national and international food agencies assignment

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, poni 2024 capstone conference, dod's gaza pier and the maritime corridor—gaza: the human toll, lessons from myanmar.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

U.S. Policy Roadmap: A Drive to Transform Global Food and Nutrition Security

Photo: SAM PANTHAKY/AFP/Getty Images

Table of Contents

Brief by Kimberly Flowers

Published January 4, 2019

Available Downloads

• Download the CSIS Brief 1056kb

CSIS Briefs

There has been strong bipartisan support for the United States to be a worldwide leader in addressing global food and nutrition security. Congressional champions are still needed, particularly under the Trump administration. Policymakers should elevate the issue within diplomatic and national security discussions, invest more in nutrition, better link humanitarian and agricultural development strategies, renew commitments to agricultural science, and scale up agricultural technologies .

Over 90 newly-elected members of Congress will arrive in Washington this month, bringing with them new perspectives and fresh thinking on an array of issues important to their constituents. They will be soon inundated with information and facing a rising tide of requests for immediate policy attention and legislative action. This policy brief suggests that there are few issues more urgent and more important both at home and abroad than food security and improved nutrition.

Why Food Security and Improved Nutrition Matter

More than 800 million people today go to bed hungry, and billions more have diets deficient in essential vitamins and minerals or are overweight or obese. 1 Malnutrition in all its forms is now the major contributor to the global burden of disease. And rises in hunger and food insecurity over the last few years indicate the presence of rising social and economic tensions and conflicts that threaten global stability.

The legislative framework for U.S. initiatives to address food and nutrition security is in place. A Farm Bill guiding national action on these issues over the next four years passed during the lame duck session last month; 2 the Global Food Security Act was recently reauthorized until 2023 as the framework for U.S. support for food security in key countries around the world. 3 The challenge for the 116th Congress will be to ensure effective implementation of these key pieces of legislation. Through bipartisan  policy oversight and timely funding decisions, congressional support matters. It impacts the daily well- being of billions of people.

While sustained U.S. investments in international development ultimately advance our country’s economic development and national security interests, it is not (nor should it be) about indiscriminately putting U.S. interests first. Some pockets of the world depend on the United States as a leader and partner to address complex global development challenges. Our track record speaks for itself: from  2010 to 2017, U.S. targeted strategies and investments in inclusive agricultural growth and nutrition programming decreased poverty by 23 percent and stunting by 32 percent in areas where Feed the Future operated. 4

Numerous leaders and factors should be credited for Feed the Future’s success, from interagency coordination under the U.S. Global Food Security Strategy to the unflagging work of U.S.-based and international partners who implement programs on the ground. Progress hasn’t come easily or quickly. Robust results monitoring has proven that agricultural development tools can work, particularly when combined with effective enabling environments and country-led approaches.

There are few issues more urgent and more important both at home and abroad than food security and improved nutrition.

But now is not the time to just sit back and applaud our inspiring progress, collaborative leadership, or legislative victories. Despite targeted achievements, for three years in a row global hunger has risen. 5 Progress to reach the UN Sustainable Development Goals are not currently on track to reverse the climbing trend of undernourishment, much less to eradicate hunger by 2020. 6 Despite admirable global efforts like Scaling Up Nutrition and the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, why does it feel like we are being pushed slowly backward down a mountain of progress? Protracted conflicts, climate change, and mass migration—which are inexorably linked—are primary drivers. And these trends are getting worse, not better.

Why Does The United States Need to Lead

The United States has a long, proud history as a leader in food security from a research, humanitarian, and development perspective: a U.S. scientist, later coined the “Father of the Green Revolution,” saved one billion lives from starvation in the 1960s through agricultural research and technology development; U.S. tax dollars provided a record-setting $8 billion in humanitarian assistance in fiscal year 2017, making the United States by far the largest single donor responding to natural and man-made crises; 7 and Feed the Future estimates that it has lifted 23.4 million people out of poverty since 2010. 8,9

Congressional oversight and guidance are more important than ever to maintain the development leadership that the United States is known for. Foreign assistance is part of our moral fabric. The instrumental benefits, including economic returns and global stability, are understood and appreciated by both political parties. President Trump’s signature reauthorizing the Global Food Security Act for the 2018- 2023 period confirms the importance of these issues and the U.S. role in addressing them.

Why is the Global Food Security Act Politically Significant?

The groundbreaking Global Food Security Act of 2016 not only demonstrated sincere bipartisan U.S. leadership, with both sides of the aisle co-sponsoring and advocating for the legislation, but also transformed a presidential initiative into a national strategy. 14,15 Signed months before the 2016 presidential election, the timing of the authorization was more crucial than most could have predicted at the time. It placed enduring congressional commitment behind a global food security strategy that was otherwise tied to the parting Obama administration.

The Global Food Security Act is a reminder that enacting policy change takes serious attention over an extended period, even when both Republicans and Democrats support the cause. The act was more than a decade in the making, propelled by a community of policymakers, advocacy organizations, and thought leaders pushing for the United States to step up. Among these stakeholders was a 2008 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) task force co-chaired by champions like Senator Bob Casey (D- PA) and now former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). The task force crafted a bold, bipartisan vision arguing, among other policy points, for the United States to create a strategic approach to global food security that connects relief, development, energy, and trade. 16

Congressional oversight and guidance are more important than ever to maintain the development leadership that the United States is known for.

What is the Current U.S. Strategy?

That U.S. Global Food Security Strategy was submitted to Congress in September 2016 as mandated by the Global Food Security Act. It provides a comprehensive framework to achieve its vision of a “world free from hunger, malnutrition, and extreme poverty,” replete with thriving economies, nutritious diets, and resilient households. 17 The strategy aptly details emerging global trends, from instability and conflict, to urbanization and gender inequalities. It meticulously outlines how to develop an efficient and inclusive agricultural growth program at the global level, covering everything from building market systems and trade linkages to integrating water and sanitation investments.

From a technical perspective, very little is missing. And that may be precisely the problem: the strategy  is so comprehensive and broad that it lacks strategic focus. From the results framework to the monitoring, evaluation, and learning approach, the plan on paper is solid. Translating these strategies into activities on the ground, however, is much more complex. At the country- level, how do you prioritize target commodities and communities when funding is stagnant, but expectations have risen? How do you effectively partner with a national government that may have a well-written country strategy, but remarkably low tax revenues, limited capacity, or inadequate political will to invest in its own people? How do you integrate market-led development programs with traditional humanitarian aid in areas plagued by political instability and violence? What is the best way for diverse U.S. agencies to collaborate and combine efforts at the country level when they have numerous competing priorities and potentially conflicting missions?

Lessons Learned from CSIS Research

Between 2015 and 2017, the CSIS Global Food Security Project traveled to three unique Feed the Future focus countries that represented the largest U.S. investments in their respective regions at the time: Tanzania, Bangladesh, and Guatemala. During these research trips, the CSIS team met with food and agriculture experts, donors, implementing partners, smallholder farmers, and representatives from the public and private sectors to explore the effectiveness of the Feed the Future strategy. Each country case study furnished distinct insights that CSIS translated into the Tracking Promises series, which includes analytical reports, short videos, private roundtables, public panel events, and congressional briefings.

In addition, the CSIS Global Food Security Project led bipartisan, bicameral congressional staff delegations to Senegal in 2016 and Ghana in 2018. 18,19 The goal was to better understand how Feed the Future principles are applied, how the initiative’s programs relate to other U.S. development investments, and how partners and beneficiaries perceive the impacts of those programs.

The intention of both the CSIS Tracking Promises series and the congressional delegations was neither to provide a technical assessment of individual programs nor a comprehensive evaluation of Feed the Future. Still, salient trends that policymakers should know about the initiative emerged from these research efforts and can inform sustained U.S. leadership moving forward. While there were many key observations made over the course of our research, the following four are worth highlighting:

