Across the world, millions of people face violence, displacement, and persecution. Groups such as the Rohingya in Myanmar, Uyghurs in China, Tigrayans in Ethiopia, Yazidis in Iraq, Kurds across several countries, Hazaras in Afghanistan, and Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have experienced atrocities that threaten their safety and dignity. Their struggles highlight a revealing contrast: while trillions are spent on military defence, far less investment goes toward peacebuilding and economic development, which could bring longer-lasting stability.
The Human Cost of Conflict
The stories of these communities reveal deep hardship. Over one million Rohingya are living in refugee camps in Bangladesh after fleeing violence and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, where clashes have displaced another 150,000 since 2024. Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang face mass detention and cultural suppression, with many detained in camps. In Ethiopia’s Tigray region, ongoing conflict has caused displacement and restricted aid delivery, while Yazidis in Iraq struggle to recover from a genocide by ISIS. Kurdish populations in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq contend with marginalization and violence, and Afghanistan’s Hazaras face attacks by the Taliban. Meanwhile, in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians endure ongoing conflict and economic hardship, with 90% of Gaza’s homes damaged or destroyed.
The toll on ordinary people is immense: children are denied education, families lose their homes, and communities are stripped of their dignity. For instance, due to aid cuts, approximately 300,000 Rohingya children in Bangladesh lack access to schooling, perpetuating cycles of poverty and marginalization. These crises are rooted in systemic oppression and require urgent attention.
The Costs of War Versus Investing in Peace
Military spending around the globe is extraordinary. NATO nations allocate approximately $1.5-$2.0 trillion to defence with commitments to a budget based on a fraction of GDP. The war in Ukraine alone consumed $64.8 billion in 2023, supported by over $400 billion in aid since 2022. Israel’s military budget reached $27.5 billion, Iran’s was $10.3 billion, Russia spent approximately $84 billion, and Palestinian groups allocated millions more. Cumulatively, these actors spent nearly $1.5 trillion in a single year—resources directed primarily toward destruction.
In stark contrast, the cost of resolving conflicts and rebuilding affected communities could be significantly lower. Experts estimate that providing housing, security, and economic infrastructure in regions like Rakhine, Xinjiang, Tigray, Iraq, and Gaza would require between $164.8 billion and $269.6 billion over 10 to 20 years, averaging $8 to $27 billion annually. This amount represents just a fraction—less than 2%—of current annual military budgets. For example, rebuilding Gaza alone is projected to cost around $18.5 billion, with an additional $50 to $70 billion needed over a decade to revitalize its economy—still far less than the yearly military spending of NATO countries.
Barriers to Funding Peace
Despite the clear financial and moral benefits, funding peace remains challenging. The United Nations’ appeal for aid often falls short; its 2025 request for the Rohingya received limited support, reflecting a broader decline in global humanitarian aid. Organizations working at the grassroots level, such as the Alliance for Peacebuilding and Peace Direct, operate with limited grants, hampering their ability to scale efforts.
Political and geopolitical obstacles worsen these challenges. Countries like China resist intervention in Xinjiang, Turkey’s treatment of Kurdish populations remains unresolved, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is stalled by political inertia. Corruption and mismanagement also hinder aid effectiveness, as past reconstruction efforts have faced setbacks. Military budgets continue to grow—since 2014, NATO members increased spending by approximately $350 billion—highlighting a global preference for short-term security measures over preventative peace initiatives.
The Economic Case for Cooperation
Investing in peace and trade offers promising economic benefits. Restoring stability in conflict zones could generate millions of jobs, attract investment, and boost local economies. In Gaza, the region’s gross domestic product could have been significantly higher without economic restrictions, illustrating the economic potential of stability. The African Union’s plans to establish a Continental Free Trade Area aim to foster regional interdependence, much like the European Union’s success after World War II.
Scholars and organizations highlight that economic exchanges act as deterrents to conflict. Trade creates higher costs for aggression and promotes prosperity. Initiatives like Mercy Corps’ job training programs and Rotary International’s development projects demonstrate how economic empowerment can reduce violence. Furthermore, agreements between major powers, such as U.S.-China trade relations, show that economic interdependence can help maintain peace.
A Shift in Priorities is Needed
If governments redirected even 10% of the $1.5 trillion spent annually on military efforts toward peacebuilding, it could fully fund the efforts needed to resolve current conflicts and rebuild societies. This would not only reduce the enormous humanitarian costs but also create a more stable and prosperous world. Regions like Rakhine, Gaza, and eastern Ukraine could develop thriving economies, and global peace efforts would become more sustainable.
Leaders, organizations, and citizens must advocate for a shift—supporting peace initiatives and investing in economic cooperation instead of military solutions. The cost of inaction is too high—economically, morally, and humanly. Building a future where peace and collaboration replace conflict is within reach if collective priorities change.