A critical analysis of the two articles “Food costs strain efforts to save starving Ethiopian children” and “Mass starvation in Africa looms, but political will can stop it” is presented here. The two disasters which have been discussed in the articles are starvation and inflation; the former is the natural calamity while the later is created by the states or institutions’ policies, both national and international. So the traditions of international ethics are crucial to consider in relation to the above mentioned problems. In the second article, we encounter with another important ethical consideration: ‘political will’ which is imperative to counter the natural and man created disaster of famine in Ethiopia.

Before discussing the above mentioned problem in relation with the international ethical traditions, we should see that what the international ethical traditions are. International ethical traditions are the debates between different philosophers, scholars or researchers about certain practices and codes of international relations in which different individuals, communities, and/or states interact. So “ethical traditions are traditions of argument, not uniform and unchanging doctrines” (Nardin & Mapel: 1).This is basically the question of what ought to be and what ought not to be. We call such debates and practices the ‘traditions’ because, each has a history and/or precedents on which new and similar or controversial kind of ideas and practices emerge.   

The debates about the common issues like human rights, international relations, wars, interventions, nationalism and the like, result into some kind of concepts, theories, and laws. These traditions of international ethics could be identified in different theories by many eminent scholars. So, out of many international ethical traditions (political realism, utilitarianism, Marxism, international law, natural law, Kantianism, contractarianism, the tradition of Biblical arguments, and the tradition of rights), three tradition which I have chosen to analyze the given problem are ‘common morality’, ‘Kantian tradition’, and ‘liberalism’. Because these three traditions pay special attention to the universalism so these are important to discuss with relation to the starvation in Ethiopia and Africa more broadly. Hunger is the enemy of humanity as it kills the innocent individuals’ indiscriminately.

One of the most important characteristics of ‘common morality’ is its “universalism” (Nardin & Mapel: 121). It makes common morality relevant to discuss Ethiopian famine. ‘Food costs’ has been pointed out in the first article and the responsibility rests on the shoulders of free economic order, in which losers are always the poor and nations and the winners are the developed economies. Common morality tradition says that “institutions of a people can not justify actions which disregard the basic human rights of outsiders” (Nardin & Mapel: 122). So it is the responsibility of the rich nations to intervene in Ethiopia through aid capable of countering famine and saving the lives. It is their moral obligation to assist them in any way which could give them protection from hunger immediately.

The Kantian tradition of international ethics pay more consideration to ‘freedom’ (Nardin & Mapel: 309) as they say that humans are rational beings and they should be free in making decisions irrespective of the reciprocities and material gains. The ethical responsibility of the leaders is to protect other human beings, and to consider them as ends in themselves (Nardin & Mapel: 141) not as means to achieve any political ends. So according to these principals, it is the responsibility of the well-off nations or their governments to intervene in Africa to solve the problem of famine. To put it in Kant’s term “the essence of acting morally for Kant does not lie in achieving self interest or national interest… It lies in responding to a demand of reason” (Nardin & Mapel: 138). Here, the demand of reason and rationality is to help Africans to salvage them from death and hunger. As hunger has given rise to many ills in African society, such as chaos, looting, killing and disorder; it seems that the people have become greatly frustrated. To avoid law and order situation in this African society, it is the ethical and moral responsibility of the wealthy states to practice “perpetual peace” through international cooperation and assistance. The proponents of this tradition even propose that “our fundamental moral duties are universally binding duties” (Nardin & Mapel: 310), so humanitarian intervention by helping Ethiopia and other African countries, is ethically incumbent on the global powers and richer states. This shows the cosmopolitanism of the Kantian tradition. As it has been pointed out in the second article that “some 38 million Africans are at risk from an unprecedented hunger crisis on the continent”; which shows the situation of extreme emergency and needs and immediate intervention by rational individuals, states and institutions.

According to the liberal tradition, it is the responsibility of the state to reform its social orders and ensure the freedom and liberty of its individuals (Nardin & Mapel: 314). So they aim to promote them abroad as well under the international law and by reforming the international structures in order to make them benevolent for all people of the world. In starved Ethiopia and the whole African continent, freedom of peoples could be ensured by liberating them from hunger, disease, homelessness, fear, and poverty, death. Because these problem are life threatening and lead to chaos which is not a good sign for the peace and stability of the world on the whole.

In this age of globalization, the conflict in one part of the world (as for instance caused by poverty and hunger in Africa) may affect the other parts. People may opt for the violent means to take the revenge from those, whom they consider as responsible; the relatively richer nations in this case, who are also considered as the architects of the international economic order. As in the second article it is highlighted that the ‘political will’ can prevent the people of Africa form hunger and consequently death. So to make the world more peaceful and free, political will of the liberal democratic states is very important to help other starved Black African nation. They also need to reform (Nardin & Mapel: 314) the international financial institutions to avoid the criticism of killing people by making them hungry through discriminatory market policies and monopolies, as pointed out in the second article.

Ostensibly, the best approach to address the problem of famine in Ethiopia and other African countries is ‘common morality’. First of all, this is a non-religious tradition, which falls in the broader category of ‘natural law’ which is however derived from the Christian traditions (Nardin & Mapel: 112). Together with morality, the reason has also been given special consideration (Nardin & Mapel: 113). To intervene in Africa entirely on humanitarian basis could not be justified on legal positivism, which has no regard for the moral value and moral ethics. But, according to the tradition of common morality, it becomes obligatory on the richer and well-off states to intervene purely on humanitarian basis in other states’ internal matter to save the humanity.

To intervene in Africa through funds and other food aid, international community can save many threatened lives. As common morality suggests that “when many in the third world face imminent starvation relatively wealthy people in richer parts of the world have a serious moral obligation to come to their aid” (Nardin and Mapel: 123). So this is the right time for such nation to show their responsibility. They can intervene both on short term and long term basis. On the short term basis, they can provide them funds, as mentioned earlier, food, medicines, and trained personnel. While on the long term basis, as pointed out in the second article, they can help them by training their local people to counter such grave situation through research in food production, storage, infrastructure, so that productions could be increased and stored for log term uses. By introducing the projects of awareness, common people could also be trained to fight such challenges.

According to the common morality tradition, besides states, other international institutions have the moral responsibility to intervene in others internal affairs (Nardin & Mapel: 123). Here, the intervention is to save the Ethiopian people particularly and Africans generally, and form hunger and death and of course other diseases associated with malnutrition due to starvation. Children are especially vulnerable, but it has the adverse effects on the whole society. So the point here is the responsibility of international community or institutions. This is very reasonable of common morality, because, it is not possible presently for any single state to contribute financially solely. In the second article the same point has been emphasized that “Last year, the US provided 62% of all food aid world wide. This is simply not sustainable”. So, more states are needed to join hands together for this noble and moral cause, ostensibly through some institution.

Though states make such powerful international institution, there is a need to make them stronger and their dealing more transparent. States need to pool their resources in such institutions and render them the authority to take such decisions and power of intervention. This is only possible under the requirement of moral duty as specified in natural and common morality tradition of international ethics.  One caution needed to be considered here is that to intervene in other nations internal affairs (African nation) do not mean that the local people should be subjugated. States are needed to take care of not violating and interfering the people’s freedom and respect. The second article’s conclusion is worth mentioning here, that “hunger is a political creation, and we must use political means to end it”. Therefore, reformation of international financial institutions is important in the long term, but, immediately states are needed to act morally to save humanity as the inhabitants of the “same universe”. Moreover, if states can justify wars as the intervention to promote liberal democratic values in the long run and intend to end the brutal regimes to stop human rights violation then why not they intervene in Africa to kill the brutal regime of hunger and disease?