• Development goals are futile without country commitment. Both the 19 Feed the Future focus countries, as well as the current 12 selected last year under Feed the Future 2.0, met specific criteria considered preconditions for success by the interagency team. One of these is the political will of partnering governments to take ownership of the initiative. This critical criterion is hard to measure and certainly doesn’t play out equally in all countries. For instance, Bangladesh is often hailed as a model of government leadership. Rightfully so, as it has allocated substantial resources—$5.6 billion or 64 percent of the total budget—to its country investment plan and crafted robust national policies to tackle hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. 20 The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found Bangladesh’s strategic plans so successful that it replicated them in nearly 50 other countries. In comparison, a lack of government ownership can make it difficult for donors or implementing partners to implement new ideas or projects sustainably. In Guatemala, minimal domestic resource mobilization and an inadequate provision of agriculture, health, and nutrition services underscore the government’s inability to hold up its end of the bargain. 21 Focus countries will often face capacity constraints at the national and local levels of government; however, experiences confirm that the commitment of government leadership to Feed the Future objectives is essential to success. Our experience raised an important question: if a focus country government fails to fulfill its responsibility in this regard, should the U.S. consider suspending or reducing its engagement in that country?
• Strategic collaboration between U.S. agencies and initiatives matters. Designing a whole-of-government structure to lead U.S. global food security efforts is necessary to achieve ambitious development goals and leverage the full power of the U.S. government. It makes sense and is the right thing to do. But the complexity of multiple agencies implementing a singular strategy cannot be overstated. Functional interagency coordination in Washington, D.C. does not automatically trickle down to the operational level (and vice versa). Divergent priorities or processes among agencies can be complementary at best and contradictory at worst. The presence—never mind proficiency—of the 11 U.S. agencies within target countries varies. 22 The one constant being that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the lead agency, the dominant strategist, and the primary funder for most of the programs. Senegal is a powerful example of how to capitalize on synergies across U.S. agencies and assistance programs; infrastructure projects led by the Millennium Challenge Corporation were vital to the success of USAID’s Feed the Future agricultural growth programs there. 23 Overall, Feed the Future’s coordination with other U.S. government food security programs—including food aid through USAID’s Food for Peace and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s McGovern-Dole school-feeding program—remains weak despite improvements. The elevation of resilience as a development priority and the current reorganization of USAID has the potential to further strengthen coordination and better bridge the humanitarian and development divide. 24
• Nutrition interventions are not receiving the priority they deserve. Despite the dual Feed the Future objectives of inclusive agricultural growth and improved nutrition, the allocation of funding to projects meant to achieve these shared goals does not often reflect equal prioritization. Compared to agricultural interventions, investments that specifically target nutrition have been meager and potentially insufficient to achieve  ambitious stunting reduction targets. In Bangladesh, nutrition programming in 2016 constituted less than 20 percent of the portfolio’s total investment, with most of these funds drawn from the USAID Global Health funding tranche, not Feed the Future. 25 Income growth and greater agricultural yields alone cannot combat malnutrition; indeed, economic growth does not inherently lead to improved nutrition or health outcomes. The balance of resource allocation across the Feed the Future portfolio should be realigned so that greater investments are made in robust  and integrated nutrition-specific and nutrition- sensitive programming. Feed the Future strategies should consider fruits and vegetables as priority crops. Country strategies should also engage the private sector in biofortification efforts, particularly in countries where target populations derive most  of their calories from staple foods that offer little nutritional value.
• Access to finance can build resilience and change the lives of smallholders. Smallholder farmer livelihoods are increasingly exposed to external shocks, including market volatility, climate change, and natural disasters. Building resiliency requires providing risk management tools, such as promoting off-farm livelihood diversification and strengthening national disaster preparedness and response mechanisms. Often overlooked in this equation is facilitating access to financial services. Microfinance institutions in Feed the Future target countries routinely see agriculture as risky, and fail to offer financial products suitable for low-income customers, farmers, or owners of small- and medium-sized enterprises. When services do exist, potential customers often lack access to the information they need to take advantage of them. In Ghana, only 5 percent of commercial lending goes to agriculture, and interest rates have risen as high as 42 percent in recent years. 26 Feed the Future-funded programs in Ghana are addressing this at the local level through village savings and loans associations and at the national level by working directly with financial institutions. Access to affordable financial services, paired with adequate financial education, can support productive investments, drive rural economic growth, and mitigate the risk of shocks. Plausible approaches to achieve this objective could include private- or public- sector insurance products, weather-indexed lines of credit, or producer collectivization and risk-pooling.

Where Do We Turn Next

There are five new “roads” that U.S. policymakers should take to maximize our investments and sustain the drive to transform global food and nutrition security:

Global food security deserves greater prominence within foreign policy debates and demands better coordination between development, diplomacy, and defense sectors.

• Double down on nutrition. We need to nourish, not just feed, a growing population. Malnutrition is a universal, costly problem. As the winners of this year’s World Food Prize reminded us, every country in the world is dealing with at least one form of malnutrition. Eighty-eight percent of countries suffer from more than one form: childhood stunting, anemia, and/or overweight or obesity. 29 The burden of malnutrition robs the global economy of $3.5 trillion yearly in lost productivity and health care costs. One in three people globally is overweight or obese, and the rate is rising faster than undernutrition is decreasing. Nutrition interventions can be the catalyst for tackling all the UN Sustainable Development Goals, from environmental sustainability to equity and inclusion. With a $16 return on every $1 invested, nutrition has also proven to be one of the most cost-effective development interventions. Despite this high return on investment and powerful multiplier effect, nutrition investments by global donors are nothing short of abysmal at less than 1 percent. It is no wonder that the world is not on track to meet internationally agreed- upon nutrition targets. 30 Agricultural growth programs that focus solely on traditional staple crops, which by and large provide limited nutritional value, need to be rebalanced with investments in biofortification, horticultural productivity, and behavior change and nutrition education. There is a dramatic discrepancy between theamount of fruits and vegetables the world needs, and the amount produced. 31 It is not enough for agriculture and food supply chain policies to be nutrition-sensitive; they must be nutrition-driven. 32 Nutrition investments and indicators should continue to be woven into U.S.- funded development programming and remain a top priority within the global food and nutrition strategy. Policymakers should support and expand global efforts like the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement and Nutrition for Growth and elevate nutrition commitments through sustained diplomatic engagement at global gatherings such as the G7 and G20 meetings in 2019.
• Better link humanitarian responses with development strategies. The surge in global hunger levels over the past three years has been driven by political instability in conflict-afflicted regions and compounded by the impacts of climate change. More than half of the hungriest people in the world (nearly 500 out of 820 million) live in countries marred by man-made conflict. 33 Most of the countries facing pre-famine conditions in 2018, like Yemen, South Sudan, or Somalia, don’t have the economic or political stability required to meet the thoughtful criteria to become a Feed the Future target country. Linkages between political instability and food insecurity are often touted as one of the primary reasons for sustained U.S investments in agricultural development. Yet, long- term food security programming can only function in stable environments. If the United States wants to address the root  causes of hunger and poverty, its strategy must include investing in and linking up its strategies on governance and peace and reconciliation, as well as recoupling humanitarian assistance with long- term agricultural and nutrition programs. USAID has robust and effective humanitarian  programs, from Food for Peace to those within the office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, that targets the world’s most vulnerable populations. But the nexus between emergency life-saving assistance and inclusive market growth opportunities needs to be  further  analyzed and better operationalized. The recent addition of Nigeria and Niger in Feed the Future’s refreshed strategy presents a unique opportunity for USAID to align traditional food security programming with U.S security interests, though it is too early in the strategy implementation to assert success or failure. The good news is that Feed the Future 2.0’s new strategic objective, “strengthening the resilience of communities to shocks that can lead to famine and political unrest,” not only lifts up resilience programming but also pushes for more strategic collaboration between humanitarian and development aid. 34 Furthermore, the transformation of USAID includes adding “resilience” to the name of the bureau leading the global food security strategy, and the agency has a strong center focused on resilience.

• Embrace and scale new technologies.  Climate change will continue to test the capabilities of the global food system, from irregular rainfall that affects smallholder productivity (and migration movements) to warming temperatures that create the perfect breeding ground for emerging pests. Supporting researchers and entrepreneurs to advance innovative technologies that allow farmers to do more with less natural resources is a requirement to adapt to the new environmental norms. Scaling innovations is only possible if governments foster an enabling environment that attracts private sector investment and if smallholders are provided access to affordable and practical technologies.38 Community-level agro-dealers need to be equipped with training and finance tools to ensure that quality agricultural products like drip irrigation kits or deep placement fertilizers get into the hands of the farmers that most need them. Gene-editing techniques like CRISPR, which could be used to modify staple crop plants like cassava and sweet potato to increase resistance to common diseases, have the potential to transform agricultural production radically. With the right investors and market environment, digital technologies like the Hello Tractor app in Nigeria, which empowers farmers through mechanization, could grow exponentially. If embraced by emerging markets, innovations like cold chain storage or safe chemical sprays could revolutionize supply chains and reduce postharvest loss. USAID administrator Mark Green’s bold vision to end the need for aid begins with spurring innovation outside of the traditional development model. Creative initiatives like the USAID Grand Challenge on Powering Agriculture that supports clean energy ideas, or programs like Feed the Future Partnering for Innovation that helps businesses reach hard-to-access markets, are good models to follow.

Kimberly Flowers is the director of the Global Food Security Project and the Humanitarian Agenda at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C  

The author would like to thank former CSIS colleague Kelsey Bachenberg for her research contributions to this brief, and CSIS (non-resident) senior associate Reid Hamel for her exceptional research and writing on the work that was foundational to  this piece. Sincere thanks also to Emmy Simmons, CSIS (non- resident) senior adviser, who provided a thoughtful review and helpful edits.

This brief was made possible by the generous support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

CSIS Briefs are produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2019 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

• FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018: Building Climate Resilience for Food Security and Nutrition, (Rome: FAO, 2018), http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf .
• Jeff Stein, “Congress just passed an $867 billion farm bill. Here’s what’s in it,” Washington Post , December 12, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/business/2018/12/11/congresss-billion-farm-bill-is-out-heres-whats- it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2fcba4aa7216 .
• “President Donald J. Trump Signs H.R. 1551, S. 2269, S. 3354, S. 3508 and S. 3509 into Law,” The White House , October 11, 2018, https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-signs-h-r- 1551-s-2269-s-3354-s-3508-s-3509-law/ .
• USAID, A Decade of Progress, Feed the Future Snapshot: Results through 2018 , (Washington D.C.: USAID, 2018), https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1867/ feed-future-snapshot-decade-progress.
• FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutri- tion in the World 2018.
• “Global Nutrition Report 2017: Nourishing the SDGs.” Development Initiatives , Bristol, UK, 2017, https://globalnutritionreport.org/re- ports/2017-global-nutrition-report/ .
• Christopher Connell, “United States leads world in humanitarian aid [infographic],” ShareAmerica, June 19, 2018, https://share.america.gov/ united-states-leads-world-in-humanitarian-aid/ .
• “Norman Ernest Borlaug,” The Norwegian Nobel Institute, 1970, https:// www.nobelpeaceprize.org/Prize-winners/Prizewinner-documentation/Nor- man-Ernest-Borlaug.
• USAID, A Decade of Progress, Feed the Future Snapshot: Results through 2018.
• Charles Hanrahan and Melissa Ho, The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative , (Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2011), Washington D.C., https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44216.pdf.
• “A Common Sense U.S. Budget for Global Food Security,” Center for Stra- tegic and International Studies (CSIS), May 29, 2018, https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=HZsby0Wml30 .
• Luc Christiaensen and Will Martin, “Agriculture, structural transfor- mation and poverty reduction: Eight new insights,” World Development 109 (September 2018): 413-416, https://www.sciencedir ect.c om/science/article/ pii/S0305750X1830175X?via%3Dihub.
• Daniel Runde and Rombina Bandura, “The BUILD Act Has Passed: What’s Next?” CSIS, October 12, 2018, https://www.csis.org/analysis/build- act-has-passed-whats-next .
• Kathleen Hicks et. al, Beyond the Water’s Edge: Measuring the Internation- alism of Congress (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2018): 178, https://www.csis.org/ analysis/beyond-waters-edge .
• “S. 1252 — 114th Congress: Global Food Security Act of 2016,” U.S. Congress, became public law 07/20/2016, https://www .congres s.gov/ bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1252.
• Stephen Morrison, Johanna Nesseth Tuttle, A Call for Strategic U.S.  Approach to the Global Food Crisis: A Report of the CSIS Task Force on the Global Food Crisis Core Findings and Recommendations (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2018), https://www.csis.org/analysis/call-strategic-us-approach-global-food-crisis .
• USAID, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy FY 2017- 2021 , (Washington D.C.: USAID, 2016), https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security-Strategy-2016.pdf.
• Jennifer Cooke and Kimberly Flowers, Integrated Approaches to Food Security and Nutrition: A Trip Report of the CSIS Delegation to Senegal, August 2016 (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2016), https://www.csis.org/analysis/inte- grated-approaches-food-security-and-nutrition .
• Jennifer Cooke, Feed the Future in Ghana: Promising Progress, Choices Ahead (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2018), https://www.csis.org/analysis/ feed-future-ghana .
• Reid Hamel and Kimberly Flowers, Tracking Promises: Bangladesh: Analyz- ing the Impact of Feed the Future Investments in Bangladesh (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2016), https://www.csis.org/analysis/tracking-promises-bangladesh/
• Reid Hamel, Tracking Promises: Analyzing the Impact of Feed the Future in Guatemala , (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2017), https://www.csis.org/analysis/ tracking-promises .
• U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of State, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Commerce, Over- seas Private Investment Cooperation, U.S. African Development Founda- tion, US. Geological Service, and the U.S. Trade Representative.
• Jennifer Cooke and Kimberly Flowers , Integrated Approaches to Food Security and Nutrition: A Trip Report of the CSIS Delegation to Senegal , August 2016,” Center for Strategic & International Studies (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2016), https://www.csis.org/analysis/integrated-approaches-food-securi- ty-and-nutrition .
• Michael Igoe, “Exclusive: USAID chief unveils major organizational shakeup,” Devex, April 9, 2018, https://www.devex.com/news/exclusive-us- aid-chief-unveils-major-organizational-shakeup-92493 .
• Hamel and Flowers, Tracking Promises: Bangladesh .
• Cooke, Feed the Future in Ghana, Promising Progress, Choices Ahead .
• WFP USA, “Winning the Peace: Hunger and Instability,” World Food Pro- gram USA , Report, December, 2017, https://www.wfpusa.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/12/wfp_food_security_final-web-1.pdf .
• The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017 (Washington, D.C.: White House, 2017), https://www . white- house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905. pdf.
• David Nabarro and Lawrence Haddad, “Malnutrition is a staggering glob- al burden – we must give new meaning to the food we eat , ” The Telegraph , October 16, 2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/16/malnutri- tion-staggering-global-burden-must-give-new-meaning/ .
• “Global Nutrition Report 2017: Nourishing the SDGs.”
• Krishna Bahadur KC et al. “When too much isn’t enough: Does current food production meet global nutritional needs?” PLOS One 13, no. 10 (Oc- tober 2018), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0205683&utm_source=guelphtoday.com&utm_campaign=guelphto- day.com&utm_medium=referral.
• Reid Hamel and Elizabeth Black, “Weighing the Risk of Obesity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries,” CSIS, May 10, 2018, https://www.csis.org/ analysis/weighing-risk-obesity-low-and-middle-income-countries .
• FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutri- tion in the World 2018 .
• USAID, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy FY 2017-2021 .
• Matthew Clancy, Keith Fuglie, and Paul Heisey, “U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of Falling Public Funding,” Economic Research Services, USDA, No- vember 10, 2016, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/november/ us-agricultural-rd-in-an-era-of-falling-public-funding/ .
• “Feed the Future Innovation Labs,” FeedtheFuture.Gov, https://www. feedthefuture.gov/feed-the-future-innovation-labs/ .
• Cooke, Feed the Future in Ghana.
• Katrin Kuhlmann, The Human Face of Trade and Food Security: Lessons on the Enabling Environment from Kenya and India (Washington, D.C.: CSIS,
• 2017), https://www.csis.org/analysis/human-face-trade-and-food-security .

Kimberly Flowers

Programs & projects.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• International & Interagency Coordination

International Cooperation on Food Safety

On this page:

FDA-SENASICA-Cofepris Food Safety Partnership

Regulatory partnerships, systems recognition, equivalence.

• Codex Alimentarius Commission

International Committees

What's new .

On August 24, 2023, the FDA signed the first of its kind Regulatory Partnership Arrangement (RPA) with Ecuador’s seafood regulatory authority to strengthen food safety in shrimp intended for the U.S. market. Shrimp is the most consumed seafood in the United States, the vast majority of which is imported. Ecuador is one of the leading exporters of aquacultured shrimp to the United States. 

For additional information:

• FDA Signs Partnership with Ecuador to Enhance Safety of Shrimp Imports
• Cooperative Arrangements
• Enhancing the Safety of Imported Shrimp Through Regulatory Partnerships

Pursuant to its obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), the FDA works with foreign governments and international standard-setting bodies to harmonize food safety laws, regulations and standards based on science. The FDA also establishes arrangements with regulatory partners to harmonize food safety standards and eliminate duplication or overlap in food safety controls. The FDA maintains two mechanisms in furtherance of these efforts: 1) Systems Recognition – whereby the FDA recognizes that a foreign food safety system achieves food safety outcomes comparable to those of the FDA; and 2) Equivalence – whereby the FDA recognizes that a foreign food safety system achieves the same level of public health protection as the U.S. despite having different food safety controls.

The FDA-SENASICA-Cofepris Food Safety Partnership (FSP) was established in September 2020, through a new  Statement of Intent (SOI)  between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality (SENASICA) and the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risk (Cofepris). 

Learn More about the FSP

A Regulatory Partnership Arrangement (RPA) is an arrangement between the FDA and a foreign regulatory counterpart for collaboration to enhance the safety of imported foods. By leveraging another country’s food safety export programs for a specific commodity or program area, such as shrimp, the FDA can work with a regulatory counterpart to ensure that imports meet U.S. safety standards. Through a rigorous assessment, the FDA determines if the country has robust food safety controls and has the appropriate level of regulatory oversight throughout its supply chain. The FDA uses the results of the assessment to make risk-based decisions with respect to oversight and surveillance of imported food.

More on Regulatory Partnerships

Systems recognition, previously referred to as comparability, involves reviewing a foreign country’s food safety regulatory system to determine if it provides a similar set of protections to that of the FDA. Outcomes of these reviews may be used by the FDA to make risk-based decisions regarding foreign inspections, import examination, and responses to food safety incidents.

Once systems recognition assessments are completed, the arrangement leads the way to a new level of regulatory cooperation between FDA and our regulatory partners in other countries, allowing us to avoid duplication of effort while leveraging the high quality work done by regulatory authorities in each country.

More on Systems Recognition

Equivalence is the process of determining whether a country’s food safety controls achieve at least the same level of public health protection as measures required by U.S. law. This means that a foreign country is not required to develop and implement the same exact procedures and food safety controls that FDA requires, but rather the country must objectively demonstrate how its food safety controls meet at least the same level of public health protection achieved by U.S. measures. 

More on Equivalence

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), created in 1963, is an intergovernmental body with over 170 members within the framework of the Joint Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission’s purpose is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. It also promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

The Codex Alimentarius, a result of the Commission's work, is a collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and other recommendations and is the major international mechanism for encouraging fair international trade in food while promoting the health and economic interest of consumers.

• U.S. Codex Office (USDA)
• FDA's Participation in Codex
• The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
• The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
• The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA)
• Conversation with FDA Experts: International Collaboration on Food Safety is a Top Priority for the FDA
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
• Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
• World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
• International Plant Protection Convention
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
• International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)

Privacy and cookies policy

We use cookies on our website to help us understand how you use the site and to make improvements. These may be used to track your visit to our website or to enable us to personalise your browsing experience, and they may be shared with Google Analytics so that your data can be processed. Privacy and cookies policy

International organisations, including multilaterals

Join our mailing list.

