ABSTRACT
In the past two decades, food security practices have become central in the promotion of resilience in protracted crises. Such approaches have been welcomed by the aid community as a way of addressing climate change and because of its potential for linking relief and development. Political analysts, however, have criticised resilience approaches for failing to consider power relations and because they implicitly accept crisis or repeated risk. In this context, regimes of food security aid practices have become increasingly targeted, privatised, and medicalised, focussing on individual behaviour and responsibility rather than responsibility of the state or international actors. This chapter uses examples from Sudan to examine how and why resilience practices have been implemented. It argues that they have created a regime of truth in which conflict in Darfur invisible and which leaves crisis-affected populations to reduce their own vulnerabilities rather than address structural causes, thus effectively abandoning them.
