In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Vampires are not uncommon visitors to the villages of Malawi. Historically, they have adopted different guises – Catholic priests have often been subject to accusation, water engineers and medical workers, too. In the 1980s an impending visit by Princess Anne sparked rumours: what exactly had the British Royal Family fed on to become so wealthy? Children in a school near where I lived weren’t taking any chances – they fled before her limousine had made it up the drive. Now, as the country staggers back from the brink of a major famine, the vampires have returned. It’s best not to sleep alone because their favourite trick is to enter your hut while you sleep, spray it with a chemical to make your sleep permanent, then extract your blood with a needle and syringe. When the body of a victim is found it will be grey, drained of blood, but there will be no sign of the attack other than a tiny pin-prick.

Mischeck Matchado, a schoolboy in Chief Somba’s area, lived to tell the tale. In the early hours of Sunday, 2 February, he woke to the smell of a chemical being sprayed through the window of his hut. Then he felt someone holding his hand, then the prick of a needle, ‘and that was when I realised that I was being bloodsucked.’ Mischeck survived because his brother woke up and helped him fight off the intruders – who escaped, he said, in three vehicles. Bloodsuckers always have the most up-to-date equipment; in the colonial period they were supposed to have used fire engines as well as needles and syringes. It’s a thoroughly modern, technical operation. Mischeck blamed his village headman, who, he said, was pocketing money given to him by the bloodsuckers.

Earlier attacks in December produced rather more specific allegations. Not far away, in the densely populated tea-growing district of Thyolo, survivors are convinced that their Government, headed by President Bakili Muluzi, is behind the attacks, sucking blood from its people in payment for the food aid currently being supplied by international donors. This is a theory which can only have been made more credible by the World Food Programme’s use of the word ‘pipeline’ in relation to its food distribution system. ‘Our pipeline to Malawi is currently full,’ one spokesperson was recently quoted as saying. Such pipelines, as many rural people will tell you, have two-way traffic in them. Unsurprisingly, the Government pours scorn on the bloodsucking allegations, arguing that these are unsubstantiated rumours spread by members of the opposition. ‘No government can go about sucking the blood of its own people,’ said President Muluzi. ‘That’s thuggery.’

In Poverty and Famine (1981), Amartya Sen argues that because democratically elected governments are held accountable by a free press and the threat of elections, they do not allow their people to starve (though they may allow them to go hungry). The scandal of mass starvation is something they can’t afford. But the rural poor of Malawi have a rather different theory of famine. Evidently they think they are paying an additional price for the near (and in some cases complete) starvation they suffered last year; and though the payment is being extracted by their democratically elected government, its ultimate destination is the rich countries of the North who control the aid and pull the strings.

One could certainly question how accountable to its people the Government of Malawi has been, for the last two years in particular. Some facts are still in dispute, but we can now grasp how a country that was already hungry came to be starving. Malawi has around 11 million people, 85 per cent of whom live in rural areas. It has never been rich – imperial boundary-drawing is to blame here – and as Nyasaland it was known as the Cinderella of Britain’s African empire. As a colony it struggled to pay for its existence – there are no minerals – and got by largely through the export of migrant labour to the mines of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. This other great pipeline, the march of migrant labour, has long since been blocked off, leaving Malawians more dependent than ever on agricultural production. Most are marginal subsistence farmers, many with very small landholdings: even in a good year, some 75 per cent of the population are less than 25 per cent self-sufficient in the main food crop, maize. The statistics are miserable. In 2001, the UNDP Human Development Index placed Malawi at number 151 out of 162 countries (those ranked lower were all experiencing, or had recently experienced, a state of war). Life expectancy at birth was 40 years, and it’s falling. The greatest worry is that many Malawian households are caught in a desperate poverty trap. Employment is both hard to come by and very poorly paid (the minimum legal wage is around £11 a month, but most will get less than this). So, typically, many households will have to sell off part of their small maize harvest to acquire the cash needed for medicines, protein foods, soap, clothing and, crucially, fertiliser. This makes them extremely vulnerable to any increase in the price of maize when, later in the season, they find themselves having to buy it back in. This vulnerability partly explains what happened last year. But only partly.

