We cannot settle for a world half fed and half hungry

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy declared to the United Nations World Food Congress: “World peace and progress cannot be maintained in a world half fed and half hungry.” Sixty years later, this simple truth resonates more profoundly than ever. The United States must remember the words of our former president and increase our investments to fight world hunger instead of reducing our efforts and our dollars.

The situation is dire. Hundreds of millions of people are facing hunger and starvation around the world due to conflict and the climate crisis. Already strained food systems in Africa and the Middle East have been further stressed by the war in Ukraine, which was previously one of the world’s largest producers of grain. Escalating conflict between Hamas and Israel poses a new threat to food security in neighboring countries: already home to millions of displaced and vulnerable people, they will not be able to cope with another wave of hunger.

We cannot afford to stand by while millions more people join the ranks of those already in danger of starvation. The numbers are distressing and speak for themselves. Globally, 333 million people go to bed not knowing when or if they’ll eat again. That’s more than the entire population of the United States. Over 47 million people are just one step from famine and urgently need life-saving assistance.

This is a humanitarian need, but it is also a security threat. When we can’t meet the needs of the world’s most vulnerable, it sparks a threat to national security, creating a climate which breeds conflict and terrorism.

Put simply: If we do not feed hungry people, we feed instability and chaos that will reverberate back home.

Parents will go to extreme lengths to provide for their families. They will take up arms; they will migrate until they find a meal; they will join extremist organizations for food or cash, even if they don’t believe the dangerous ideologies to which that group subscribes.

At this moment, however, donors across the globe are tightening their belts when they should be unresting in fighting hunger. This attitude may appeal to the short-term interests of shrinking budgets or conserving scarce dollars — but it will backfire. As donors around the world pull back, we’re forced to take from the hungry to feed the starving, halting efforts to stave off future hunger, and exponentially increasing future costs and danger.

We’ve heard the argument for increased defense funding and security assistance, but there will be no security unless we also assist innocent civilians trapped in conflict zones. For the lawmakers who argue that spending nothing on humanitarian programs is in the national interest, one need only look at the decades of history in which food protests have shaped political movements, sparked uprisings, and fueled violent unrest around the world to know how short-sighted failing to feed the hungry is.

The United States, in particular, has long led the global fight to end hunger. Both Republicans and Democrats have been committed to funding international food assistance programs at the highest levels since the Second World War. This has always been because it directly benefits Americans to do so. From the American farmers who provide critical food supplies for assistance to the American businesses that benefit from agricultural-led economic growth, it serves American economic and security interests to give a helping hand to those who need it most — even if they are not American. This is why Washington, and capitals around the world, must step up and ensure robust funding to combat food insecurity wherever it may be.

At the same time, we need to learn the lessons of this crisis and prioritize long-term investments to build more resilient food systems that can absorb shocks and protect against future food insecurity. New approaches to food assistance are critical, including efforts to grow public-private partnerships and better leverage the private sector to promote agriculture development and improve food systems and supply chains.

In this time of unparalleled crisis, we must not settle for a world half fed and half hungry. We have to come together, and work together, to stave off the real and dangerous risk of widespread starvation in the months ahead. As President Kennedy recognized all those years ago, peace and progress depend on it.

Cindy McCain is executive director of the UN World Food Programm in Rome and Chris Coons is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.