Use Of Starvation As A Method Of Warfare In Afghanistan
1. Introduction: Starvation as a Method of Warfare
Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—particularly Article 54 of Additional Protocol I (1977) and Article 14 of Additional Protocol II (1977)—starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is strictly prohibited.
This rule is customary and binding on both international and non-international armed conflicts, including Afghanistan’s conflicts (1979–present).
Article 14, Additional Protocol II:
“Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population…”
Therefore, deliberately depriving civilians of food, water, or agricultural resources to gain a military advantage constitutes a war crime.
2. Context in Afghanistan
Afghanistan has witnessed multiple armed conflicts:
The Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
The Afghan Civil Wars (1992–2001)
The U.S.–NATO intervention and insurgency (2001–2021)
The Taliban takeover (2021–present)
In each phase, starvation or deprivation of essential supplies has been used as a weapon, often violating IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity.
3. Case Studies
Case 1: Soviet Siege of Panjshir Valley (1980–1985)
Facts:
During Soviet operations against Ahmad Shah Massoud’s Mujahideen in the Panjshir Valley, Soviet forces imposed blockades, destroyed agricultural fields, and restricted food and medical aid. Entire villages were razed, preventing food cultivation or access to supplies.
Legal Analysis:
Violation: Article 14, Additional Protocol II (1977) — starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Legal Precedent: Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić (ICTY, 2003) clarified that destruction of food sources intended to starve civilians qualifies as a war crime even if part of a larger siege.
Outcome: Although no Soviet officials were prosecuted internationally, UN and humanitarian organizations documented widespread famine-like conditions directly resulting from military tactics.
Key Principle: Even in counterinsurgency, cutting off civilian food or aid constitutes illegal starvation.
Case 2: Taliban Blockade of Hazarajat (1997–1998)
Facts:
In 1997–98, Taliban forces surrounded the central highlands of Hazarajat, home to the Hazara minority. They blocked all trade routes, restricted food shipments, and prevented humanitarian relief to force surrender of local resistance. Civilians reportedly starved, and malnutrition spread rapidly.
Legal Analysis:
Violation: Article 14, AP II; Customary IHL Rule 53 (ICRC Study, 2005).
Comparable Case Law: Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY, 1997)—confirmed that denial of food and essential supplies to civilians during non-international conflicts violates the laws of war.
International Reaction: UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan (1998) condemned the Taliban’s use of starvation as “a systematic violation of humanitarian law.”
Key Principle: Starvation targeting an ethnic group (e.g., Hazaras) can also amount to persecution or extermination under Crimes Against Humanity.
Case 3: Siege of Kunduz and Northern Provinces (2001)
Facts:
During late 2001, Taliban forces besieged Kunduz to prevent U.S.-supported Northern Alliance access. Both sides restricted food shipments and humanitarian aid. Civilians trapped inside suffered acute shortages.
Legal Analysis:
Violation: Both Taliban and Northern Alliance bore responsibility under Common Article 3 and AP II for impeding aid.
Comparable Case: Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić (ICTY, 2003)—the Siege of Sarajevo established that intentionally creating conditions of starvation to terrorize civilians is a war crime.
Application: The Kunduz siege shared characteristics—civilian deprivation for coercive military aims.
Key Principle: Starvation during sieges remains illegal when directed against civilians, regardless of the military objectives.
Case 4: U.S.–Afghan War and Food Aid Restrictions (2001–2021)
Facts:
Though the U.S.-led coalition did not use “starvation” intentionally, bombing of infrastructure and blockade of certain rural areas resulted in de facto starvation. Humanitarian convoys were often restricted due to security measures.
Legal Analysis:
Violation (potential): Under Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), intentional deprivation of objects indispensable to civilian survival is a war crime.
Comparable Case Law: Prosecutor v. Omar al-Bashir (ICC, 2009)—the Sudanese government’s obstruction of humanitarian aid in Darfur was treated as use of starvation as a weapon.
Application to Afghanistan: Similar indirect starvation occurred through denial of humanitarian access, though without explicit intent proven in court.
Key Principle: Even “indirect” or “policy-based” starvation through obstruction of aid can breach IHL if done knowingly.
Case 5: Taliban and Humanitarian Aid Restrictions (2021–Present)
Facts:
Following the 2021 Taliban takeover, reports emerged of diversion of food aid, obstruction of women-led aid delivery, and use of food distribution as political leverage. In some provinces (e.g., Ghor, Balkh), authorities restricted supplies to communities accused of opposing Taliban rule.
Legal Analysis:
Violation: Customary IHL Rule 55 (obligation to allow humanitarian relief).
Comparable Case: Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda (ICC, 2019)—obstruction of humanitarian aid was part of broader crimes against civilians.
UN Observations: UNAMA and WFP documented that these restrictions contributed to famine-like conditions.
Key Principle: When a governing force uses hunger as coercion or punishment, it constitutes starvation as a method of warfare and may rise to a war crime.
4. Key Legal Provisions and Case References
| Law / Case | Principle Established | Relevance to Afghanistan |
|---|---|---|
| Article 14, AP II (1977) | Prohibits starvation of civilians | Applies to all Afghan internal conflicts |
| Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) | Starvation as a war crime | ICC jurisdiction potential if referred |
| Tadić (ICTY, 1997) | Non-international conflict rules | Clarified applicability to civil wars |
| Galić (ICTY, 2003) | Starvation and terror tactics = war crimes | Comparable to sieges in Afghanistan |
| Ntaganda (ICC, 2019) | Obstruction of aid = war crime | Applies to Taliban-era aid blockades |
5. Conclusion
Across multiple eras in Afghanistan, starvation has been deliberately or recklessly used as a weapon of war, violating both customary international law and treaty law.
While no international tribunal has yet prosecuted Afghan actors specifically for this war crime, the legal precedents from ICTY and ICC cases provide a clear framework:
Intentional deprivation of food or aid = war crime.
Sieges leading to civilian starvation = unlawful if not strictly limited to military necessity.
Ethnically or politically targeted starvation = crime against humanity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments