Stability starts with food

Current and past global conversations on strategic autonomy focus on energy security, defence capabilities, data sovereignty and access to critical raw materials. These debates are understandable. 

But they are incomplete. 

Access to critical raw materials and rare earths is increasingly treated as a strategic priority. That logic stops too early. Food security and agri-food trade deserve the same strategic status and form a foundation for geopolitical stability. 

And so does partnership, based on mutual benefits, shared values, and humility in recognising interdependence rather than denying it. 

Food is not a side issue. Food is infrastructure. A foundational pillar of strategic autonomy. 

This means shifting food security into the centre of strategic thinking. It asks us to stop treating food as a humanitarian afterthought and start recognising it as core infrastructure for societies and states. 

Hierarchy of geopolitical stability

Connecting recent geopolitical and economic analyses, a clear hierarchy emerges. A refocused Maslow-style hierarchy: 

• Social stability begins with access to affordable food 
• Economic stability begins with work and income 
• Geopolitical stability begins with safe and predictable trade relationships 

Food affordability directly affects wage pressure, labour relations and political sentiment. Employment and income determine consumption, investment and growth. Predictable trade underpins long-term planning and capital allocation. 

Reframing food security in this way moves it from the margins of policy into the centre of strategic thinking. It also aligns more closely with how businesses assess risk: Starting with system fundamentals rather than downstream symptoms. 

Food security as an economic and security policy

Viewed through this lens, food security becomes an essential component of economic and security policy. Access to sufficient, affordable, and sustainably produced food forms the base layer of stability. The foundation on which everything else rests.  

Climate change, demographic growth, and geopolitical fragmentation will only increase pressure on food systems. Treating food as infrastructure allows policymakers and businesses to address these pressures structurally rather than reactively, creating a coherent framework for investment, trade policy, and development finance. 

Recent policy developments in the Netherlands underline this shift. The Dutch coalition agreement presented recently (Aan de slag, Bouwen aan een beter Nederland) signals the government’s intent to strengthen domestic resilience and economic stability, including by supporting key sectors such as agriculture and food production, and by collaborating with industry and civil society on innovation and competitiveness. This demonstrates that food systems are increasingly recognised as a strategic asset, not only for development but as part of national economic and security infrastructure.  

From efficiency to resilience: The new operating environment 

The global business operating environment has changed fundamentally. The era in which efficiency, lowest cost and just-in-time delivery dominated trade is giving way to something more complex and fragile. 

The Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) highlights that Europe’s future position increasingly depends on deeper, more equal partnerships with the Global South. Not only for geopolitical alignment, but for the resilience of essential systems such as food and agriculture. The Boston Consulting Group describes a patchwork world order, in which trade flows are shaped less by pure economic optimisation and more by security, reliability and political trust. 

This shift is tangible. Value chains are exposed to climate volatility, geopolitical shocks, regulatory fragmentation and social pressure. Risk is a structural feature of global trade. 

In this context, agri-food systems are not secondary. Disruptions in food production or trade translate directly into social unrest, migration pressure and political instability. Risks that no amount of industrial policy or technological leadership can fully offset. 

We have seen how quickly food price shocks can destabilise societies, strain governments and spill across borders. When food becomes scarce or unaffordable, political legitimacy erodes fast. 

For partners in the Global South, the current reordering of trade is not only about risk and resilience. It is also about opportunity, ambition and long-standing demands as equal partners in global value chains. 

Countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia and Nigeria are not merely suppliers of raw agricultural commodities. They are increasingly positioning food and agriculture as engines of industrialisation, employment and geopolitical influence. Investments in processing, logistics, digital agriculture and domestic markets are central to their economic strategies. 

From this perspective, resilience means something different. It is about building international and domestic agri-food industries that generate employment, drive innovation and anchor food systems within national economies. Access to markets remains key, but so does access to technology, finance and long-term demand that support local ambitions and international needs. 

Value chains as instruments of change

Mark Carney captured this shift well at Davos, speaking of a rupture rather than a transition in the international order. We are no longer moving gradually within a rules-based system; we are living through a break in which supply chains themselves are becoming instruments of power. 

This applies as much to wheat, cocoa, and fruit and vegetables as it does to lithium or advanced chips. 

If we accept that energy grids and digital networks are strategic assets, we must also accept that food systems are strategic assets. They underpin social cohesion, economic participation and geopolitical stability. Without them, everything else becomes fragile. 

For Europe, for example, strategic autonomy will not be achieved through self-sufficiency. It will be shaped through partnerships. Trade agreements and strategic dialogues are as much geopolitical tools as they are engines for mutual development and shared prosperity. 

Current and proposed agreements, such as the EU-India Free Trade Agreement, the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement, and deepening partnerships with African and Southeast Asian countries, reflect this shift. These frameworks increasingly combine market access with cooperation on sustainability standards, food safety, climate adaptation and value-chain resilience. 

However, their credibility depends on whether they are perceived as mutually beneficial. From the perspective of partners like India or Brazil, the question is not whether Europe needs secure food supplies, but whether cooperation supports their goals. 

This is where European policy meets global reality. Agreements that focus narrowly on risk reduction for Europe risk undermining trust. Agreements that create space for shared value addition, investment and joint problem-solving strengthen resilience on both sides. 

Strategic autonomy, therefore, cannot stop at energy, data or minerals. It must include resilient agri-food value chains, credible partnerships with producing countries, and sustained investment in farmer livelihoods and sustainable production. 

Food is the backbone of stability. 

Reciprocity over dependency

Resilience built on food systems will only be sustainable if partnerships are genuinely reciprocal. For many producing countries, this means moving beyond export volume towards export value. 

In India, this includes reducing post-harvest losses, scaling food processing and integrating smallholders into formal markets. In Brazil, it means combining its role as a global agricultural powerhouse with investments in sustainability, traceability and higher-value food products. Across Africa and Latin America, governments are prioritising agri-food industrialisation as a pathway to jobs, income and political stability. 

For businesses across the globe, engaging with these ambitions is a matter of risk management. Local value creation supports stronger institutions, better infrastructure and more reliable and resilient supply chains. It also creates commercial opportunities in processing, logistics, inputs, finance and services. 

The difficult question is therefore not whether reciprocity is desirable, but what we are prepared to change to make agri-food chains future-proof.  

From ambition to execution

The debate over strategic autonomy is gaining momentum worldwide. Credibility will depend on whether food and agriculture are treated with the same seriousness as energy, defence and technology. 

For business leaders, this is a call to engage. As partners in building resilient systems. It requires long-term thinking, cross-sector collaboration and the humility to accept interdependence as a strength rather than a weakness. 

Food systems are complex. They connect climate, labour, trade, culture and politics. There are no simple fixes. But shared agendas grounded in commercial reality offer a more durable path than fragmented responses. 

A shared responsibility

Positioning food as infrastructure spreads responsibility across actors. 

For governments, it means integrating food security into foreign, trade and security policy. 

For businesses, it means investing beyond short-term optimisation and engaging upstream in value chains. 

For development institutions, it means aligning social outcomes with economic viability. 

For all of us, stability starts with the basics. If we want social stability, economic resilience and geopolitical predictability, we must start where societies start. With food.