View previous stories
	UN Security Council Open Debate: Conflict Prevention and Sustaining Peace by Simon Adams Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect   In January Sweden, the current President of the UN Security Council, convened a meeting on “Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention and Sustaining Peace.” The meeting provided the first opportunity for the new UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, to formally address the Council.   The Secretary-General discussed reforms he is implementing within the UN system to strengthen the organization’s capacity to address the root causes of conflict. During the more than 8-hour debate, which featured statements from a number of ministerial level participants, many countries highlighted the need to improve conflict response alongside conflict prevention, noting the urgent need to address ongoing violence and atrocities in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   Simon Adams, the Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect offers a 10 page briefing note for the incoming UN Secretary-General.   It is easy to criticize the UN for its failures and inscrutable deficiencies. Politically, it is a twentieth century organization that is struggling to deal with twenty-first century challenges. But despite all its inefficiencies and frailties, the UN still has immense diplomatic convening power and is uniquely capable of transcending national and regional interests to speak on behalf of the international community.   For ordinary people trapped in the most remote, deadly and dangerous conflicts in the world today the presence of the UN can mean the difference between life and death.   Unlike the League of Nations, the UN need not crumble. But if it is to survive the twenty-first century the UN must work with governments and civil society to advance, rather than retreat from, its core global values and mission. This is why the next Secretary-General must focus, above all else, on upholding humanitarian and human rights norms and preventing mass atrocities.   The next Secretary-General must be a pragmatic idealist who must do everything within their power to mobilize the international community to consistently uphold its responsibility to protect where ever and when ever people face the threat of the machete or the mass grave.   http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/notes-for-the-next-sg.pdf Visit the related web page
	The economics of peace (and war) by Talia Hagerty DW, Institute for Economics and Peace   How much better off would the world be if it stopped preparing for war and invested in peace instead? We asked a researcher with the Institute for Economics and Peace. The answer, expressed in dollars, is staggering.   DW: How much does war and armed violence cost per year?   Talia Hagerty: We''ve quantified the economic impact of violence on the global economy. What we found is that in 2016, the direct and indirect costs of violence amounted to about $14.3 trillion (12.2 trillion euros), including multiplier effects.   This number includes not only the costs of war, but also of other forms of violence, like terrorism, homicides and violent crimes.   How do you calculate the costs of war?   When a soldier is injured in war, there are direct costs, such as his or her medical care, and indirect costs like lost lifetime wages if he or she is disabled. But there''s more. Suppose it cost $100,000 to treat a wounded soldier, who loses five years of wages from inability to work, amounting to another $250,000. That''s not the whole cost because that money could have been spent on something productive, something that adds value.   When you manufacture a bomb, in the best-case scenario, it never gets used. In the worst-case scenario, the bomb gets used, and destroys human lives or physical capital, or most likely both.   Global peacebuilding expenditure is dwarfed by the direct economic losses from conflict. According to Institute for Economics and Peace (IPE) estimates, current spending on conflict prevention is less than 1 percent of the cost of the consequences of conflicts. By another measure, economic losses from conflicts are five times as large as total development aid from rich countries to poor countries ("official development assistance," ODA)   But isn''t war, or the threat of war, good for the economy of nations like the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, or other countries who have big militaries and export a lot of weapons?   Is it good for these nations? No. Might it be profitable for a certain number of firms? Sure. But that''s not the whole picture. These national economies you''ve mentioned prosper in a context of globalized trade. The economic impact of violence on the global economy far exceeds that of the 2008 global financial crisis, for example.   So if we want to have prosperous nations in a globalized world, that means we have to measure every country''s economy and look at the total picture — not just measure the prosperity of single nations or individual sectors, like weapons-manufacturing companies.   OK, but doesn''t military spending also generate technological innovation? The urgency of war, or war-like competition, seems to stimulate high creativity and performance in technological terms.   Of course. It''s undeniable that a number of technological advances have come from military pressures. But what I think you''re observing here is that organizing human beings in support of a common goal can achieve amazing things. So should we invest money in research? Of course we should. But does it have to be military research?   And in fact, those advancements actually came about because of high levels of positive peace, not in spite of them.   Positive peace? What''s that?   Positive peace is the attitudes, institutions and structures that sustain internally peaceful societies and create optimal environments for human potential to flourish.   We''ve identified eight major factors that are statistically associated with the absence of violence and high levels of internal peace within a country:   A well-functioning government. Equitable distribution of resources. Free flow of information. Good relations with neighbors. High levels of human capital which increases life expectancy and increases literacy. Acceptance of the rights of others. Low levels of corruption and a sound business environment.   What these reduce to is a combination of factors that contribute to basic human security, productive diversity, and fairness. By productive diversity, I mean we''re not "tolerating" diversity, we''re embracing it, and engaging it to bring together diverse perspectives and generate productive outcomes.   How does this all relate to the Cold War and the technologies it gave rise to?   You didn''t see the technological advancements, which gave rise to the internet, come about without high levels of human capital, for example. But you did see the pressure of the Cold War, and the threat of mutual annihilation between the US and Soviet Union.   The mistakes of the past don''t have to define the future. If we look at the question differently, we can certainly achieve amazing advances in the context of mobilizing for peace and prosperity instead of mobilizing for war.   * Talia Hagerty is a Research Fellow with the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), a think-tank dedicated to developing metrics to analyse peace and to quantify its economic benefits. Visit the related web page
	View more stories