The exchange of missiles and airstrikes between Iran and Israel was just the latest of conflicts whose horrors have plastered our screens for the past three years.
Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the Hamas attack on October 7, and Israel’s devastation of Gaza had already created a sense of chaos. Elsewhere civil war rages in Sudan and a miasma of gang violence has overtaken Haiti. With the US openly joining attacks on Iran, it appears to many that we are entering a new era of violent conflict and instability.
But while the contours of these conflicts are relatively new, they do not represent a new trend. Even before the US bombing, or October 7 and its deadly aftermath, the number, intensity and length of conflicts worldwide was already at its highest level since the end of the Cold War.
Last month we learned how much with the launch of the 19th edition of the Global Peace Index. The Index told us that more states are involved in armed conflict today than at any time since the end of the Second World War.
There are 59 state-based conflicts raging around the world. From Sudan to the Sahel, Gaza to the Democratic Republic of Congo, violence is spreading, global cooperation is eroding and the institutions that have supported peace are being hollowed out.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Index also tells us that the successful resolution of conflicts is at a 50-year low. In the last decade, just four per cent of conflicts have been resolved with a peace agreement. More than half of conflicts don’t end at all, becoming frozen, with no resolution and a constant risk of renewed violence.
These conflict zones are fertile grounds for extremist recruitment, threaten global food and energy supplies, and lead to displacement at historic levels. The UN now reports a record 122 million people are fleeing conflict and persecution. It is no coincidence that the top three nationalities arriving on small boats to the UK are from countries in conflict: Afghanistan, Syria and Iran.
And yet, as global military spending is up to record levels, peacebuilding is in rapid decline. The UK is at risk of following this trend. While our military spending is rightly increasing, we are losing the very tools to prevent and de-escalate conflicts. In 2023 UK spending on peacebuilding had fallen to just 1 per cent of our total aid budget, a quarter of what it was in 2016. It is now threatened to be cut even further.
In last month's spending review, the government announced the amount of aid funding that would go towards the Integrated Security Fund – the UK’s main tool for conflict resolution – will be cut by a further 44 per cent.
This is counterintuitive, given the government’s focus on delivering value for money. It is much cheaper to steer communities away from violence than to respond to its devastating impacts. Last year, the IMF reported that the rate of return on conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding could be as much as £100 for every £1 spent. The Kiel Institute found that terror attacks in recipient countries could be reduced by 10 per cent for a relatively modest $60 million (£44m).
There are countless examples of the effectiveness of such work. The British NGO Conciliation Resources helped end a 30-year violent conflict in the Somali region of Ethiopia. Six years of patient negotiations between the government and the Ogaden National Liberation Front resulted in a peace agreement that cost the UK less than half the price of a Challenger 2 tank.
Over the border in Somalia, support for political violence among young people dropped by 65 per cent, in part thanks to education and community action with UK support. In the southern Philippines, consistent UK backing for the Bangsamoro Peace Process has stabilised the region, reduced terrorist incidents, and helped create the conditions for development and growth.
At the Nato Summit, our allies agreed to increase defence spending to a record 5 per cent in response to the increasing threat from Russia to Europe. This is right. But we should be strengthening all the tools in our arsenal to respond to conflict – including peacebuilding and conflict resolution.
For a tiny fraction of our defence budget, we can reduce the risk to global supply chains, curb the rise of extremist groups, and prevent more desperate people from needing to flee to Europe.
This is a view shared by leading military, intelligence, and political leaders who signed an open letter to the Prime Minister last month. Directors general of MI5, former army chiefs, and parliament’s chairs of the defence and international development committees all agree: if we lose our work on conflict prevention, we’ll be facing global insecurity with “one hand tied behind our back.”
This work is not charity, it’s a strategic investment in the UK’s future. The events in Iran demonstrated the world is becoming more dangerous. If we don’t invest now, we’ll pay for it later, in human suffering, instability, and rising security costs. Now is not the time to step back, it is the time to lead.
Alex Ballinger is the Labour MP for Halesowen and a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
Lord McConnell is a Scottish politician and a Labour life peer in the House of Lords. He was the third first minister of Scotland from 2001 to 2007
This piece has been published as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid series
Why it is time for a new era for global aid and development
Global aid is about more than money and charity – it helps us all
‘Lofty ambition, little detail’: Readers react to Labour’s 10-year plan for the NHS
Poll of the day: Should airline baggage rules be standardised?
We banned cigarette ads for the good of public health – fossil fuels must be next
Elon Musk’s latest Trump spat could end the Maga saga for good
