Conflict and violence are reaching historic levels; however international aid is being slashed. The reduction of development, humanitarian and peacebuilding assistance weakens the economic and institutional foundations that support peace and prevent conflict.
A more violent world
Sixty-five conflicts. Eighty years. Around 245,000 people killed. In 2025 we counted 65 state-based-conflict, the highest figure for the last 80 years -just after WWII-, and last year approximately 245.000 deaths from organised political violence. The estimated economic cost of violence is close to USD 22 trillion, over 10% of global GDP. At the same time, official development assistance fell by 23% and Humanitarian Aid by 36%. Confused with the numbers? Of course we are, the numbers do not seem to make sense.
The economics of resilience
Economic fragility does not automatically create conflict. However it weakens the mechanisms societies have available to manage tension. A society with inequality, poverty, unemployment or lack of public services is less resilient to face crisis or shocks and can exacerbate political instability or even violence. Development aid is one of the tools available to address these vulnerabilities. By reducing poverty, sustaining public services, expanding education and creating economic opportunities, it can strengthen institutions and give people a greater stake in stability. Yet this form of preventive investment is being heavily cut. Once conflict arises, people suffer, services are interrupted, people flee and seek refuge, markets contract and livelihoods disappear. Humanitarian assistance becomes critical to keep peoples alive and preserve dignity. Yet humanitarian aid, also that one, has been decimated by 36%. Similar pattern affects peacebuilding. Conflict prevention funding was in 2023 less that 4% of all aid, and peace related Official Aid to highly fragile countries were at its second lowest since 2004. It looks, reconciliation, dialogue, social cohesion and mediation are considered as optional, even they are crucial. Out of the confusion one could thing that is bad luck, that there is lack of money. Global military expenditure has increased uninterruptedly for eleven consecutive years, reaching 2.8T USD in 2025 or more than 500 times development aid to fragile countries. It is not about comparing budgets, but it is about how we decide insecurity is going to be managed and peace achieved.
The price of peace
We want a peaceful world, or so we say, yet we are in the process of stripping away many of the systems that support peace: we increase military expenditure, we reduce assistance to victims, and we slash the investment in the resilience of countries and communities. Of course you are confused! Are we stupidly assuming that is better to manage insecurity once violence has begun than to prevent the violence from emerging?
But we are not naïve, we know money can’t buy peace by itself. Diplomacy is needed, dialogue is indispensable, accountability is fundamental, mediation is essential. But all those tools are of little use when the societies are struggling to survive, legitimacy of institutions have evaporated and is fear and not hope in the hearts of the people. Political agreements to last require social and economic foundations.
Peace requires more than absence of violence. Peace requires economies that provide opportunities and fulfil needs, institutions that serve citizens, public services that act as a equaliser and as buffer against those in despair, and communities that can face crisis without collapsing, hope on the future. Aid is one contributor of those requirements. Cutting aid therefore does not only reduce assistance, but it also reduces the chances of preventing conflict and violence, ending it when appears and sustaining peace afterwards. If we dismantle the pillars of resilience, how we will claim surprise, or pretend to be confused, when peace becomes fragile?
About the author: Fran Equiza
Fran Equiza brings three decades of humanitarian and development experience to his work on dialogue, peacebuilding, and artificial intelligence. A former UNICEF Representative in Afghanistan, Syria, Mali, and the Central African Republic, UN Deputy Humanitarian Coordinator, and Oxfam Regional Director, he has negotiated with governments, armed actors, and communities to sustain humanitarian access and essential services. He has complemented this experience with professional education in peacebuilding, mediation, and negotiation. Now a Senior Partner at Cedra.ai, he is helping develop PublicMatters, exploring how AI can turn community dialogue into actionable knowledge while preserving context, inclusion, and the voices of those affected by conflict.