In 2001 rain fell at the wrong time, ruining much of the country’s maize crop. There is very little irrigated agriculture in Malawi: the country relies on one, rain-dependent crop a year, and the rain has been doing some very strange things all over Southern Africa in the last few years. Poor people are quick to respond to price increases and anticipated price increases. In August 2001, when it became clear how bad the harvest was, I saw crowds of people queuing to buy not maize but maize bran, used as a ‘filler’ by poorer people. By October some of these same people were already surviving on famine foods: roots and tubers, maize husks, green leaves, bark. Elderly women were quoted as saying that though they expected to have to survive on wild foods in the ‘hungry season’ from January to March, it was ‘unusual’ to have to do so as early as September and October.

The shortfall in Malawi’s maize harvest doesn’t complete the account of the country’s descent into famine. The politics are important, too. The maize shortfall would not have mattered quite so much if the country’s Strategic Grain Reserve hadn’t been empty. Accusations are still flying as to who is to blame. The IMF had insisted that the Reserve should operate like a market institution, and instructed the Malawi Government to sell off a proportion of it at the very moment it was needed. But they didn’t instruct them to sell it all. This seems to have been the initiative of certain individuals close to the Government who, anticipating a food shortage, saw the opportunity to make an easy profit. The Malawian middle class is small and deeply rooted in rural areas: there is no way that those who profited from the sale of maize stock could have been unaware of the hardship this would cause. In this light, the bloodsucking theory of famine seems less exotic, more a simple statement of fact.

Some Malawians see their recent transition to ‘democracy’ as the cause of, not the cure for this corruption. Under the bizarre and scary dictatorship of Hastings Banda, corruption was confined to a very small group surrounding the President, who had the whole economy rigged in their favour (with the support, it should be added, of the country’s international donors). With the first multi-party elections of 1994 came freedom of expression and democratisation, including, it seems, the democratisation of corruption. Now that there is more than one party, competition brings inflation in the cost of vote-buying, and more people now demand a share of the spoils in return for their votes. The build-up to the 2004 election is already underway, and the press is full of accounts of harassment of opposition members. President Muluzi makes speeches asserting that in the Malawian version of democracy, leadership is as important as accountability. In some quarters nostalgia for the good old days of dictatorship (and imagined full bellies) is rife. But a recent attempt by Muluzi to amend the Constitution to allow him to stand for a third term has so far been defeated. The majority of Malawians, it would seem, are anxious to preserve their democratic rights and have no desire to return to the era of ‘life presidents’; but the food crisis has certainly exposed some contradictions in the theory linking democracy, market liberalisation and freedom from famine.

Anger over the Malawi Government’s corruption partly explains why its international donors were so slow to respond to the growing evidence of hardship in late 2001. The actions of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe weren’t helping either. In an atmosphere of donor fatigue and general irritation with the region’s leaders, the hungry were left to fend for themselves. By late January 2002, when the Government finally declared a famine, some people – we will never know how many – had starved and more were starving. Famine deaths are never easy to calculate, least of all in a population weakened by HIV/Aids. Most famine victims succumb to some disease or other, and most die quietly at home. In the absence of any large-scale relief operation they are invisible. Famines do not, in fact, tend to look like the television pictures from Ethiopia in the 1980s or, earlier still, Biafra. Mass, concentrated and highly visible starvation like that comes about as a result of conflict, deliberate political manipulation of food supplies or wildly inept relief operations that congregate starving people then fail to deliver.

The belated declaration of an emergency did not bring any kind of immediate relief because Malawi was now only one of several countries in crisis. In Southern Africa as a whole it was estimated that between 13 and 15 million people were in need of food aid. Zimbabwe’s usual maize surplus had turned into a maize shortage because of the ‘farm invasions’, and though maize was available in South Africa, the usual logistical problems meant that it would be months before these imports made the odyssey through floods, along broken-down railways and potholed roads. Moving food in bulk here is not easy, and landlocked Malawi lies at the end of the very leaky food pipeline. As one visiting journalist quipped, it would help if the country could be relocated somewhere more convenient.

