Opinion: It’s time to redefine security to include development
The development community must underscore the strategic relevance and cost-saving dimension of food security investments for national security.
The global system is undergoing tectonic shifts that threaten stability and security in many places. The United States and China, as the most dominant powers, are either disengaging or pursuing uncompromising national agendas and showing no interest in the global common good. New multilateral coalitions of the willing are needed to address global challenges such as the dire food crisis. Continued cuts in development assistance and an increased focus on national interests and security presage a more tumultuous and likely more violent decade ahead. It is therefore crucial to advance the ongoing discussion on a broader and more strategic definition of security. In other words: Now more than ever, the argument must be made loud and clear that investments in development are investments in national security. While multilateral organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund see the impact of geopolitical upheaval as complicating the implementation of many programs, their own comprehensive geopolitical risk assessment, foresight, and policy planning capabilities have not grown commensurately. At the same time, complex crisis scenarios that address the cumulative effects of instability, climate change, human migration, and food security have been informing military and foresight planning for more than a decade. Last March, General Michael Langley, the commander of U.S. Africa Command, testified on Capitol Hill that “U.S. investments focused on stabilization, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, democracy, governance, economic growth, and public health attack the roots of terrorism and tyranny more than bullets and airstrikes ever will.” This assessment was informed by the fact that hunger has been a major recruitment tool for terrorist and insurgent groups, for example in Somalia and Nigeria. Food security demonstrates the inherent link between development and national security particularly well. Persistent food insecurity undermines stability in many contexts and can exacerbate or even lead to conflict. Conversely, conflict and pervasive insecurity negatively impact food security by disrupting agriculture and food supply chains. This is exacerbated by the use of food as a weapon of war. Precisely because of this established link, the World Food Programme was awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, with the Nobel committee stating that WFP deserved recognition “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas, and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.” Development investments should therefore in no case be deprioritized in times of insecurity and crisis. In fact, investments in, for example, more sustainable food systems should be considered as a strategic form of deterrence. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization has shown that it is cheaper to invest in development, including the eradication of hunger, than to pay for the security consequences of inaction, supporting AFRICOM’s commander, General Langley's argument. “Those who believe they can close their eyes to the political, strategic, and security dimensions of food security and other development challenges are under a dangerous illusion.” --— When calculating the costs of ad hoc emergency aid, health care, and the military to deal with the spillover effects of hunger, FAO studies show a benefit-cost ratio of up to 7:1 for anticipatory action interventions. To provide context for these important arguments, the development and security communities need to come together on a routine basis to strengthen the security community’s understanding of the relevance of development strategies for national security and to foster greater geopolitical awareness in the development community. Despite increased political awareness, there is a lack of understanding of the complexity of security challenges and the unique vulnerabilities of regions, making it difficult to translate awareness into action. Together, security and development groups can make a strong case that investments in development, including food security, are long-term, cost-saving strategies for improving national security. At this point in history, any forward-looking understanding of national and international security must include a strong development dimension. Moreover, those who believe they can close their eyes to the political, strategic, and security dimensions of food security and other development challenges are under a dangerous illusion. The shock waves of geopoliticized hunger resulting from Russia’s war against Ukraine are the first hard lesson. The challenge now is to draw the right institutional and policy conclusions and to break down the silos of thinking and working in both national and multilateral institutions. Looking at today’s complex crisis scenarios, a systematic, innovative, and strategic conversation between the development and security communities is critical. Today's fragile global food system and its increasing manipulation for geopolitical purposes pose major security risks. And these risks create new responsibilities.
The global system is undergoing tectonic shifts that threaten stability and security in many places. The United States and China, as the most dominant powers, are either disengaging or pursuing uncompromising national agendas and showing no interest in the global common good. New multilateral coalitions of the willing are needed to address global challenges such as the dire food crisis.
Continued cuts in development assistance and an increased focus on national interests and security presage a more tumultuous and likely more violent decade ahead. It is therefore crucial to advance the ongoing discussion on a broader and more strategic definition of security. In other words: Now more than ever, the argument must be made loud and clear that investments in development are investments in national security.
While multilateral organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund see the impact of geopolitical upheaval as complicating the implementation of many programs, their own comprehensive geopolitical risk assessment, foresight, and policy planning capabilities have not grown commensurately. At the same time, complex crisis scenarios that address the cumulative effects of instability, climate change, human migration, and food security have been informing military and foresight planning for more than a decade.
This article is free to read - just register or sign in
Access news, newsletters, events and more.
Join usSign inPrinting articles to share with others is a breach of our terms and conditions and copyright policy. Please use the sharing options on the left side of the article. Devex Pro members may share up to 10 articles per month using the Pro share tool ( ).
The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect Devex's editorial views.
Amadée Mudie-Mantz is a policy adviser with the Munich Security Conference in Berlin. She is responsible for the program areas of Human Security and Sustainability, with a particular focus on food security, climate security, as well as Women, Peace, and Security. Furthermore, she co-coordinates the MSC Food Security Task Force and the MSC Women Parliamentarians Program.
Michael Werz is a senior adviser for North America and Multilateral Affairs to the Munich Security Conference and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., where his work over the past 15 years has been focused on the nexus of climate change, migration, and security and emerging countries, especially Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, and India. He is a nonresident fellow at the Center on Contemporary China and the World at Hong Kong University and the co-director of Nexus25.
