CONFLICT: IMPUNITY UNCHECKED

As aid declines, military spending soars. Global military spending stood at US$2.7 trillion in 2024, around 13 times what states provide in aid. It would take a fraction, US$300 billion, to eliminate extreme poverty, while US$1 trillion would close the annual funding gap for climate transition and adaptation.

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine drove European states to increase defence spending. Trump demands they pay still more, insisting the USA carries too much of NATO’s burden. He’s bullying states into compliance, threatening to make NATO’s Article 5, the collective defence provision, conditional on defence spending levels. The pressure was evident at the 2025 NATO summit, where most members committed to increasing military spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. States that refuse, like Spain, may face US retaliation.

At the NATO summit in The Hague, The Netherlands, in June 2025, US President Donald Trump extracted a promise from European allies to raise their defense spending to 5 per cent of their GDP. Photo by Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters via Gallo Images

The money has to come from somewhere, and further aid and social spending cuts seem inevitable, resulting in a huge transfer of wealth from people in need to arms companies. UK aid, for example, will fall by 27 per cent in the next financial year to enable increased military spending.

This brings two challenges for civil society. The first is to advocate for social spending, domestically and internationally, which means winning public arguments about how resources should be used. The second is to scrutinise defence spending and expose corruption. The defence industry has vast lobbying power. Procurement is secretive, supply chains are complex, people routinely rotate between arms company and government jobs and politicians benefit from connections, with the defence industry among the US Republican Party’s biggest donors. Big spending increases mean more corruption.

States must commit to transparency. Defence departments and NATO rarely engage with civil society. They must recognise civil society’s role in scrutinising military spending and work with it to develop stronger accountability standards.

In Ukraine, the world’s highest per capita defence spender, the first major protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion came when parliament weakened anti-corruption bodies. People protested even in frontline cities and despite martial law. It’s encouraging that authorities didn’t repress protests, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged the pressure and reversed the changes, a response unimaginable in Russia.

While forcing up military spending, Trump also exemplifies a growing trend of superficial peacemaking. His claim to have ended eight wars doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Two patterns recur. The first is ceasefire as spectacle, with killing continuing after supposed peace agreements are signed. The October Gaza ceasefire allowed Israel to contain public outrage and international pressure while continuing to kill people. Fighting continues in the DRC after a December ceasefire brokered by Qatar and the USA. The Cambodia-Thailand border conflict flared up again despite two agreements involving the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China and the USA.

The second pattern is peacemaking without justice. Rapid recognition of the transitional government that triumphed in Syria’s civil war left major questions of justice unaddressed, and Kurdish and Syrian state forces continued fighting until a January 2026 ceasefire. US intervention paused hostilities between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, a dispute that dates back to the 1947 partition. But lasting peace remains distant, human rights abuses continue in Kashmir and, since both countries have nuclear weapons and their leaders show no sign of abandoning their belligerent rhetoric, there’s potential for further war with global repercussions.

An Indian soldier stands guard outside the Haj House in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, on 14 May 2025, as pilgrims resume their journey to Mecca following a ceasefire that reopened the region’s airspace. Photo by Sharafat Ali/Reuters via Gallo Images

In contrast, the decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region may have ended with a US government-brokered peace agreement. While Trump talked up the trade opportunities, civil society continues to shoulder the real work of peacebuilding, helping ethnic Armenians forced to flee by Azerbaijan’s decisive intervention and working to defuse decades of distrust.

Rather than peace, what’s on offer is PR, with causes of conflict left unresolved and perpetrators free to enjoy impunity. The personalised approach Trump exemplifies fills the vacuum left by the paralysed UN Security Council, deadlocked by the veto powers of China, Russia and the USA. Regional organisations such as the African Union and ASEAN do little when their member states have stakes in conflicts. The field is clear for powerful states to advance their interests by involving themselves in conflicts and peace processes.

Contemporary peacemaking is often closely linked to the pursuit of material interests. China, Russia and the USA all seek access to resources such as fossil fuels and minerals. Trump’s real estate friends are set to profit from Gaza reconstruction, while US intervention in Venezuela opened opportunities for the oil and gas industry, key Trump campaign financiers. The DRC deal brought mineral concessions, and access to rare earth metals is a key US priority in Ukraine and may help explain a US shift towards Myanmar’s junta.

Powerful states continue to use violence to pursue their interests. Russia is doing so in Ukraine, while the US government is asserting its aerial supremacy wherever it sees fit. Airstrikes branded as surgical kill civilians. Hundreds have died in Iran, including as a result of the bombing of a school. Other US targets have included Islamic State-aligned militants in Nigeria and alleged drug boats in the Caribbean ahead of its Venezuelan intervention. It killed at least 125 people in some 36 strikes, constituting multiple international law violations.

Denial of self-determination is a recurring theme. 2026 brought renewed US threats to annex Greenland. Defence, economic and strategic interests lie in shipping routes unlocked by climate change, contested by China, Russia and the USA, while the country has abundant rare earth minerals. US threats left NATO in disarray until a behind-closed-doors deal started negotiations, but notably absent from discussions is the right of Greenland’s people to determine their own futures.

Israel’s policies also deny Palestinians ownership of their future. When the genocide became impossible to ignore, several global north states belatedly recognised Palestinian statehood, a necessary step towards a two-state solution. In January, a group of global south states formed the Hague Group, committing to end arms transfers and financial involvement with Israel. But the plan that’s prevailed, endorsed by a vague UN Security Council resolution, is one of technocratic external governance.

Gaza will be run by a committee of Trump’s Board of Peace, packed with his allies but including no Palestinians. The reconstruction plan unveiled in January 2026 presents a futuristic social engineering experiment, envisaging a permanent Israeli buffer zone and the construction of new cities, watched over by high-tech surveillance. A proposed Palestinian-led National Committee for the Administration of Gaza would play a subservient role, denying Palestinians any real say and leaving Israel’s occupation unchallenged.

