Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?
— The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955
The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored.
Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world!
Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist, global military spending is projected to reach $6.6 trillion by 2035. Militarism will follow the money, deepening cultures of violence, poverty and extremes.
Overall, the costs are staggering. As reported in the Global Peace Index 2026, “the economic impact of violence on the global economy in 2025 was US$21.8 trillion in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, equivalent to 10.5 per cent of global GDP, or US$2,657 per person… Military expenditure accounts for 43 per cent of the model at US$9.5 trillion…”
How did it come to this?
Selective interpretations of the past continue to play an unduly influential role. Even with deep interdependence, the 4th-century Roman dictum, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” — “If you want peace, prepare for war” – continues to have a peculiar hold over national security establishments. Conveniently, they overlook that the Roman Empire failed with its fixation on preparing for war, draining its economy and creating enemies until it was overextended and vulnerable. ‘Caveat emptor’ – as with individuals, nations tend to get what they invest in, plan and prepare for.
As early as 1961, President/General Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address tried to warn of collusion arising from powerful sectors:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The allure of increasing profits and power proved too much to resist. With globalisation and assured funding, this complex expanded into finance, banking and insurance sectors, big oil and gas, telecommunications, logistics, media, academe, surveillance, big data, advanced tech, robotics and AI.
The unwarranted influence now goes unchallenged, diminishing political autonomy to the point where many leaders believe they cannot say “no.” And, this complex depends on violent conflict to ‘keep the old game alive’, to increase profits and control.
Most political leaders know that no amount of military spending can provide a reliable defence or ensure security in the nuclear era. Wars have seldom been winnable over the past 80 years, even for the most powerful.
The ever-higher costs are accompanied by ever-higher risks. Thirty-eight countries still rely on nuclear deterrence, with the constant threat of unacceptable death and destruction. There is no room for error in the current system of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Even a limited nuclear exchange is expected to trigger a ‘nuclear winter’; one that few, if any, will survive.
Today’s circumstances appear vaguely similar to those preceding World War I, which prompted the League of Nations, and those preceding World War II, which led to the United Nations. Rumours of new threats and geopolitical rivalry are prompting another arms race. Again, a declining great power plans to dominate. Prominent leaders now claim the “liberal world order is dead”. Few can begin to suggest what will replace it. Once more, people confront a dysfunctional, war-prone system – now also the primary impediment to addressing our shared climate emergency and sustainable development.
Both the liberal world order and the United Nations stemmed from a civilizational process to end empire and ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. It was far from a just or equitable order as the process was far from complete.
The UN remains a work in progress — underfunded, unprepared, constrained by its 193 member states, and hamstrung by the Security Council veto.
Though no fault of its own, the UN cannot prevent violent conflict, stop genocide, enforce international law, or protect people and the planet effectively. These limits reflect the political priorities of its member states. Global military spending ($3 trillion) is roughly 780 times higher than the UN’s regular budget ($3.45 billion).
Until recently, few of the 193 UN member states were ready for a more effective UN. Officials have long insisted on pragmatic, incremental reforms only – the tippy-toe approach – foreclosing on big ideas, even the steps needed to adapt and modernize.
Many within the diverse peace communities also foreclose on big ideas, preferring to focus on protest and resistance to ‘this or that’, usually a war or a weapon system. With so many disturbing developments that approach is easy to understand and relatively easier to do, although it poses, little, if any challenge to the military-industrial complexes and a dysfunctional war-prone system.
For now, there is no unifying peace movement with higher objectives and a shared sense of purpose. And, there is no strategy for substantive change, let alone system change.
‘Mission Impossible’
Inevitably, the officials and their experts will insist that, ‘there are no alternatives’; that a more effective UN will never happen; that it’s ‘mission-impossible’. This helps the few to ‘maintain business as usual’ and to ‘keep the old game alive’.
The ‘Overton window’—of what’s politically acceptable at any given moment—has been closed to progressive ideas, especially those involving the UN and global governance.
But that is not a permanent closure.