Be first to hear when new GNR resources are available

Dr Mariachiara Di Cesare (lead author)

Key findings

• International and multilateral organisations play a key role in supporting the global fight against malnutrition and poor diet contributing significantly to enhance political leadership and good governance in delivering effective nutrition policies (44% of all submitted goals) and to create an enabling environment.
• Over half (18, 53%) of goals were high and upper moderate in SMARTness (trackable with minimal clarifications), most of which were enabling (12 of 19 enabling goals, 63%). Most impact goals were low in SMARTness (4, 80%), that is not trackable with extensive clarifications. The SMARTness level was largely affected by the lack of information specific to the Measurable and Achievable dimensions.
• Most commitments focused on maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets, with the largest proportion focusing on childhood wasting (9, 69%), anaemia, stunting and childhood overweight (7, 54%), low birth weight and breastfeeding (6, 46%). A smaller number of commitments were focused on diet-related NCD targets (4, 31%, for diabetes, 4, 31%, for raised blood pressure, and 2, 15%, for salt intake), and six (46%) were aligned with adult obesity.

If you would like to know more about any of the terms used in this chapter, you can visit the report glossary .

Introduction

The UN Decade of Action on Nutrition marked a new ambition and direction in global nutrition action. The Decade of Action provides an enabling environment for all countries to ensure that action is taken to develop and implement inclusive policies aimed at ending all forms of malnutrition. [1] Under the auspices of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) submitted commitments at the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit 2021. Their actions ranged from prevention of stunting, wasting, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight and obesity to ensuring access and availability to healthy diets for beneficiary populations. [2] As noted by the Chair of the newly formed mechanism UN Nutrition, UN agencies are ready to maximise opportunities and work to end all forms of malnutrition. [3]

During the Nutrition Year of Action, seven international organisations, all UN agencies, submitted 13 commitments comprising 34 goals. Of these, one commitment with three goals registered by WHO was submitted outside the Tokyo N4G Summit 2021. This is an increase from the 28 goals submitted during the 2013 N4G Summit by seven UN agencies.

Commitments submitted were mostly developed unilaterally (10, 77%). Commitments jointly submitted with other stakeholders (3, 33%) were mostly developed in collaboration with donor governments or other UN agencies. Half of goals (19, 56%) were targeting specific groups of the population, either girls and women (2, 6%) and/or specific age groups (16, 47%).

Most goals committed by international and multilateral organisations were categorised as enabling (19, 56%) and focused on establishing an environment for effective nutrition action across all sectors. Policy goals (10, 29%) focused on strategies, policies, interventions or programmes that aim to improve nutrition outcomes both directly and indirectly . Impact goals (5, 15%) were aimed at directly improving poor diets and reducing malnutrition in all its forms. Over 40% of goals were submitted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Estimated costs associated with commitment delivery were provided for three (23%) commitments but publicly disclosed for only one (7.7%) (the only one with ‘financial' goals). The ‘Scale-up nutrition for children’ commitment submitted by UNICEF during the Tokyo N4G Summit 2021 is associated with an estimated financial investment of US$2.4 billion.

The average length of goals submitted by the seven UN agencies was 3.7 years for enabling actions, 4.0 years for impact, and 5.4 years for policy. ‘Food environment’ and ‘nutrition care services’ goals are set to be achieved in the longest timescale (7.0 and 5.6 years, respectively); ‘research, monitoring and data’ goals were those with the shortest timescale (just below 2 years).

Given the key role played by international organisations in supporting governments in their fight against malnutrition and poor diet through the redistribution of financial and non-financial resources, in this chapter we provide initial analysis of commitments and goals submitted during the Nutrition Year of Action with a focus on the areas of action, the SMARTness ranking of commitments, and their alignment with the N4G thematic areas. [4]

International organisations committed to enhance political leadership and good governance

Of the 19 enabling goals submitted by international organisations, 15 (79%) were ‘leadership and governance’ and delivered effective nutrition policies globally (13 goals had a global focus; two had a multi-country focus). IFAD committed to address the nutrition needs of the rural poor by integrating nutrition into its existing programme of loans and grants. WFP committed to support governments through analytical tools (e.g. the WFP Fill the Nutrient Gap) to be used to inform policy and programming and build public–private partnerships in sectors that can contribute to improving diets and nutrition outcomes. Organisations committed to launch global alliances (e.g. UNICEF Global Alliance for Children’s Diets) to support public and private sector actors to take responsibility for their roles in transforming global and local food systems. This work supports global action plans (e.g. UNICEF Global Action Plan on Child Wasting, WHO Global Action Plan to prevent and manage anaemia in women and children, WHO Global Action Plan for Wasting) to produce updated context-specific nutrition policies and treatment protocols. UNICEF committed to support policies, strategies and programmes to prevent malnutrition in all its forms (e.g. UNICEF). They committed to ensure policy environments were supportive of achievements in nutrition outcomes including strengthening nutrition-specific activities and nutrition-sensitive approaches (e.g. FAO). The WHO committed to support countries to develop regulatory and policy actions by providing evidence-informed guidance and strengthening national regulatory and food control system capacities to improve the food environment and promote safe and healthy diets for all.

In terms of operationalising these commitments, IFAD deployed nutrition and social inclusions specialists to support teams and governments. The WFP increased advocacy and engagement to make nutrition a national priority that is integrated into national programmes. Both the WHO and FAO developed roadmaps and action plans. The WHO established alliances to advocate for specific forms of malnutrition, for example for the acceleration of anaemia action. The FAO will strengthen its capacity to design, implement and scale-up nutrition-sensitive projects and programmes for healthy diets and mainstreaming nutrition. UNICEF submitted three ‘financial’ goals, which were focused on increasing national budgets dedicated to nutrition and investments in nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. One goal was ‘research, monitoring and data’ and focused on developing and disseminating evidence-based guidelines for improving food environments and promoting safe and healthy diets.

The remaining goals (15) were impact and policy nutrition actions; seven policy goals were ‘nutrition care services’ and four impact goals were ‘undernutrition’. Examples of ‘nutrition care services’ include improving the prevention and treatment services for undernutrition, such as wasting and micronutrient deficiencies, as well as supporting nutritional improvements among patients with NCDs. No impact goals were submitted to tackle ‘food and nutrition security’ or ‘obesity and diet-related NCDs’ (Figure 7.1).

International organisations focused most of their commitments on enabling actions at the global level (17, 89%), 13 of which were ‘leadership and governance’. Most policy goals were multi-country (8, 80%), of which six (75%) were ‘nutrition care services’ (mostly aimed at integrating and enhancing nutrition services and interventions offered in public or private health systems).

Figure 7.1 Most commitment goals registered by international organisations were supporting global ‘leadership and governance’

Types of nutrition commitment goals registered by international organisations

Source: Global Nutrition Report: Nutrition Accountability Framework Commitment Tracker. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/naf/tracker. For the dataset used in this analysis, please see the report annex.

• Download the data: Figure 7.1

International and multilateral organisations made SMART commitments, but improvement is needed

Goals submitted by international organisations were split between high and upper moderate in SMARTness (18, 53%) – all trackable with minimal clarifications – and low and lower moderate (16, 47%) – not trackable with minimal (3, 9%) or extensive clarifications (13, 38%). The highest number of trackable goals (with minimal or extensive clarifications) was recorded for enabling (12, 63%), while the majority (4, 80%) of impact goals were not trackable with extensive clarifications (in the low level) (Figure 7.2).

SMARTness scores were particularly low for the Achievable and Measurable dimensions. These were mostly driven by the lack of specific information on the total and estimated costs associated with the delivery of the goal. For only one commitment (7.7%, registered by UNICEF) there was full public disclosure of the total delivery cost for the commitment, for two (16%) commitments the total costs were estimated but the amount was kept confidential and could not be disclosed either publicly or to the GNR, and for the remaining 10 (77%) commitments no amount was estimated or it was unknown. Impact goals scored the lowest in the Measurable dimension, while the Achievable dimension had the lowest score for policy and enabling goals.

Figure 7.2 Half of commitment goals submitted by international organisations were not trackable

SMARTness of nutrition commitments registered by international organisations, by action area

Most commitments focused on maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets

As part of the registration process, respondents were asked to self-report the focus of their commitments in relation to the 10 global nutrition targets [5] (Figure 7.3). Finding show that most commitments (which may focus on multiple targets) were focused on maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets, with the largest proportion focusing on childhood wasting (9, 69%), anaemia, stunting and childhood overweight (7, 54%), low birth weight and breastfeeding (6, 46%). A smaller number of commitments were focused on diet-related NCD targets (4, 31%, for diabetes, 4, 31%, for raised blood pressure, and 2, 15%, for salt intake), and six (46%) with adult obesity. A quarter (3, 23%) of commitments registered at the summit included three or more diet-related NCD targets. Specifically, WFP registered a commitment focused on improving nutrition and diets, FAO on improving agrifood systems for healthy diets, and WHO on regulating the food environment. Both commitments from WFP and FAO also focused on all six maternal, infant and young child nutrition global targets.

The focus of the commitments included improving nutrition and diets through their integration in the agriculture system; integration of nutrition interventions into primary healthcare; providing an enabling environment for nutrition and nutrition security; and tackling micronutrient deficiencies (e.g. iodine deficiency among pregnant women and anaemia) with food fortification. Some of the commitments were aimed at preventing and treating child wasting and generating context-specific wasting guidance. Engaging with stakeholders was another area of focus including both the private sector and civil society.

The 13 commitments covered all N4G thematic areas, with the most focusing on ‘health’ (9, 69%) followed by ‘food’ (8, 62%), ‘resilience’ (7, 54%), ‘data’ (4, 31%) and ‘financing’ (2, 15%) (commitments may focus on multiple thematic areas, so percentages total over 100%). Over half of commitments submitted by international organisations included two thematic areas (7, 54%), while only a handful included three or more thematic areas (3, 23%) or one thematic area (2, 15%).

