Russia has temporarily suspended the grain deal negotiated by Turkiye and the United Nations back in July. The abrupt suspension does not however come as a surprise to many since the Kremlin had been constantly warning that it might arbitrarily take the unilateral decision of suspending the deal indefinitely. The complaints included the fact that the other part of the bargain in Russia’s favor was not being carried out and many of the countries Russia consider hostile to them were benefitting instead of the poor nations facing hunger due to famine. This has been consistently said by the Russian regime for quite sometimes. They insisted that the deal was negotiated in favor of millions in middle east and Africa who were faced with dire consequences of climate change. The last nail on the coffin of the agreement was the latest attack on the Black Sea fleet of the Russian Federation based at the Sevastopol port by Ukrainian unmanned vehicles. The Sevastopol port is the only warm water port Russia has as the rest of their ports freeze during most parts of the year. This an unexpected attack further exacerbates the already tense situation.
Western leaders and institutions have strongly condemned this move by the Russian regime. Most of them have consequently blamed Putin for weaponizing food in his war. The main narrative is firmly banked on African countries starving because of this decision by Russia. Most western media have also aggressively proffered this narrative in their news bulletin and debates. However, is it the truth? The grain deal has been active since July when it was signed by Russia, Ukraine and Turkiye and approximately nine million tonnes of grain has been exported out of Ukraine ever since. The question is just about how much of it has found itself in Africa or the middle east. The Ukrainian data shows that a bigger percentage of grain during this initiative has gone to rich countries in Europe. The United Nations acknowledges that less than 30% has gone to poor countries in Africa and middle east while more than 60% has made its way to rich countries mostly in Europe. Russian president Vlamir Putin however estimates the number to be around 3-5% only to Africa and 80% to Europe. The truth is the first casualty of war and we might not be able to verify which information is true but one thing is certain; poor countries were not the main destinations for the Ukrainian grain. They were just a pawn used to ensure that the Black Sea corridor was opened while grain went the other way. Countries which faced hunger are still facing it regardless of the situation in the Black Sea corridor. The most astounding aspect of it all is the fact that Africa is at the top of the agenda in terms of hunger but grain doesn’t reach them.
As an African my problem is with the degrading position the continent has been relegated to. Africa is used negatively so that the rich countries can acquire the grain to arrest the prices of their commodities while it doesn’t benefit the poor. The grain deal was opened mainly for the sake of Middle Eastern and African nations as Putin puts it in his speeches but have the continents really benefitted? It was a farce and it still is. The narrative is profoundly portraying Putin as a liar but in this can we say that he is lying?. Africa was used and it’s being used again. Furthermore,the Russian Federation has promised poor nations around 500 metric tonnes of free wheat in the next four months. It is a reaction to stopping the grain deal so that the poor can get it directly. It is time the west live upto their self-imposed commitments and refrain from using other people for their own aggrandizement.
What next for the grain deal? The deal will certainly be brought back after renegotiation. The Kremlin will demand that the other half of the deal be met and grain be delivered more to the poor countries in Africa and Middle East. One factor which is not certain is the exact time of this second deal. Turkiye president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has promised to negotiate with both parties to ensure the continuity of food exports from both countries. When food products from both countries is allowed in the market then global inflation might be arrested. Let it be known that Russia is a bigger food basket than Ukraine and blocking its food exports is detrimental to the world. Lastly, Africa’s name should not be used for blackmail and cheap propaganda. A lot of exaggeration is employed when engaging the continent. It is a continent of 54 countries and most countries are better off and only a few like Somalia are actually in a bad state. Moreover, Africa’s diet is diverse and wheat and it’s products is at the tail end of it. Stop propaganda and blackmail of Africa.
Anonymous 