Speaking on the TV Kurir’s show Usijanje (Red Hot) about the global problem caused by Russia's decision to pull out of the deal to export Ukranian grain via the Black Sea, Christopher Hill, US Ambassador to Serbia, said that this deal was very successful and that its collapse would, in short, mean hunger.
The Russian Ambassador to Serbia Botsan-Kharchenko said that the deal was meaningless, and you said that it was owing to the deal that we had managed to feed people in the world, but that now that there is no agreement, people are in danger. What will happen next now that Russia has pulled out of it?
“Well, first of all, I’d like to say that the agreement was very successful. Food and food supply in the world have been disrupted since the Covid pandemic. Of course, this terrible war, aggressive war of Russia against its neighbour has caused even more problems. But during the life of this very good agreement, some 30 million tonnes of Ukrainian grain managed to get out and be exported. That is 18 billion loaves of bread that got out of Ukraine. The agreement was very successful in the intention to bring more food to the rest of the world. Something must be done very quickly.”
But Ambassador Botsan-Kharchenko claims that over 70 percent of the food exported from Ukraine ended up in the rich countries, including some EU countries, and less than three percent in the least developed nations. He accused the West and Kyiv of commercializing a humanitarian enterprise. While on the one hand it is blocking the exports from Ukraine, Russia is freely selling record amounts of its own grain. What is the real situation?
“We know very well the amount of Ukrainian grain that got to the poor countries – over 50 percent of grain, two thirds of wheat got to the poor countries. It’s a very large amount. And how do we know this? The US and other countries have very successful programmes – for example, they participate in the World Food Programme. Russia does nothing within this programme, so I don’t know where they get these figures from, because they are not active in these programmes and provide very small amounts to the budget of this programme, unlike the US. It is very important for your viewers to understand that the Ukrainian grain, Ukrainian wheat, was very important for the Global South, and this is why some people in the Global South – for example, the top diplomat of Kenya – have called Russia’s act a stab in the back. There is no excuse for that, and we must return to the situation where the Ukrainian grain can be exported again.”
The Russians have said that they are ready to go back to the agreement, but with concrete steps to ensure the implementation was balanced on the part of the EU and the US. What are these steps that Moscow demands?
AMBASSADOR HILL FOR KURIR: ‘Russia doesn’t know what it’s doing, WILL CAUSE HUNGER IN WORLD!’ Hill cites REASON for Russian Federation’s pulling out of grain deal
“It’s hard to tell what will happen in the future. First, Russia must stop attacking ships full of food intended for the people who need it, the people who are starving. So, Russia must stop attacking these food deliveries. It seems that Russia thinks it knows a lot about this, but that isn’t the case. We know what the situation is like regarding the shortage of Ukrainian grain for the Global South. We must reactivate this programme and the exports. How this will be done we leave to others, but we must resolve this quickly – children’s lives are at stake. It is truly horrible that Russia has made such a decision, it appears to have to do with their wish to sell more of their own food, and people are suffering because of that.”
It appears that the response of the undeveloped countries to Russia’s withdrawal from this agreement was quite clear – some African politicians have called it a stab in the back, which you have mentioned. Is it really a stab in the back?
“These countries depend on grain imports. They need this grain to feed their population. If one country stops another – in this case, Russia stopping Ukraine – from exporting food, and Ukraine is a very large exporter of food, I can see why someone would call that a stab in the back.”
How should this move on the part of Moscow be understood in the context of Moscow’s new attempt to strengthen their influence in Africa?
“I think Russia has tried to offer a certain amount of food to a small number of countries, mostly the countries where a coup d'état has recently taken place – Niger, for instance. They are essentially not concerned with such symbolic offers. This is resolved by returning to the arrangement that was useful for everyone, including Russia. You often hear Russians saying that they cannot export their own wheat and fertilizers. That simply isn’t true. They have a right to their point of view, but not to their own facts. Russia exported grain and fertilizers under this agreement, there is no restriction or sanctions against such kind of export. So, it’s a country that not only doesn’t know what it’s doing, but it appears it is lying in that regard.”
Do you see Turkey as a country that perhaps may be able to help in this situation?
“Turkey has always been a major player with respect to exporting grain from the Black Sea region. It really tried to revive the agreement; it had made an effort for the agreement to be made in the first place, and I think that Turkey can play a positive role.”
In conclusion, what do you think will be the fate of this agreement, and what would its failure mean for the entire world?
“If the agreement isn’t reactivated, it would mean hunger. Hunger and food prices that countries simply cannot pay. The world must unite to stop something like that from happening.”
Kurir.rs/ Silvija Slamnig