Figure 7.3 Most commitments submitted by international organisations focused on maternal, infant and young child nutrition and overweight and obesity global targets

Focus of international organisation commitments with specific global nutrition targets

Note: Commitments may focus on multiple targets.

• Download the data: Figure 7.3

International organisations play an essential role in the fight against poor diet and malnutrition and importantly in achieving the goals and targets of the N4G, United Nations Food Systems Summit, global nutrition targets (as set out by the World Health Assembly) and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Overall international organisations focused their commitments on creating an enabling environment to improve nutrition by developing national and global action plans, developing regulations on food fortification and improved agricultural practices, and integrating essential nutrition interventions into the primary healthcare. They further aim to address undernutrition by committing to reduce specific forms of malnutrition, such as stunting, wasting and micronutrient deficiencies, through improving access to nutrition care and food fortification.

Key recommendations

• International organisations should keep providing support to governments to enhance impact actions. To do so, international organisations need to ensure coordination across stakeholders focusing on the same geographic target to promote integrated actions.
• Additional effort is needed to improve the SMARTness of commitments to ensure focus and accountability in actions for nutrition. This is an essential requirement and aligned with the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition that advocated for stakeholders to work with SMART goals to achieve effective, sustainable changes, and improve global nutrition targets initially by 2025. [6]
• International organisations should work to ensure global engagement with nutrition actions aimed at diet-related NCDs, without halting or compromising the progress made in tackling maternal, infant and young child nutrition. While N4G is a global effort that historically has focused on maternal, infant and young child malnutrition, there should be recognition that obesity and diet-related NCDs are now global pandemics that are not limited to middle or high-income countries. Integrated actions are needed if there is willingness to tackle poor diet and malnutrition in all its forms globally.

Share International organisations, including multilaterals

• English Executive summary - 2022 Global Nutrition Report (PDF 1.5MB) Launch presentation - 2022 Global Nutrition Report (PDF 1.7MB) 2022 Global Nutrition Report | English (PDF 9.5MB)
• Spanish Executive summary_2022 Global Nutrition Report_Spanish.pdf (PDF 1.5MB) 2022 Global Nutrition Report | Spanish (PDF 9.6MB)
• French Executive summary_2022 Global Nutrition Report_French.pdf (PDF 1.5MB) 2022 Global Nutrition Report | French (PDF 9.8MB)

Data downloads

• Data 2022 Global Nutrition Report data (ZIP 550.9kB)

Executive summary - 2022 Global Nutrition Report

Download a PDF of the executive summary of this year's report

What is the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition? United Nations. https://www.un.org/nutrition/about . Accessed 1 September 2022.

More than US$27 billion committed to tackle global malnutrition and hunger crisis at the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth Summit. UNICEF. 2021; published online 8 December. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/more-us27-billion-committed-tackle-global-malnutrition-and-hunger-crisis-tokyo . Accessed 1 September 2022.

About UN Nutrition. UN Nutrition. https://www.unnutrition.org . Accessed 1 September 2022.

At the time of publication, commitment data was unverified.

Global Nutrition Report. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. Chapter 1: A world free from malnutrition: An assessment of progress towards the global nutrition targets. Figure 1.1 2025 Global nutrition targets and definitions. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/1e3f75#c532b341

The SMARTness of nutrition commitments. Global Nutrition Report. https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/naf/smart-commitments/ . Accessed 1 September 2022.

International Health Agencies and Their Important Role

A large number of international health agencies/organizations of various sizes provide international health assistance to improve long-term medical care in developing countries. They provide aid to victims of war, famine, and natural disasters. Agency sponsored research and pilot programs in developed industrialized countries have generated many of the best ideas for improving health in developing countries. The international health agencies/organizations are an important source of expert technical advice and training for local health professionals. These agencies/organizations produce the leading tropical health textbooks as well as the most important manuals for health workers. Here we will discuss the major international health agencies that are contributing to the health care delivery system in India.

1.   WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)

2.  UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION    (UNESCO)

3.  UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND ACTIVITIES (UNFPA)

4.  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP)

5.   WORLD BANK

6.  SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SIDA)

7.   FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO)

8.  UNITED NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND (UNICEF)

9.  DANISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DANIDA)

10.  EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC)

11.  UNITED STATES AGENCY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)

12.   COLOMBO PLAN

13.   INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO)

World Health Organization (WHO)

"Better health for everyone, everywhere"

The World Health Organization is the UN's specialized agency for health. It was created on April 7, 1948, and is celebrated each year as "World Health Day". The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized and non-political United Nations health agency, headquartered in Geneva.

Areas of work

The main areas of activity are health systems, lifelong health, non-communicable and communicable diseases, preparation, monitoring and response, and business services.

“Achieved by all people of the highest level of health", also known as Health for All by the year 2000.

Today, more than 7,000 people work in 150 country offices, six regional offices and our headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Main bodies

WHO is made up of three main bodies:

The World Health Assembly

• Determine international health policy and programs.
• Analysis of past year works 
• Approve the necessary budget for the following year.
• Elect the Member States to designate a person for three years on the Executive Council and replace the outgoing members.

The Management Board

• The main job of the Council is to give effect to the decisions and policies of the Assembly.
• The Council also has the power to act itself in emergencies, such as epidemics, earthquakes and floods, where immediate action is required.

The Secretariat

• Provide the Member States with technical and administrative support for their national health development programs.

Leading and coordinating international health within the United Nations system

Function / role

Health service development.

It strengthens the health services of Member States on request. This is the first time in history that international help is available to a State in the form of experts, personnel, drugs, transport, and equipment. India has received such help for control of communicable diseases (malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, VD, cholera, smallpox, etc.) and in the fields of health, statistics, family planning, MCH, nutrition, health education, mental health and AIDS, etc. The WHO helps to improve the standards of teaching and training in health, medical and related professions by granting fellowships to doctors of one country for study and training in another country.

Biomedical Research

The WHO encourages and facilitates research by (i) giving grants and fellowships, (ii) standardizing nomenclature, laboratory techniques and substances like sera, vaccines and drugs. It has published an International Pharmacopeia and has set up several International Reference Laboratories.

Prevention and Control of Specific Diseases

This activity covers both communicable and non-communicable diseases. Among communicable diseases, a large variety has been tackled by the WHO. The more important among these are malaria, filaria, smallpox (now eradicated), tuberculosis, leprosy, diarrheal diseases and AIDS. The WHO maintains an epidemic intelligence service that collects and disseminates information about the epidermis. WHO has set up a uniform set of International Health Regulations regarding immunization and quarantine of travellers to prevent the international spread of disease. During recent years, the WHO has placed a major emphasis on six target diseases through the Expanded Program of Immunisation, aimed at immunization of all children by 1990. As regards noncommunicable diseases, the WHO has given special attention to cardiovascular, neoplastic, mental, genetic and dental disorders, as also to drug addiction.

Health Statistics

The WHO lays down uniform procedures for reporting, registration and collection of health and vital statistics. It publishes the “International Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death” which is revised every 10 years. The WHO also publishes (a) Weekly Epidemiological Record, (b) World Health Statistics Quarterly, and (c) World Health Statistics Annual to disseminate information in this area.

Cooperation with Other Agencies

It promotes international cooperation in health through other specialized agencies of the UN, such as UNICEF, FAO, ILO, etc. It also maintains contact with other organizations like CARE and USAID.

Family Health

Since 1970, the WHO has given a major emphasis to its Family Health Program, the aim of which is to improve the quality of the family as a unit. The components of this program are MCH, human reproduction, nutrition and health education.

Environmental Health

The WHO advises the Member States about the provision of basic sanitary services and safe water supply, as also as the prevention of air pollution. The WHO is committed to the target of “Water for All by 1990” set up by Habitat, the UN Center for Human Settlements.

Health Literature and Information

The WHO acts as a clearinghouse for information on diverse health problems. It maintains a well-stocked library at the headquarters and brings out many publications.

The important ones are listed below:

• Bulletin of WHO (Monthly), which publishers original work
• WHO Chronicle
• Weekly Epidemiological Report
• World Health Statistics (Quarterly and Annual Reports)
• World Health (Monthly)
• WHO Technical Report Series on different subjects
• WHO Monograph Series
• International Digest of Health Legislation
• World Health Forum.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

UNESCO specific agency of United Nations was established on 16th November 1945. It has 193 member countries and 7 associate members. This organization is based in Paris with over 50 field offices and many institutes throughout the world.

• To maintain peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education and sciences.
• To protect human rights, universal respect for justice.
• To improve educational, social and human sciences with better communication and information. 

Functions 

The main functions of UNESCO are:

• Education: The largest sector of UNESCO activity is in the field of education
• Scientific activities: The scientific activities initiated by the UNESCO
• Communication: Develops communication for dissemination of information 
• Preservation of Cultural Heritage: It encourages modernization without the loss of cultural identity and diversity.

United Nations Population Fund Activities (UNFPA)

UNFPA is an international development agency that helps in the promotion of the right of women, men and children by health and equal opportunity. Science 1974 UNFPA is serving in India

Core Areas of focus

The three core areas of work are

• Reproductive health
• Gender equality and population
• Development strategies.
• To develop the national capability for the production of contraceptives.
• To develop population education programmes.
• To undertake organized sector projects.
• To strengthen programme management as well as to improve the productivity of grass-root level health workers.
• To introduce innovative approaches to family planning and MCH care.