In 2026, with the political pendulum swinging so far toward authoritarian militarism, the corrective shift back is beginning to open space for a safer, saner agenda. As Nathan Russel writes, “when the window of political possibilities is moved… the impossible becomes desirable and the simply desirable becomes imperative.”
People are waking up.
The fatalistic cynicism that characterised recent years appears to be giving way to a more ambitious internationalism. A recent IPSOS poll from Global Nation suggests that unlike last year, an encouraging shift in attitudes is now underway with more people identifying as global citizens, more support for taxes to address global challenges and considerably more support for providing international institutions with enforcement power.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s 2025 survey found that the global public views conflict prevention and peacekeeping as essential to international cooperation (92%), nearly matching the priority placed on food and water security and other basic survival needs (93%). Across multiple public opinion surveys, it is evident that people want stronger international institutions—especially a more effective UN.
The new predatory hegemon is also prompting worries worldwide. Many governments would prefer a more just and equitable rules-based order, with respect for international law over a return to ‘might is right’. Most also know of safety in numbers and that they need the UN as a multilateral counterweight.
So, what might be done differently? How might the UN project be completed, funded and provided with the capacity to fulfil its assigned tasks?
Build on the available UN foundation
The UN already has the advantage of an exemplary Charter, universal membership, 80 years of experience working on all the shared global challenges, with offices, programs and operations worldwide.
To imagine change is the first step toward achieving it. Just imagine if there were a shared vision, say, “peace on earth is possible’; if the focus shifted to a higher objective – ‘a UN-centred global peace system’; if a coherent sequence of steps already underway might combine to deliver the objective; if a unity of purpose and effort might arise with modest coordination and support, and; if social movements and governments started to aim higher and pull together.
A recent Guide to a UN-Centred Global Peace System outlines 20 steps to strengthen the UN’s capacity to prevent war, enforce international law, protect the environment, and promote disarmament.
Thankfully, work on most of these steps is already underway, supported by committed individuals and organizations. And, many engaged in this work are aware that our scattered, siloed and specialized approaches seldom add up to make a big difference. But they might.
Last year, forty civil society organizations mobilized as the ‘Article 109 Coalition’ to push for a much-needed conference review of the UN Charter. A campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly attracted nearly 2000 parliamentarians from 138 countries to call for democratic representation of the world’s citizens.
A proposed UN Emergency Peace Service – a rapid, reliable and gender-equitable ‘UN 911’ – is increasingly viewed as a far more cost-effective way to prevent armed conflict and genocide, to protect civilians at risk and to encourage disarmament. Many support the need for another UN decade devoted to developing a global Culture of Peace – a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour, and ways of life that reject violence and focus on preventing armed conflicts.
There is renewed interest in a financial transaction tax as a means to ensure those who benefit in the financial sector also contribute a fair share to the UN, to climate change and to sustainable development. In short, there is encouraging progress.
Further efforts to help refine and realise each step are encouraged, as these are steps to make the UN foundation more effective. And, if combined and implemented, they add up to a UN-centred global peace system.
Overall, such a system might cost $15-to-$20 billion – a small percentage of the money wasted annually on preparing for more war – with the potential to abolish war, civilise international relations and to save $trillions.
Imagine!
How Now?
In an earlier period, Milton Friedman, a pioneer of neoliberal shock therapy, stressed that, “ideas that seem ‘politically impossible’ today may one day become ‘politically inevitable’. As he explained, “only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change”. “When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around”.
It is now crucial to think ahead, refine the better ideas, plan and be prepared for the moment. Scholar of international law and human rights, Richard Falk, also encouraged a ‘politics of impossibility’:
It is important to recognise that what seems impossible happens… The impossible happens when enough people insist through thought, action, and faith that it must happen.
Everyone can help to generate the wider understanding and support what is required to develop a UN-centred global peace system. On this occasion, ‘mission-impossible’ –‘peace on earth’ – has a chance to become widely desirable, possibly inevitable.
Here is one strategy for change: Aim higher and pull together!
In the earlier words of William R. Frye, “That which is radical one year, may be considered conservative the next.”
“Paradigm shifts happen when prevailing systems are deemed inadequate or failing and when another option is widely viewed as better”.