional weapons, leaving lasting physical, psychological, and economic scars. The international community must recognize that starvation is not merely an unfortunate byproduct of war; it is a deliberate strategy that has been outlawed for decades yet remains largely unenforced.

The Path Forward: Naming and Prosecuting the Crime

To address the issue of starvation in conflict, it is crucial to name it correctly and treat it as the crime it is. The reluctance to confront starvation as a weapon of war has deep roots in historical practices and legal frameworks. As scholars Nicholas Mulder and Boyd van Dijk have noted, the architects of post-war international law often relied on food blockades as tools of warfare, creating a reluctance to criminalize a tactic they themselves employed.

The failure to prosecute starvation as a war crime not only undermines justice for victims but also emboldens powerful actors to wield hunger as a weapon against civilians with impunity. The international community must prioritize the enforcement of laws prohibiting starvation and hold accountable those who use it as a strategy of war.

Conclusion

Starvation, as a weapon of war, has left an indelible mark on history, from the Bengal famine to contemporary conflicts. The legal frameworks in place to combat this atrocity are robust, yet the challenges of prosecution remain significant. As the world continues to witness the devastating effects of starvation in conflict zones, it is imperative that we confront this issue head-on. By recognizing starvation as a deliberate strategy and ensuring accountability, we can begin to dismantle the structures that allow such atrocities to persist. The time for action is now; the lives of millions depend on it.