United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)

Since 1966 UNDP partnered with people at all cadres of society to help build nations that can cope with crises, and sustain the kind of development that set everyone's quality of life. 

Basic objective 

• To help poorer nations to develop their human and natural resources more fully.

Focused areas

• Supporting strategic
• Legal empowerment
• Strengthening the position of women
• Supporting UNDP country offices and national partners
• Advocating for change to help people build a better life and to connect countries with knowledge, experience and resources 
• Solutions to global and national development challenges.
• Advocates for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
• Advocates for prevention and recovery, environment and energy, poverty reduction, democratic governance, crisis and HIV/AIDS.

The World Bank was founded in 1944, is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

• Powers of the bank are vested in a Board of Governors.
• Bank issue loans for projects that will steer to economic growth.
• Projects are usually generally related to electric power, roads, railways, agriculture, water supply, education, family planning 
• Health and environmental elements have been added to many projects.
• Co-operative programmes exist between WHO and the Bank  g.  Water Supply, World Food Programme, Population Control projects 

Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA)

The Swedish International Development Agency is assisting the National Tuberculosis Control Programme since 1979. The SIDA assistance is usually spent on procurement of supplies like X-ray units, microscopes and anti-tuberculosis drugs. SIDA officials also support the Short Course Chemotherapy Drug Regimens under Pilot study, which were launched in 18 districts of the country during 1983–84 in pilot phase-I of the revised strategy of NTP. 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

The Food and Agriculture Organization was established in 1945. FAO United Nations leads international efforts to defeat hunger.

• To help nations to raise living standards
• To promote improved nutrition of the people of all countries.
• To enhance the efficiency of farming, forestry and fisheries.
• To upgrade the condition of rural people.
• To increase the opportunity of all people for productive work.
• Economical, technological, scientific, social, and economic research on nutrition, food, and agriculture
• Improving education and administration in nutrition, food, and agriculture
• Dissemination of public knowledge in nutritional and agricultural science and practice
• Conservation of natural resources and adoption of better methods of agricultural production
• Improving the processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products
• Adopt policies to provide adequate agricultural credit, national and international
• Adopt international policies on agricultural commodity management 

United national international   Children's emergency fund (UNICEF)

Work for every child, everywhere

Created in 1946 by the General Assembly of the United Nations to deal with the rehabilitation of children in war-torn countries. The headquarters of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) is located at the United Nations, New York. The UNICEF regional office is located in New Delhi, the region is known as the South Central Asia region, which covers Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, India, Maldives, Mongolia and Nepal. UNICEF works in close collaboration with WHO and other specialized agencies of the United Nations such as UNDP, FAO and UNESCO.

Services / Features

• Child protection and inclusion
• Child survival
• Social policy
• UNICEF in emergencies
• Innovation for children
• Supply and logistics
• Research and analysis
• Use data to generate results

GOBI campaign encourages 4 strategies for a "child health revolution:

• G: growth curves allow better monitoring of child development.
• O: oral re-hydration to correct mild and moderate dehydration.
• B: breastfeed.
• I: Immunization (measles, diphtheria, polio, whooping cough, tetanus and tuberculosis)

Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)

DANIDA is the name of Denmark’s development cooperation. DANIDA comes under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. The term DANIDA was coined in 1963. The Government of Denmark has been supporting the development of services under National Blindness Control Programme since 1978.

Four strategic priorities

• Human rights and democracy
• Green growth
• Social progress
• Stability and protection
• Eradication of poverty and ensuring sustainable development.
• Anticipate to NGOs as well as governmental organizations.
• Fighting against social and economic development, human rights, democracy and good governance, stability, security and terrorism, refugees, humanitarian assistance and environment.
• Reinforce the International Fight against HIV/AIDS.

European Commission (EC)

The first Commission began in 1951 as the nine-member "High Authority" under President.

• The Commission proposes laws for adoption
• The Commission makes proposals to meet its obligations
• Assessment of the potential economic, social and environmental impact on any proposed legislation act is published along with the proposal.
• The Commission ensures that it is implemented correctly by the European Union member countries.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

It was created in 1961. A USAID mission operates in New Delhi.

Objectives 

• To promote broadly shared economic prosperity
• To strengthen democracy and good governance
• To protect human rights
• To improve global health
• To Advance food security and agriculture
• To improve environmental sustainability
• To Further education
• To Help societies prevent and recover from conflicts
• To provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of natural and man-made disasters
• Malaria eradication
• Medical education
• Nursing education
• Health education
• Water supply and sanitation
• Control of communicable diseases
• Family planning

Colombo Plan

Colombo plan was coined in 1950 for cooperative economic development for South and South-East Asia. Promote interest and support for economic and social development in Asia and the Pacific. Promote technical cooperation and assistance in the sharing and transfer of technology between member countries. Review relevant information on technical cooperation between the member governments, multilateral and other agencies. Provide facility to transfer and sharing of the developmental experiences among member countries

International Labour Organization (ILO)

It was established in 1919 to improve the working and living conditions of the working population all over the world. WHO and ILO are co-partners in the field of health and labour.

• To improve the working and living conditions of workers/ labourers through international efforts.
• To co-operate in maintaining peace in the establishment by promoting special justice.
• To promote economic and social stability.
• Develop international policies and programmes to promote basic human rights
• Formulation of international labour standards
• An extensive programme of international technical cooperation has been developed in an active partnership with developers
• Training, education and research activities to help all of these efforts

Read About Non-Governmental/Voluntary Health Agencies Voluntary/National Health Agencies and their activities 

There are many international health organizations but as per the nursing syllabus following are the international health Agencies World Health Organization (Who), United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization (Unesco), United Nations Population Fund Activities (Unfpa), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank, Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), Food And Agriculture Organization (Fao), United National International Children's Emergency Fund (Unicef), Danish International Development Agency (Danida), European Commission (Ec), United States Agency International Development (USAID), Colombo Plan and International Labour Organization (Ilo)

There are several international health organizations, for example, World Health Organization, World Bank, United Nations Children's Fund, United States Agency for International Development etc.

Provide international health assistance to improve long-term medical care in developing countries. They provide aid to victims of war, famine, and natural disasters. Agency sponsored research and pilot programs in developed industrialized countries have generated many of the best ideas for improving health in developing countries.

Geneva, Switzerland

About Author

Staying up to date on nursing topics is an important task to keep in mind. Prof. R. P. Saxena founder of www.communityhealthnursing.guru has created this site during COVID-19 Pandemic for all Nursing students, Professional Nurses and Public to keep in touch with current trend in the subject of nursing to excel in their careers. I hope this site will be very useful to all.

Related Post

• ASK FOR A TRIAL

Medical Dictionary

If you are facing any type of problem on this portal. We are here to help you.

Kindly take the print screen of the issue which you are facing and mail us on the following id :

[email protected] , or fill the following form with the required information:

• Alternative Medicine
• Anaesthesia
• Biochemistry
• Biostatistics and Research Methodology
• Biotechnology
• Clinical Skills for Nurses
• Communication and Educational Skills
• Community Dentistry
• Community Health Nursing
• Community Medicine
• Computer for Nurses
• Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics
• Critical Care
• Critical Care Nursing
• Dental Assisting
• Dental Materials
• Dermatology

TESTIMONIALS

Many thanks to JAYPEEDIGITAL platform, which has been an indispensable easy-to-use source for our...

Jaypeedigital site offers to our students a huge number of medical publications such as textbooks...

With user-friendly interface, Jaypeedigital provides extensive coverage in medicine, dentistry and...

Jaypeedigital platform presents an interesting and valuable collection of medical publications that...

Some of us teach in the Division of Graduate Studies and Research at the Faculty and the contents of...

It is a very complete and up-to-date platform that could be applied to all levels of the Medicine...

NEWSLETTERS

Subscribe to be the first to know about Best Deals and Exclusive Offers!

Share This Title

Chapter-44 National and International Agencies Working Towards Food/Nutrition

BOOK TITLE: Manual of Nutrition & Therapeutic Diet

Related Books

Nutrition for General Nursing and Midwifery

Apollo Clinical Nutrition Handbook

Anita Jatana, Daphnee DK, Haritha Shyam, Priyanka Rohatgi, Kajal Pandya Yeptho

A Comprehensive Textbook of Nutrition and Therapeutic Diets for BSc Nursing Students

Darshan Sohi

Generic Recipes of Rural North Karnataka with Nutrient Values

Manjunath S Somannavar

Essentials of Nutrition and Biochemistry for Basic BSc Nursing

Nutritional Guidelines for Sportspersons

Geetanjali Bhide, Subhadra Mandalika

Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics Manual for Nurses

Nutrition in Obesity & Diabetes

Rebecca Kuriyan Raj, Anura V Kurpad

Textbook on Nutrition & Dietetics for Post Basic BSc Nursing Students

Textbook of Human Nutrition

Anjana Agarwal, Shobha A Udipi

Copy Citation

© 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.   |   All Rights Reserved

Powered by MPS ScholarStor

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

The UN warns Sudan’s warring parties that Darfur risks starvation and death if aid isn’t allowed in

FILE - Sudanese Children suffering from malnutrition are treated at an MSF clinic in Metche Camp, Chad, near the Sudanese border, on April 6, 2024. The United Nations food agency warned Sudan’s warring parties Friday, May 4, that there is a serious risk of widespread starvation and death in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan if they don’t allow humanitarian aid into the vast western region. (AP Photo/Patricia Simon, File)

• Copy Link copied

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations food agency warned Sudan’s warring parties Friday that there is a serious risk of widespread starvation and death in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan if they don’t allow humanitarian aid into the vast western region.

