How to reshape the global energy, food and arms order?

author

D. Muhammad Odeh

Controlling the world no longer means occupying land alone or subjugating countries by military force. Rather, it extends to controlling the resources that ensure the continuation of life itself: energy, water, food, seeds, fertilizers, and supply chains. Whoever holds the keys to these resources has an enormous ability to influence the decisions of countries, weaken their societies, narrow the margins of their movement, and even push their populations to choices they would not have accepted in normal circumstances.

Wars are no longer the only means of subjugating peoples; Sanctions, controlling markets, disrupting supplies, and monopolizing technologies have become tools capable of causing effects that may exceed the limits of direct military destruction, and when these tools intersect with wars, starvation, and displacement, a question arises that goes beyond the struggle over the resources themselves: Is the world being reshaped only with energy, food, and weapons, or do these tools also contribute to reshaping societies and the destinies of the people living above the earth?

Seeds occupy a very important position in this equation. The seed is not just an agricultural material, but rather the basis of food security and the independence of agricultural decisions. The more farmers rely on companies that provide seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, the less their ability to control the inputs to their production, and the more their dependence on a commercial and technical system that they do not have the keys to. This does not mean that all agricultural technologies lead to the same result. Hybrid seeds, for example, are not technologies that restrict genetic use, but a system of monopoly and interdependence that may make the farmer captive to buying production inputs year after year.

Hence, discussions related to the preservation and circulation of local seeds, including those witnessed in Lebanon, gain importance that goes beyond the direct agricultural aspect, as protecting local varieties and inherited agricultural knowledge is not nostalgia for the past, but rather a defense of the ability to produce food in times of crises, and the right of societies to preserve their genetic resources and not turn them into a closed market controlled by large companies.

Previous experiences reveal the extent of the risks posed by the destruction or weakening of the scientific and agricultural infrastructure. After the 2003 invasion, agricultural research institutions and seed collections in Iraq were destroyed and looted. Agricultural and research institutions in Syria, including ICARDA, also suffered from the repercussions of war, displacement, and disruption of work. The seed bank was destroyed and its contents were looted. On the other hand, the Svalbard Global Seed Store embodies an attempt to preserve agricultural genetic diversity in anticipation of disasters and wars and a means of domination. However, storing seeds alone It is not enough if land is destroyed, water is lost, irrigation networks are disrupted, and farmers are displaced; Seeds do not feed people unless conditions exist that allow them to be planted and harvested.

This issue is directly related to energy. Modern agriculture depends on fuel, electricity, fertilizers, transportation and storage, and food supplies depend on sea lanes and supply chains. Therefore, the Strait of Hormuz cannot be viewed only as a corridor for transporting oil and gas. Any disturbance in it could raise the costs of energy, transportation, and production, and affect the prices of food and fertilizers in countries geographically distant from the Gulf. Thus, controlling a strategic sea lane turns into an instrument of influence that extends beyond the borders of the region in which it is located.

The Russian-Ukrainian war demonstrated the extent to which food security is linked to geopolitical conflicts. Russia and Ukraine are important sources of grains, fertilizers, and agricultural production inputs. The disruption of exports, transportation, and markets led to increased pressure on importing countries, and the results were not equal. Richer countries had a greater ability to bear higher prices and secure supplies, while countries more dependent on imports faced greater risks to their food security and social stability.

Egypt highlights an example of the fragility of countries that rely heavily on importing wheat to meet the needs of their populations. Any disturbance in global markets, shipping rates, or the availability of foreign currencies can turn into direct pressure on the general budget, food prices, and the ability of families to meet their needs. This is not related to Egypt alone. Countries that lack sufficient reserves, or diverse sources of import, find themselves more vulnerable to external pressures, even when they are not a direct party to the war.

Latin America reveals another paradox. The abundance of agricultural land, water, minerals, and energy sources does not necessarily guarantee food security for the population or the achievement of economic sovereignty. The concentration of land ownership, the dominance of export interests, and the expansion of the cultivation of crops intended for biofuels or foreign markets can coexist with poverty and food insecurity among sectors of the population. The problem is not always a lack of resources, but rather who monopolizes them, who decides how to use them, and to whom their revenues go. The land may be rich enough to feed millions, while some of its residents are deprived of the ability to Access to food.

When we turn to the ongoing wars, the link between resources and the destruction of living conditions becomes clearer in a more severe way. In Gaza, the impact of the Israeli aggression was not limited to killing and destruction, but rather extended to homes, hospitals, water and sanitation networks, agricultural lands, bakeries, and food sources, and to push the population towards displacement and dependence on aid. When the necessities of life are destroyed on a large scale, the result is not only immediate losses; Rather, the community's ability to survive, produce, and rebuild its life is damaged, and departure under the pressure of circumstances becomes a possibility that imposes itself on the population.

In Lebanon, the effects of war, displacement, and damage to property and agricultural lands intertwine with the economic pressures that the country is already suffering from. As for the confrontation linked to Iran, it cannot be separated from energy security and the Strait of Hormuz. Likewise, it is not possible to ignore Yemen’s location at the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the impact of the disruption of navigation in the Red Sea on global trade. These arenas, despite their different circumstances and parties, fall within an interconnected network of military, economic, and strategic interests. Any disturbance in it could spread its impact through energy, food, transportation, and prices to other regions of the world.

The interconnectedness of these crises and the simultaneous effects of their effects raise fundamental questions about the forces and interests behind the reshaping of the world, and about the extent to which wars and the control of resources are linked to the idea of ​​reducing the population and controlling their geographical distribution. A war that destroys agricultural land, cuts off water and electricity, disrupts the access to food and medicine, and drives the population to displacement, does not change the military landscape alone; Rather, it undermines the conditions for survival, weakens the ability of societies to withstand, and forces their residents to leave their lands. When these results are repeated and intersect with the interests of the dominant powers, it becomes necessary to examine whether control over energy, food, and weapons is part of a broader project to reshape societies and control population numbers and destinies.

From here emerges the most dangerous hypothesis: Will the conflict gradually move from controlling people’s resources to influencing population numbers, their destinies, and their whereabouts? Starvation, destruction, and displacement, when used deliberately to achieve political or demographic goals, are not merely side effects of war, but rather turn into tools that put pressure on the population and push them to leave their lands, and redistribute people according to balances of power and interests. These results may converge with economic and strategic interests even without all events being parts of a single declared plan.

The most dangerous thing that we must keep before our eyes is the transition of the conflict from controlling people's resources to controlling their demographic destinies. When control over energy, food, and seeds combines with the destruction of the basics of life and the expansion of wars and displacement, and control over medicine and health interferes with them, the question goes beyond the limits of ownership, profit, and influence: Who has the ability to keep a society capable of life on its land, and who forces it to leave? Who decides who benefits from resources, who is deprived of them, and whose conditions for survival are taken away from them? The tools of control do not stop at food, water, energy, and weapons, but rather extend to health and disease, by exploiting health crises, monopolizing treatments, and withholding medical discoveries or obstructing their development, which raises questions about the interests that control medicine, and about subjecting human lives to the calculations of profit and influence instead of considering it a human right.

Here, there is a need to examine indicators and evidence related to the fabrication or exploitation of diseases, and withholding treatments capable of saving those suffering from chronic diseases, within a broader context of controlling the conditions of life. When domination extends from the land and its resources to food and medicine, and from the conditions of life to the chances of surviving disease, the conflict becomes related to who determines human destinies, and who is left prey to hunger, disease, and deprivation. Then we are not only facing a struggle over wealth, but we are facing a struggle over human existence itself, and the right of peoples to life, survival, and self-determination.