States involved in conflicts are also protecting each other from accountability. The USA shields Israel. The UAE fuels Sudan’s civil war for regional positioning and economic gain, extensively backing brutal militias while buffered from pressure by strong ties with global north states such as the UK and USA. Rwanda benefits from similar international relationships to reap mineral rewards from its support for rebel forces slaughtering civilians in eastern DRC. Military-led Myanmar has cultivated economic, military and political links with authoritarian states, notably China, India and Russia, while its recent sham election gave the US government a pretext to drop sanctions.

What results is peace only on the surface. The deals struck don’t do anything to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account or address the deep roots of conflict, making further violence and human rights crimes highly likely. Near certainty of impunity, soaring military spending and the division of the world into spheres of influence by China, Russia and the USA almost guarantee more conflict. This has now materialised in the Middle East. A new nuclear arms race may be underway in Europe, while future conflicts could include strategic border incursions by Russia to test NATO’s resolve, forced annexation of Taiwan by China and a catastrophic confrontation between India and Pakistan.

In contrast to peace as PR, local civil society groups are playing a vital role in responding to conflict on the ground. In Gaza, where life is a daily struggle for survival and dignity, people support each other by sharing supplies while local groups distribute aid and provide psychological support. Palestinian artists document destruction, asserting the humanity of a dehumanised people.

Protesters gather in London, UK on 15 April 2025, to mark the two-year anniversary of the conflict in Sudan as the city hosts an international conference on the crisis. Photo by Isabel Infantes/Reuters via Gallo Images

In the DRC, local groups distribute necessities while others work to improve transparency in mineral mining, the main conflict driver. In Haiti, as rampant gang violence continues, civil society groups help people forced to flee their homes by providing temporary shelters, food and psychosocial support. In Sudan, local groups document violations, counter disinformation and support displaced people and sexual violence survivors. Some use artistic expression and storytelling techniques to start conversations about peace and justice.

Diaspora communities can be crucial. Activists from Myanmar based in Thailand use food to build connections between the two communities, holding events in restaurants where exiles teach young Thai people about the struggles in Myanmar.

Campaigners use international business, cultural, diplomatic and sporting links to focus attention on conflicts. For instance, they’re calling for an end to the UAE’s extensive basketball sponsorship as a way of focusing attention on its role in Sudan.

Women-led civil society is vital, recognising that conflicts disproportionately affect women and girls, including as a result of gender-based and sexual violence. For instance, in Ukraine, women’s human rights organisations provide humanitarian relief and work with law enforcement bodies to ensure proper documentation of sexual violence and responses that centre survivors and reduce stigma.

Israel’s genocide is a generational moment. Many people understand that neutrality equals complicity. While resistance inside Israel has been rare, people around the world, including many never previously active, are mobilising to show solidarity and demand an end to impunity.

Civil society action has shaped how people understand and respond to the genocide. Young people are taking the lead, connecting demands for Palestinian rights with struggles for economic, racial and social justice. Human rights organisations, labour movements and students have come together to expose the role of governments, defence contractors and technology companies, calling on them to cut ties with Israel and pressure it to respect international law.

People gather for the ‘Gaza is hungry’ emergency rally in Edmonton, Canada, on 20 July 2025. Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via AFP

Tactics include protests, direct action, boycotts, online campaigns and litigation. In one example, four Belgian civil society organisations won a court ruling ordering the Flemish government to halt all shipments of military goods. The court found these violated the Arms Trade Treaty, which bans arms exports where there’s a serious risk of rights violations. Civil society in countries including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK has also taken legal action.

In Italy, hundreds of thousands joined general strikes that blocked roads and transport hubs to call for protection for those involved in the Global Sumud Flotilla that was trying to bring aid to Gaza, and for the government to impose sanctions on Israel. Public pressure forced the government to send a ship to support the flotilla and speak out against Israel’s attempts to deny Palestinian statehood.

Despite its more positive international image, Spain retains numerous ties with Israel, including military cooperation. Civil society has mobilised general strikes, mass protests and direct action. In September, direct action triggered by the participation of an Israeli team forced the cancellation of the final stage of the Vuelta cycling race, raising awareness of demands for an arms embargo and an end to trade agreements with Israel. A general strike brought cities to a halt in October.

But the movement to resist genocide has provoked severe repression. At least 17 European states have imposed restrictions on Palestine solidarity protesters, unleashing violence and equating dissent with terrorism.

In July, the UK government listed direct action group Palestine Action as a banned terrorist organisation following a civil disobedience action at an airbase to protest against military cooperation with Israel. Being listed means members or supporters may face jail sentences of up to 14 years. Thousands have been arrested for holding signs reading: ‘I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action’. A February 2026 court ruling overturned the ban, but the government will appeal. German authorities have banned two groups that campaign on Palestine, and thousands of people have faced charges for participating in protests.

US authorities have responded with mass arrests of peaceful protesters, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested, detained and deported US foreign residents, trawling social media accounts for evidence. Campus activism has been suppressed through suspension of student groups, punitive disciplinary measures, revocation of visas and threats to withdraw funding. In Australia, the University of Melbourne breached privacy laws by tracking students involved in a Palestine protest.

Despite the obstacles, people will keep taking action, because change doesn’t happen without organised pressure from below. Reform of a paralysed UN Security Council, enforcement of arms trade human rights obligations and sustained funding for peacebuilding won’t come unless civil society sustains the pressure. Ultimately, it’s civil society and not leaders like Trump that makes peace possible, because there’s no sustainable peace without accountability, justice and human rights.