Leni Kinzli, the World Food Program’s regional spokesperson, said at least 1.7 million people in Darfur were experiencing emergency levels of hunger in December, and the number “is expected to be much higher today.”

“Our calls for humanitarian access to conflict hotspots in Sudan have never been more critical,” she told a virtual U.N. press conference from Nairobi.

Sudan plunged into chaos in mid-April 2023, when long-simmering tensions between its military led by Gen. Abdel Fattah Burhan , and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces commanded by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo , broke out into street battles in the capital, Khartoum. Fighting has spread to other parts of the country, especially urban areas and the Darfur region.

The paramilitary forces, known as the RSF, have gained control of most of Darfur and are besieging El Fasher, the only capital in Darfur they don’t hold, where some 500,000 civilians had taken refuge.

Kinzli said WFP’s partners on the ground report that the situation in El Fasher is “extremely dire” and it’s difficult for civilians wanting to flee the reported RSF bombings and shelling to leave.

She said the violence in El Fasher and surrounding North Darfur is exacerbating the critical humanitarian needs in the entire Darfur region, where crop production for staple cereals like wheat, sorghum and millet is 78% less than the five-year average.

On top of the impact of escalating violence, Kinzli said, “WFP is concerned that hunger will increase dramatically as the lean season between harvests sets in and people run out of food.” She said a farmer in El Fasher recently told her that her family had already run out of food stocks and is living day-to-day, an indication that the “lean season,” which usually starts in May, started earlier.

Kinzli said she received photos earlier Friday from colleagues on the ground of severely malnourished children in a camp for displaced people in Central Darfur, as well as older people “who have nothing left but skin and bones.”

“Recent reports from our partners indicate that 20 children have died in recent weeks of malnutrition in that IDP camp,” she said.

“People are resorting to consuming grass and peanut shells,” Kinzli said. “And if assistance doesn’t reach them soon, we risk witnessing widespread starvation and death in Darfur and across other conflict-affected areas in Sudan.”

Kinzli called for “a concerted diplomatic effort by the international community to push the warring parties to provide access and safety guarantees” for humanitarian staff and convoys.

“One year of this devastating conflict in Sudan has created an unprecedented hunger catastrophe and threatens to ignite the world’s largest hunger crisis,” she warned. “With almost 28 million people facing food insecurity across Sudan, South Sudan and Chad, the conflict is spilling over and exacerbating the challenges that we’ve already been facing over the last year.”

In March, Sudanese authorities revoked WFP’s permission to deliver aid from neighboring Chad to West Darfur and Central Darfur from the town of Adre, saying that crossing had been used to transfer weapons to the RSF. Kinzli said restrictions from Sudanese authorities in Port Sudan are also preventing WFP from transporting aid via Adre.

Sudanese authorities approved the delivery of aid from the Chadian town of Tina to North Darfur, but Kinzli said WFP can no longer use that route for security reasons because it goes directly into besieged El Fasher.

On Thursday, gunmen in South Darfur killed two drivers for the International Committee of the Red Cross and injured three ICRC staff members. On Friday, U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffith called the killing of aid works “unconscionable.”

Kinzli said the fighting “and endless bureaucratic hurdles” have prevented WFP from delivering aid to over 700,000 people in Darfur ahead of the rainy season when many roads become impassable.

“WFP currently has 8,000 tons of food supplies ready to move in Chad, ready to transport, but is unable to do so because of these constraints,” she said.

“WFP urgently requires unrestricted access and security guarantees to deliver assistance,” she said. “And we must be able to use the Adre border crossing, and move assistance across front lines from Port Sudan in the east to Darfur so we can reach people in this desperate region.”

• President's Cabinet
• Executive Office of the President
• USA Freedom Corps
• Faith-Based & Community
• Office of Management and Budget
• National Security Council
• Citizens' Handbook
• Federal Agencies & Commissions
• Federal Statistics
• Application
• Nominations
• Afghanistan
• Budget Management
• Environment
• Global Diplomacy
• Health Care
• Homeland Security
• Immigration
• International Trade
• Judicial Nominations
• Middle East
• National Security
• Current News
• Press Briefings
• Proclamations
• Executive Orders
• Setting the Record Straight

Thomas Graham Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian Affairs

Mr. Graham served as a a Foreign Service Officer from 1984 until 1998. His assignments included two tours of duty at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, where he served as head of the political/internal unit and acting political counselor. Between tours in Moscow, he worked on Russian and Soviet affairs on the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State and as a policy assistant in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

Mr. Graham holds a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University and a B.A. in Russian studies from Yale University.

J. V. Stalin

The October Revolution and the National Question

November 6 and 19, 1918.

Source : Works , Vol. 4, November, 1917 - 1920 Publisher : Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953 Transcription/Markup : Salil Sen for MIA, 2009 Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.

The national question must not be regarded as something self-contained and fixed for all time. Being only part of the general question of the transformation of the existing order, the national question is wholly determined by the conditions of the social environment, by the kind of power in the country and by the whole course of social development in general. This is being strikingly borne out in the period of revolution in Russia, when the national question and the national movement in the border regions of Russia are rapidly and obviously changing their character in accordance with the course and outcome of the revolution.

I THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

In the period of the bourgeois revolution in Russia (February 1917) the national movement in the border regions bore the character of a bourgeois liberation movement. The nationalities of Russia, which for ages had been oppressed and exploited by the "old regime," for the first time felt their strength and rushed into the fight with their oppressors. "Abolish national oppression"—such was the slogan of the movement. "All-national" institutions sprang up overnight throughout the border regions of Russia. The movement was headed by the national, bourgeois-democratic intelligentsia. "National Councils" in Latvia, the Estonian region, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus, Kirghizia and the Middle Volga region; the "Rada" in the Ukraine and in Byelorussia; the "Sfatul Tsarii" in Bessarabia; the "Kurul-tai" in the Crimea and in Bashkiria; the "Autonomous Government" in Turkestan—such were the "all-national" institutions around which the national bourgeoisie rallied its forces. It was a question of emancipation from tsarism—the "fundamental cause" of national oppres-sion—and of the formation of national bourgeois states. The right of nations to self-determination was interpreted as the right of the national bourgeoisies in the border regions to take power into their own hands and to take advantage of the February Revolution for forming "their own" national states. The further development of the revolution did not, and could not, come within the calculations of the above-mentioned bourgeois institutions. And the fact was overlooked that tsarism was being replaced by naked and barefaced imperialism, and that this imperialism was a stronger and more dangerous foe of the nationalities and the basis of a new national oppression.

The abolition of tsarism and the accession to power of the bourgeoisie did not, however, lead to the abolition of national oppression. The old, crude form of national oppression was replaced by a new, refined, but all the more dangerous, form of oppression. Far from abandoning the policy of national oppression, the Lvov-Milyukov-Kerensky Government organized a new campaign against Finland (dispersal of the Diet in the summer of 1917) and the Ukraine (suppression of Ukrainian cultural institutions). What is more, that Government, which was imperialist by its very nature, called upon the population to continue the war in order to subjugate new lands, new colonies and nationalities. It was compelled to this not only because of the intrinsic nature of imperialism, but also because of the existence of the old imperialist states in the West, which were irresistibly striving to subjugate new lands and nationalities and threatening to narrow its sphere of influence. A struggle of the imperialist states for the subjugation of small nationalities as a condition for the existence of these states—such was the picture which was revealed in the course of the imperialist war. This unsightly picture was in no way improved by the abolition of tsarism and the appearance of the Milyukov-Kerensky Government on the scene. Since the "all-national" institutions in the border regions displayed a tendency to political independence, naturally they encountered the insuperable hostility of the imperialist government of Russia. Since, on the other hand, while establishing the power of the national bourgeoisie, they remained deaf to the vital interests of "their own" workers and peasants, they evoked grumbling and discontent among those. What were known as the "national regiments" only added fuel to the flames: they were impotent against the danger from above and only intensified and aggravated the danger from below. The "all-national" institutions were left defenceless against blows from without and explosions from within. The incipient bourgeois national states began to fade before they could blossom.

Thus, the old bourgeois-democratic interpretation of the principle of self-determination became a fiction and lost its revolutionary significance. It was clear that under such circumstances there could be no question of the abolition of national oppression and establishing the independence of the small national states. It became obvious that the emancipation of the labouring masses of the oppressed nationalities and the abolition of national oppression were inconceivable without a break with imperialism, without the labouring masses overthrowing "their own" national bourgeoisie and taking power themselves.

That was strikingly borne out after the October Revolution.

II THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

The February Revolution harboured irreconcilable inner contradictions. The revolution was accomplished by the efforts of the workers and the peasants (soldiers), but as a result of the revolution power passed not to the workers and peasants, but to the bourgeoisie. In making the revolution the workers and peasants wanted to put an end to the war and to secure peace. But the bourgeoisie, on coming to power, strove to use the revolutionary ardour of the masses for a continuation of the war and against peace. The economic disruption of the country and the food crisis demanded the expropriation of capital and industrial establishments for the benefit of the workers, and the confiscation of the landlords' land for the benefit of the peasants, but the bourgeois Milyukov-Kerensky Government stood guard over the interests of the landlords and capitalists, resolutely protecting them against all encroachments on the part of the workers and peasants. It was a bourgeois revolution, accomplished by the agency of the workers and peasants for the benefit of the exploiters.

