War is everywhere, why aren't G7 leaders investing in peace?

The leaders of the world's richest nations gathered at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, the larger of the two cities destroyed by atomic bombs in 1945. The government in Tokyo hopes that "Japan can once again emphasize the preciousness of peace by showing the world the strength of Hiroshima's recovery."

Now that the bloody conflict in Ethiopia is behind us, the Russian invasion is still underway in Ukraine, and Sudan is on the brink of civil war, peace has rarely seemed so fragile. Nevertheless, the diplomats and peace activists of the world who during times of conflict and turmoil support diplomacy and conflict resolution, still stick to it.

Wars are undoubtedly expensive and are often justified by those who wage them as the best way to achieve lasting peace. They promise that "terrorists" will be defeated, "homelands" will be created, retained or defended, and that will be it. But, of course, it never did.

As we see in Ukraine, conflict causes lasting damage to buildings, communities, bodies and minds. Ending the violence through some form of surrender, or more likely, a painstakingly negotiated peace agreement, is the beginning rather than the end of a long, intensive and restorative process of building a functioning, cohesive society and dealing with the problems that led to war in the first place. In order to prevent conflict, it is necessary to make equal efforts.

The decline of global peace

Although global peace has been in decline for 10 of the past 14 years, many countries are spending less and less on peacebuilding. A recent report by the independent international organization Safeworld and Mercy Corps shows that UK spending on civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution has fallen by $300 million between 2016 and 2021.

The Swedish government, which provides substantial core funding to many peacebuilding organizations, announced earlier this year a 40 percent cut to its strategy for sustainable peace even as the country's economy grew by 2,4 percent in 2022.

But where does all this money go? Where not diverted to host refugee needs in donor states, much of this money goes into defense budgets, which reached their highest levels ever in 2022 and will continue to grow.

In March, the UK announced a $13,7 billion increase in defense spending over the next five years. Defense spending in Central and Western Europe has risen to levels not seen since the Cold War. Sweden, which has already increased its defense spending by 17 percent to $8,7 billion in 2023, plans to spend as much as $13,4 billion a year by 2028, and Japan has pledged to double its military spending to meet NATO's goal of two percent of GDP.

These changes in spending reflect a change in the political calculation among states that in previous years were the biggest advocates and financiers of peacebuilding and conflict prevention programs.

Much of this stems from growing fears about the real and perceived threats that Russia and China may pose to global security. The invasion of Ukraine was a shock to the global system. Many Western countries have imposed heavy economic sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile, China's military maneuvers regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea have raised fears of a violent confrontation.

Geopolitical security concerns

These geopolitical security concerns cannot be overemphasized. However, they should neither define how the world understands every other conflict or crisis, nor distract from other urgent global priorities such as conflict prevention, gender equality or climate change. When these larger issues are viewed only through a geopolitical prism, governments reach for military and security tools, which have limited application and, all too often, counterproductive impact.

Populations living in the midst of conflict bear the brunt of its impact, but also hold the keys to future peace in their hands. Individuals, groups, networks and communities are helping to de-escalate and deter conflict on a daily basis in places like the Central African Republic, the Philippines and the South Caucasus. To reduce the meager resources available to them and those who support them is short-sighted and reckless.

We simply cannot afford that to happen.

In 2019, the World Economic Forum estimated that violent conflicts cost the world 14.400 billion dollars, and that 10 percent of global GDP was spent on causing wars and later repairing the damage caused. Most of those funds went to military spending, which reached $2.000 trillion for the first time last year. At the same time, the World Bank estimates that violent conflicts cause 80 percent of all humanitarian needs.

Conflict prevention and peacebuilding are minor costs compared to spending on war, although they are not a predictable or easy way of doing things. At the G7 meetings in Hiroshima, leaders must do everything in their power to ensure that this new era of geopolitics does not become one remembered primarily for violence.

'The time has come to take peace more seriously'

Above all, they must make peace a political priority for their governments and on the global stage. This means a real investment in the global peacebuilding arsenal. The number and skills of conflict resolution professionals in embassies and in capitals should be strengthened to ensure that long-term peace-building partnerships with local and international civil society are able to have lasting and decisive impacts for affected communities. In addition, governments must work together to support and shape an ambitious, unifying "New Agenda for Peace" at the UN.

Then, in preparation for COP28 this November, the G7 nations must ensure that the global response to climate change is used in a way that helps mitigate rather than fuel violent conflict. Climate change and biodiversity loss are closely linked to conflict and gender inequality. But the responses to them, which are often necessarily radical, can disrupt and transform economies, places and societies in ways that can fuel tensions and reopen old wounds and divisions.

But most importantly, G7 politicians must advocate peace-building and investment in international development among their constituents. Britain's development minister claimed last week that politicians would not "play around" with aid funding if 70 percent of the public supported it. However, in a 2017 survey conducted by Conciliation Resources, 71 percent of respondents agreed that "peacebuilding plays a key role" in ending violent conflicts. That pattern of opinion was repeated in polls in other countries: 74 percent in the US, 77 percent in Japan and 82 percent in Germany.

Building peace requires the support of the people and works best when it is given patient support and attention. We have seen this in Colombia, the Philippines, South Africa and Northern Ireland, which this year celebrates 25 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement / Belfast Agreement.

In times of war, the time has come to take peace more seriously.

(Al Jazeera)