|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Sep. 11, 2026 by Kip Tom, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations agencies for food and agriculture and managing member of Tom Farms as it appeared in Agri-Pulse.
Recently before my father's passing, he asked to visit the farm one last time. He recalled his own father plowing with mules, when corn yielded about 30 bushels an acre, and later watching me follow behind him while he plowed with a tractor in the 1960s. He asked what the field yielded in 2021. Just over 240 bushels an acre, I told him. An eightfold increase in one shared lifetime -- that is innovation working. Our farm grew from a small family operation into one of Indiana's larger enterprises because each generation embraced new technology. Standing in that Afghan field, and in every lower income nation, the contrast is impossible to ignore. Those farmers did not lack ambition. They lacked what farmers everywhere need to succeed: tools, knowledge and functioning markets. That is why U.S. international assistance remains so important: deployed effectively, it can save lives in moments of crisis while giving people the tools to build a more secure future for themselves. But assistance should be measured by whether it ultimately reduces the need for more assistance. Too much of the international food security enterprise manages hunger indefinitely rather than ending it. Every dollar of assistance should be judged not by how much suffering it eases today, but by how fast it makes itself unnecessary. When farmers have real tools and real markets, they build livelihoods and self-sufficient communities that no longer need our help. When food systems break down, instability spreads. That is why food security is not simply humanitarian -- it is national and economic security. A 25% rise in food insecurity has been found to increase the risk of conflict by 36%. I saw this firsthand as U.S. ambassador to the UN agencies in Rome, feeding hundreds of millions across more than 80 nations in crisis. More than 70% of that assistance went to countries in man-made conflict -- the clearest evidence that hunger and instability move together, and that American leadership can break that cycle. Ending dependency requires a deliberate shift from food aid to food security. The World Food Programme and its partners should prioritize improving domestic agricultural markets and infrastructure for trade and storage, while helping governments build shock-responsive systems. Humanitarian assistance should be a bridge to recovery and investment, not a parallel system running alongside the real economy indefinitely. Done right, humanitarian action also reinforces U.S. diplomacy. During my tenure, under former WFP Executive Director David Beasley, I worked closely with the WFP on exactly this kind of aligned engagement. In Sudan, humanitarian stabilization helped reduce internal fragmentation, created space for reconciliation with armed groups, and supported the interim government's path toward peace agreements. Humanitarian platforms, aligned with U.S. foreign policy, are genuine instruments of American soft power. But American leadership cannot mean American exclusivity or unconditional support. For too long, the United States has carried a disproportionate share of the world's humanitarian food burden while other wealthy nations, regional powers, and the governments of hunger-stricken countries themselves have not matched our commitment. Every dollar of U.S. assistance should carry expectations: other donors increase their share, multilateral institutions demand measurable progress toward self-reliance, and leaders of chronically hungry nations are held accountable. To read the entire op-ed click here. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