Meanwhile, the country continued to groan under the burden of the imperialist war, economic disintegration and the breakdown of the food supply. The front was falling to pieces and melting away. Factories and mills were coming to a standstill. Famine was spreading through the country. The February Revolution, with its inner contradictions, was obviously not enough for "the salvation of the country." The Milyukov-Be-rensky Government was obviously incapable of solving the basic problems of the revolution.

A new, socialist revolution was required to lead the country out of the blind alley of imperialist war and economic disintegration.

That revolution came as a result of the October uprising.

By overthrowing the power of the landlords and the bourgeoisie and replacing it by a government of workers and peasants, the October Revolution resolved the contradictions of the February Revolution at one stroke. The abolition of the omnipotence of the landlords and kulaks and the handing over of the land for the use of the labouring masses of the countryside; the expropriation of the mills and factories and their transfer to control by the workers; the break with imperialism and the ending of the predatory war; the publication of the secret treaties and the exposure of the policy of annexations; lastly, the proclamation of self-determination for the labouring masses of the oppressed peoples and the recognition of the independence of Finland—such were he basic measures carried into effect by the Soviet power in the early period of the Soviet revolution.

That was a genuinely socialist revolution.

The revolution, which started in the centre, could not long be confined to that narrow territory. Once having triumphed in the centre, it was bound to spread to the border regions. And, indeed, from the very first days of the revolution, the revolutionary tide spread from the North all over Russia, sweeping one border region after another. But here it encountered a dam in the shape of the "National Councils" and regional "governments" (Don, Kuban, Siberia) which had been formed prior to the October Revolution. The point is that these "national governments" would not hear of a socialist revolution. Bourgeois by nature, they had not the slightest wish to destroy the old, bourgeois order; on the contrary, they considered it their duty to preserve and consolidate it by every means in their power. Essentially imperialist, they had not the slightest wish to break with imperialism; on the contrary, they had never been averse to seizing and subjugating bits and morsels of the territory of "foreign" nationalities whenever opportunity offered. No wonder that the "national governments" in the border regions declared war on the socialist government in the centre. And, once they had declared war, they naturally became hotbeds of reaction, which attracted all that was counter-revolutionary in Russia. Everyone knows that all the counter-revolutionaries thrown out of Russia rushed to these hotbeds, and there, around them, formed themselves into whiteguard "national" regiments.

But, in addition to "national governments," there are in the border regions national workers and peasants. Organized even before the October Revolution in their revolutionary Soviets patterned on the Soviets in the centre of Russia, they had never severed connections with their brothers in the North. They too were striving to defeat the bourgeoisie; they too were fighting for the triumph of socialism. No wonder that their conflict with "their own" national governments grew daily more acute. The October Revolution only strengthened the alliance between the workers and peasants of the border regions and the workers and peasants of Russia, and inspired them with faith in the triumph of socialism. And the war of the "national governments" against the Soviet power brought the conflict of the national masses with these "governments" to the point of a complete rupture, to open rebellion against them.

Thus was formed a socialist alliance of the workers and peasants of all Russia against the counter-revolutionary alliance of the bourgeois national "governments" of the border regions of Russia.

The fight of the border "governments" is depicted by some as a fight for national emancipation against the "soulless centralism" of the Soviet regime. But that is quite untrue. No regime in the world has permitted such extensive decentralization, no government in the world has ever granted to the peoples such complete national freedom as the Soviet power in Russia. The fight of the border "governments" was, and is, a fight of bourgeois counter-revolution against socialism. The national flag is tacked on to the cause only to deceive the masses, as a popular flag which conveniently conceals the counterrevolutionary designs of the national bourgeoisie.

But the fight of the "national" and regional "governments" proved an unequal one. Attacked from two sides — from without by the Soviet power of Russia, and from within by "their own" workers and peasants — the "national governments" were obliged to retreat after the very first engagements. The uprising of the Finnish workers and torppari 1 and the flight of the bourgeois "Senate"; the uprising of the Ukrainian workers and peasants and the flight of the bourgeois "Rada"; the uprising of the workers and peasants in the Don, Kuban, and Siberia and the collapse of Kaledin, Kornilov and the Siberian "government"; the uprising of the poor peasants of Turkestan and the flight of the "autonomous government"; the agrarian revolution in the Caucasus and the utter impotence of the "National Councils" of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan — all these are generally known facts which demonstrated the complete isolation of the border "governments" from "their own" labouring masses. Utterly defeated, the "national governments" were "obliged" to appeal for aid against "their own" workers and peasants to the imperiaIists of the West, to the agelong oppressors and exploiters of the nationalities of the world.

Thus began the period of foreign intervention and occupation of the border regions — a period which once more revealed the counter-revolutionary character of the "national" and regional "governments."

Only now did it become obvious to all that the national bourgeoisie was striving not for the liberation of "its own people" from national oppression, but for liberty to squeeze profits out of them, for liberty to retain its privileges and capital.

Only now did it become clear that the emancipation of the oppressed nationalities was inconceivable without a rupture with imperialism, without the overthrow of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nationalities, without the transfer of power to the labouring masses of these nationalities.

Thus, the old, bourgeois conception of the principle of self-determination, with its slogan "All power to the national bourgeoisie," was exposed and cast aside by the very course of the revolution. The socialist conception of the principle of self-determination, with its slogan "All power to the labouring masses of the oppressed nationalities," entered into its own and it became possible to apply it.

Thus, the October Revolution, having put an end to the old, bourgeois movement for national emancipation, inaugurated the era of a new, socialist movement of the workers and peasants of the oppressed nationalities, directed against all oppression—including, therefore, national oppression—against the power of the bourgeoisie, "their own" and foreign, and against imperialism in general.

III THE WORLD-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION

Having triumphed in the centre of Russia and embraced a number of the border regions, the October Revolution could not stop short at the territorial borders of Russia. In the atmosphere of the imperialist world war and the general discontent among the masses, it could not but spread to neighbouring countries. Russia's break with imperialism and its escape from the predatory war; the publication of the secret treaties and the solemn renunciation of the policy of annexations; the proclamation of the national freedom and recognition of the independence of Finland; the declaring of Russia a "federation of Soviet national republics" and the battle cry of a determined struggle against imperialism issued to the world by the Soviet Government —all this could not but deeply affect the enslaved East and the bleeding West.

And, indeed, the October Revolution is the first revolution in world history to break the age-long sleep of the labouring masses of the oppressed peoples of the East and to draw them into the fight against world imperialism. The formation of workers' and peasants' Soviets in Persia, China and India, modelled on the Soviets in Russia, is sufficiently convincing evidence of this.

The October Revolution is the first revolution in world history to provide the workers and soldiers of the West with a living, salvation-bringing example and to impel them on to the path of real emancipation from the yoke of war and imperialism. The uprising of the workers and soldiers in Austria-Hungary and Germany, the formation of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the revolutionary struggle of the subject peoples of Austria-Hungary against national oppression is sufficiently eloquent evidence of this.

The chief point is not at all that the struggle in the East and even in the West has not yet succeeded in shedding its bourgeois-nationalist features; the point is that the struggle against imperialism has begun, that it is continuing and is inevitably bound to arrive at its logical goal.

Foreign intervention and the occupation policy of the "external" imperialists merely sharpen the revolutionary crisis, by drawing now peoples into the struggle and extending the area of the revolutionary battles with, imperialism.

Thus, the October Revolution, by establishing a tie between the peoples of the backward East and of the advanced West, is ranging them in a common camp of struggle against imperialism.

Thus, from the particular question of combating national oppression, the national question is evolving into the general question of emancipating the nations, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism.

The mortal sin of the Second International and its leader, Kautsky, consists, incidentally, in the fact that they have always gone over to the bourgeois conception of national self-determination, that they have never understood the revolutionary meaning of the latter, that they were unable or unwilling to put the national question on the revolutionary footing of an open fight against imperialism, that they were unable or unwilling to link the national question with the question of the emancipation of the colonies.

The obtuseness of the Austrian Social-Democrats of the type of Bauer and Renner consists in the fact that they have not understood the inseparable connection between the national question and the question of power, that they tried to separate the national question from politics and to confine it to cultural and educational questions, forgetting the existence of such "trifles" as imperialism and the colonies enslaved by imperialism.

It is asserted that the principles of self-determination and "defence of the fatherland" have been abrogated by the very course of events under the conditions of a rising socialist revolution. Actually, it is not the principles of self-determination and "defence of the fatherland" that have been abrogated, but the bourgeois interpretation of these principles. One has only to glance at the occupied regions, which are languishing under the yoke of imperialism and are yearning for liberation; one has only to glance at Russia, which is waging a revolutionary war for the defence of the socialist fatherland from the imperialist robbers; one has only to reflect on the present events in Austria-Hungary; one has only to glance at the enslaved colonies and semi-colonies, which have already organized their own Soviets (India, Persia, China)—one has only to glance at all this to realize the whole revolutionary significance of the principle of self-determination in its socialist interpretation.

The great world-wide significance of the October Revolution chiefly consists in the fact that:

1) It has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the particular question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question of emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;

2) It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the victorious struggle against imperialism;

3) It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the proletarians of the West, through the Russian revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the East.

This in fact explains the indescribable enthusiasm which is now being displayed for the Russian proletariat by the toiling and exploited masses of the East and the West.

And this mainly explains the frenzy with which the imperialist robbers of the whole world have now flung themselves upon Soviet Russia.

Pravda, Nos. 241 and 250, November 6 and 19, 1918

1. Torppari—landless peasants in Finland, who were forced to rent land from the big proprietors on extortionate terms.

Collected Works Index | Volume 4 Index Works by Decade | J. V. Stalin Archive Marxists Internet Archive