We cannot settle for a world half fed and half hungry

The words of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 still hold true today: "The balance of peace and progress can no longer exist in a world where half are filled and half are starved." Six decades later, these words carry even deeper significance. The United States must heed the wisdom of our late president and boost our contributions towards alleviating global hunger rather than minimizing our endeavors and resources.

The state of affairs is alarming. Hundreds of millions worldwide are confronting hunger and starvation due to war and climate crisis. Previously, one of the world's most prolific grain producers, the food systems in Africa and the Middle East are now under immense strain. The escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas poses an additional threat to food security in adjacent countries, which already shelter millions of displaced and vulnerable populations and cannot withstand another hunger wave.

We cannot idly watch as the number of people on the brink of starvation swells. The statistics are shocking and convey the urgency. Globally, there are more people facing food insecurity than the entire US population. These individuals are one step away from famine and need immediate life-saving support. This is not only a humanitarian concern but also a security issue. When the most deprived can't have their necessities met, it ignites a national security risk, fostering a breeding ground for conflict and terrorism. To put it bluntly, if we neglect to feed the hungry, we fuel instability and chaos, which will bounce back on us.

Parents will go to great lengths to feed their families which may include bearing arms; migrating until they find food; or joining extremist groups for food or money, even if they are not in agreement with the harmful ideologies the group supports.

Right now, global donors are cutting back when they should be bolstering the fight against hunger. This conservative approach might satisfy short-term budgetary or fiscal concerns but will eventually rebound. As global donors retract their support, we are compelled to rob the hungry to feed the starving, interrupting efforts to prevent future hunger, thereby amplifying future dangers and costs.

While there's a case for ramping up defense funding and security assistance, it's crucial to remember that there'll be no security unless we also assist innocent civilians caught in war zones. Those who argue that not spending on humanitarian efforts is in the national interest should consider the historical instances where food protests have resulted in political movements, uprising, and violence on a global scale.

The United States has been at the forefront of the battle against global hunger, with both Republicans and Democrats consistently supporting international food aid programs since World War II. This is not just out of charity but due to the direct benefits it brings to Americans. From the farmers who supply essential food for aid to businesses that gain from the agriculture-led economic growth, it's in America's economic and security interests to lend a hand to those in dire need, regardless of whether they are American.

As such, it is imperative that Washington, and other capitals globally, ensure strong funding to fight food insecurity. Also, learning from this crisis, we must prioritize long-term investments to create more resilient food systems that can withstand disruptions and shield against future food insecurities. Innovative food aid strategies, such as building public-private partnerships and leveraging the private sector to boost agricultural development and improve food systems and supply chains are critical.

As we grapple with this unprecedented crisis, a world half filled and half starving is unacceptable. We must join forces and collaborate to prevent the imminent and hazardous risk of rampant starvation in the nearby future. Just as President Kennedy noted decades ago, the fate of peace and progress hinges on it.