Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
In the 1960s, newspapers around the world hailed what looked like a huge victory: science had finally beaten famine.
New types of wheat and rice dramatically boosted crop yields, and experts, seeds, and farming advice poured into countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
On the surface, the Green Revolution was presented as a kind-hearted effort to save millions from hunger.
But looking at the historical records, it was also part of a bigger push to reshape economic and political ties between the rich industrial nations of the North and the poorer countries of the South.
American leaders worried that widespread rural poverty and hunger could spark revolutionary or leftist movements in those regions.
So boosting food production became part of the US national security strategy.
While they talked publicly about fighting hunger, documents and studies show the real aim was to promote stability and stop the spread of communism.
In this way, seeds became a quiet but powerful weapon in the Cold War. What some called the “seed war” used agricultural technology and corporate control over seeds to apply political and economic pressure.
Big international companies gained influence over food supplies, which turned out to be more effective than traditional weapons in many cases.
One method involved “terminator seeds”, genetically modified varieties (known as GURTs), engineered to grow only once. The seeds they produced were sterile and could not be replanted.
At the same time, traditional local seeds, often hardy and well-suited to the land, were gradually pushed aside in favour of imported varieties controlled by big companies.
This slowly stripped countries of their agricultural independence.
As costs rose, many small farmers had to borrow money for seeds, fertilisers, and equipment. Debts piled up with every season.
Over time, land shifted from small family farms to larger investors who could afford the new system. Instead of reducing inequality, the Green Revolution actually widened the gap between rich and poor farmers in many places.
All these changes slowly pulled developing countries into a trap of food dependence. They had to keep importing expensive inputs, draining their foreign currency and limiting their political choices.
Local farming knowledge and diverse native crops faded away as everyone relied on standardised varieties from abroad. Biodiversity suffered.
The promise was simple: better seeds meant more food. But in reality, those high yields only came with a full package: heavy chemical fertilisers, pesticides, modern irrigation, bank loans, and expensive machinery.
Later decades showed the downsides. In many areas, chemicals polluted soil, groundwater, and rivers. Farmers faced growing health problems from pesticide exposure. Monoculture farming drained soil nutrients and used huge amounts of water, leaving regions more vulnerable to long-term environmental problems.
Farmers lost control over their own land and seeds. They became dependent on rules set by distant companies and research centres. Thousands of traditional crop varieties disappeared. Food production increasingly relied on technologies and patents held by big international players.
The deeper truth became clear: power had shifted. Controlling land used to be the foundation of agricultural strength. Now, controlling technology, knowledge, and seeds was the new source of power.
Historical accounts show the US had gained the most. The Green Revolution helped it support friendly governments in Asia and the Middle East, reduce the risk of hunger-driven unrest, expand its role in global development, and show that the capitalist system could solve problems better than the Soviet one.
The US was not alone. Britain, France, and Germany also increased their political, economic, and commercial influence across the developing world through these changes, proving that in the modern world, true power lies, not in the soil, but in who controls what grows in it.
Dr Ashraf Abul Saud is a writer and an international relations scholar.
