Global Insecurity, Peace and stability

Despite major gains for peace in the past few decades, violent conflict remains a factor in too many places. Today, we are seeing increases in the recurrence, longevity and diffusion of conflict, the incidence and severity of disasters, degradation of the environment, depletion of natural resources, transnational crimes, volatility of societies previously characterized as stable, financial crises and various forms of inequality. These trends are interrelated.

Over 1.5 billion people live in fragile and conflict-affected countries, and the current situation of people in countries as diverse as Syria, Yemen, Libya, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Philippines, Mali, India, Colombia, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Ukraine, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia, and the Central African Republic – and in fragile parts of more stable countries where gang- and crime-related violence prevails – is a salient reminder of the need to focus national and international efforts on peacebuilding.

Most of the world's countries have medium, high, or very high levels of peacefulness, global peacefulness has been falling for the past seven years, and over 500 million people currently live in countries at risk for further declines in peacefulness in the short-term. That’s because, today, peacefulness is as much about what happens between people and inside our borders as it is about armies and wars.

We are residing in a world that is increasingly divided. Some regions enjoy sustained levels of peace, security, and prosperity, whereas others fall into seemingly endless cycles of conflict and violence. Globe is witnessed a steep rise in armed conflicts in recent years and with 62% of those in extreme poverty estimated to be living in countries at risk from high levels of violence by 2030. It is time to ask – Is the world really serious about achieving SDGs? Or will we set yet another ceremonial set of goals for 2050 and allow the global war to continue?

Our world continues to be threatened by more than 20,000 nuclear warheads the capacity to kill or grievously injure all people living on Earth, and to destroy the global ecosystem many times over. We are impelled to ask what it is, exactly, that is being protected by this unimaginable destructive capacity. If even some small portion of the population of one of the combatant nations were to survive, what would await them could hardly be termed a future.

Our evolution is riddled with war and violence followed by periods of peace. That means that many of us still retain the conviction that a prolonged world peace is impossible. Even though war has always been abhorrent, it paid off in advantages for the victors: new territory, power, riches and security for their own people. Prosperity meant wisely utilizing the chances for peace, alternating with wisely waging war to defend it and to obtain riches and power.

In countries marred by conflict and disaster, development tends to focus on promoting economic growth and progress in specific social sectors such as health and education. Fundamental issues for lasting peace and stability – rule of law and justice, good governance, social cohesion, economic and environmental sustainability – are often left at the margins.  

If we continue with the current model, the already costly global and local implications will increase. We are seeing increases in the recurrence, longevity and diffusion of conflict, the incidence and severity of disasters, degradation of the environment, depletion of natural resources, transnational crime, volatility in societies previously characterized as stable, financial crises and various forms of inequality. These trends are interconnected.

People in better economic conditions are less likely to initiate violent conflict because they are more content and have more to lose from the physical danger and economic disruption that war or any form of conflict may bring. When people can accumulate economic assets securely, to provide them with a cushion in times of need, to improve their income, and to invest in and improve the economy, and can do so in a way that is fair to others, they not only have a stake in stability but are also more empowered.

Peace today is much more than the absence of war, but we still struggle to truly define or explain it. Maybe a definition is not necessary. Efforts to define it put tension on a concept that thrives in non-tension.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda provides a framework for all member states to work together on the pressing issues facing our planet: from poverty elimination to food security, health services to education, water security to energy, and from climate change to social and economic justice.

As the SDGs era comes into full force, perhaps together the SDGs provide the essential “building blocks for peace.” We can no longer think of peace as a stand-alone goal but a platform to reach each and every one of the SDGs. Peace is not a pie-in-the-sky ideal or vestige of an earlier generation. Peace is essential, and fulfilling these goals will be the only way we can find holistic peace for all.

There is no doubt that the inclusion of this goal in the SDGs is significant. However, more importantly, it is to be argued that SDG 16 is the most important goal, without which none of the other goals can be sustained. It should be in the core to make realize other goals. SDG 16 is just as complex as it is significant. It is persuasive to view peace, security, and governance as complex political issues that fall squarely in the purview of governments and security agencies or as issues specific to “conflict zones.” However, SDG 16 is not just about ending wars and reducing the incidence of violence.

In addition to two targets on reducing violence, SDG 16 also has a focus on important drivers of conflict including access to justice, corruption and bribery, transparency, fundamental freedoms, and participatory decision-making.