Now, a whole year later, the emergency food pipeline is full, the rains have arrived and the country appears absurdly lush, surreally green. Confused visitors looking for a famine see food growing everywhere and wonder aloud how people could possibly starve in such a place. But appearances can be misleading. The green is the green of chemical fertiliser – the soil’s so shot you can’t grow a crop of maize without it – and the people who need it most usually don’t have it (their maize is the yellow withered stuff). And communities don’t bounce back from a famine year just like that. In order to have survived, they will have sold every asset they had (a goat, chickens, chairs, bicycles), leaving them even more vulnerable than before. Furthermore, the social consequences of a year like 2002 don’t simply go away with a new rainy season. Starvation is a shameful thing, and making choices about who gets food and who doesn’t is difficult. These are communities in which, despite the market, norms of reciprocity and social responsibility are paramount. If a close relative falls victim to a hunger-related illness, or if an elderly person with even a remote claim to kinship is abandoned, someone will have to live with the guilt. Women still sing songs mimicking the cries of the babies who were abandoned during the 1949 famine; now there will be more babies to sing about.

There are no easy solutions to the deepening poverty that lies behind this crisis. Market liberalisation and democracy have manifestly failed the poor, but returning to the previous regime isn’t an option either. It looks certain that a significant proportion of the population will, for the foreseeable future, require some kind of subsidy to survive, a prospect that induces a great deal of hand-wringing and muttering about the ‘evils of dependency’. Malawians will be made to work for their food or fertiliser handouts – but this is not feasible for the ever increasing number of households consisting of older women and their grandchildren, orphaned by Aids. Around a million Malawians are infected with HIV, and with anti-retroviral drugs completely unattainable at their current cost, most can expect to die within a few years. Almost every family is affected by the epidemic; almost every family faces the problems of caring for the very sick and feeding children whose parents are dead.

Intractable as the problems are, there is no shortage of newly arrived experts eager to offer instant solutions – with the very best of intentions, of course. Visitors see a beautiful and potentially bountiful land (it’s not a desert, so what’s the problem?) and just like the early missionaries and settlers of the 19th century, conclude that the country’s problems are the product of laziness and a lack of imagination. ‘They could grow raspberries,’ one excited new arrival said to me last week. Of course no one, least of all the Malawian farmer, desperate to secure more of her household subsistence, is going to turn down a serious agricultural innovation. Malawians have, after all, been innovating and adapting their agricultural systems for centuries – absorbing crops from the New World, rejecting and accepting advice from colonial agricultural officers, trying out new bean varieties, carefully selecting their maize seeds, one by one, in an attempt to balance productivity with pest resistance, with drought resistance, with storage qualities, with pounding qualities, with taste. The assumption that growing food here is a carefree sort of enterprise is simply false. When I asked a schoolboy, quite casually, about this season’s rains, his face immediately took on a very adult gravity. He reeled off a set of dates from November to February, days on which there had been plentiful rain, days on which the rain had not fallen. Day by day, date by date.

In response to growing public anger that the police and Government were not taking the bloodsucking allegations seriously, on Wednesday 5 February the police took Mischeck Matchado for a medical examination. He must have had mixed feelings about entering a hospital – press reports from the previous few days had indicated that ‘bloodsucking tubes’ were going missing from medical facilities around the country. Not for the first time, medical science proved inadequate to the task of determining whether the bloodsucking rumours were true. The Daily Times, claiming to have had access to the medical report, alleged that it provided evidence that Mischeck’s skin had indeed been pierced, presumably by a needle. The Minister of Home Affairs thought otherwise, repeating his previous claim that Mischeck was suffering nothing more than a mosquito bite. Meanwhile, in the capital, Lilongwe, the World Bank was instructing the Government to pay back $1.5 million dollars of the $50 million paid to them to address the famine emergency. Under these circumstances, it seems likely that Malawians such as Mischeck will continue to fear that every ounce of free maize must be paid for with a pint of blood pumped down an intercontinental pipeline.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.