Addressing the root causes and drivers of conflict has been and continues to be a complex undertaking. Conflicts have multiple drivers, operate as systems, are often local and do not stop at state borders. Responses require the influence, huge amount of resources and commitment of different people and institutions, at different times.

Modern challenges of poverty, hunger, diminishing natural resources, water scarcity, social inequality, environmental degradation, diseases, corruption, racism and xenophobia, among others, pose challenges for peace and create fertile ground for conflict.

Sustainable development contributes decisively to dissipation and elimination of these causes of conflict and provides the foundation for a lasting peace. Peace, meanwhile, reinforces the conditions for sustainable development and liberates the resources needed for societies to develop and prosper. Therefore, peace and development are inextricably intertwined and always complement each other.

Peace is the basis of development and development is the basis of peace. The development and economic growth, which are based on clear scientific basis and a sophisticated strategy, can only be strengthened by prevalence of security and political stability, which is consistent with the requirements of the citizen to get to the privileged position of development and progress.

Economy and conflict are intimately linked. Competition over access to resources lies behind, indeed is often at the heart of most wars and other forms of organized violence. Sustainable peace within and between societies is really only possible when people have fair access to sustainable livelihood and asset accumulation opportunities, combined with general well-being, justice, security in a context of good governance.

Economic success is clearly the main preoccupation of businesses. And economic development is often the major preoccupation of governments and individuals – prosperity symbolizes their ambitions for progress and a better life. So those promoting economic development play an influential role in defining how societies make progress. In countries affected by violent conflict, or where institutional fragility increases the likelihood of violent conflict, the nature of economic development takes on even more importance.

I fully recognize that as long as there remain inequities between classes, as long as people feel they have little hope for a good life and remain unable to tolerate others believing differently than they do about important issues, violence and war will continue. This is because it is not axiomatic that economic development is good for peace.

Unfortunately, while some economic development approaches support progress towards sustainable peace, some approaches can also undermine peace. For example economic growth based on narrow, non-labour intensive sectors like mineral extraction have contributed to instability and violence. It can be perceived as excluding many people from the benefits of growth, and is also apt to be captured by narrow elite interests who therefore do their best to retain control of the levers of political and economic power. A more diverse and labour-intensive economy, on the other hand, typically allows for wider participation and thus a stake in stability and further development.

This means that how people and organizations leading economic development efforts do so, is of fundamental importance to peace in their contexts. Their actions shape the economy, which in turn helps shape the prospects for peace. Politicians, civil servants, businesses, NGOs and international organizations all play a role in shaping the economy, and thus peace, through a combination of policy, business and investment decisions, and development programmes and projects. International agreements and norms, and those who determine them, also play an influential role.

All over the world in countless ways institutions are providing their contribution directly and indirectly to world peace. The UN and the peace movement are very closely involved in this. Other organizations are contributing to world peace by focusing on the fight against poverty, observance of human rights, fairer distribution of prosperity, a livable environment, equal opportunities for men and women, etc.

In conclusion, Government and International Organizations must put Goal 16 as a prerequisite and to the core of SDGs. There should be unambiguous indicators to reflect peace is prevailing. Means of implementation need to be focused. The spread of weapons of mass destruction poses a threat to the international community. Indiscriminate trade in conventional arms and the use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles raises serious humanitarian and security concerns. Sale of arms and innovating on mass destructive weapons need to be reduced. Although primary responsibility for ensuring peace rested at the national level, such responsibility must be accompanied by responsible behavior and international cooperation.

Furthermore, Peace should be felt through various ways such as complacency, sense of belonging on the part of citizens, reduction of crimes and social violence, which, in turn, enhances national security in such a way that promotes development and creates a favorable investment environment. This induces local enterprises and attracts foreign investments, the driving force of economic development.

Peace brings happiness among people. They are involved in development activities. Peace helps to promote people’s rights, democratic norms and values. It helps to create the feeling of love, trust, tolerance, and brotherhood among people. No tangible development process can go ahead without peace and harmony. Peace and development are twin prerequisites which go hand in hand, it is essential that more and more people aim to create a world where we can live together as a unified human race in peace and prosperity #SDG16 #PeaceandStability #GlobalPeace #SustainableEconomiesthruPeace #Humanity #PeaceandDevelopment