655: ROLE OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE-BUILDING

 

Presented my paper at the seminar at Dayananda Sagar University, Bangalore on 21 Apr 25.

 

In an increasingly interconnected world, conflicts are no longer confined to national borders. The impact of wars, social unrest, and political disputes extends beyond individual nations, affecting global security, economic stability, and human rights. In this context, global citizenship emerges as a tool and an empowering force for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Regardless of nationality, global citizens recognise their shared responsibility in fostering dialogue, promoting human rights, and encouraging sustainable peace. This article explores global citizenship’s critical and empowering role in resolving conflicts and building a more harmonious world.

Understanding Global Citizenship. Global citizenship refers to an awareness of the interconnectedness of people across national, cultural, and economic divides. It involves recognising shared responsibilities for global issues, advocating for human rights, and engaging in social activism to create a more just and peaceful world. Unlike traditional citizenship, which is tied to nationality, global citizenship transcends borders and emphasises collective action for global challenges, including conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

 

Causes of Conflict in the Modern World

To understand the role of global citizenship in conflict resolution, it is essential to analyse the root causes of conflicts. Common factors include:-

Ethnic, Religious, and Cultural Divisions. Deep-seated historical grievances and prejudices often create tensions, leading to violent clashes: nationalist ideologies, sectarianism, and identity-based discrimination further fuel societal divisions and unrest.

Economic Disparities. Widespread poverty, unemployment, and unequal distribution of resources generate frustration and social unrest. Marginalised communities may resort to protests or violence when they lack access to economic opportunities.

Political Instability.  Corrupt governance, authoritarian regimes, and weak democratic institutions undermine trust in leadership. This instability can lead to civil wars, insurgencies, or military coups, disrupting peace and security.

Human Rights Violations. Systemic discrimination, oppression, and inequality provoke resistance movements and uprisings. Repressive regimes that curtail freedoms often face mass protests, which can escalate into violent conflicts.

Climate Change and Resource Scarcity. Environmental degradation leads to competition for essential resources like water and arable land. Disputes over shrinking resources often escalate into violent territorial or inter-communal conflicts.

Geopolitical Power Struggles. Superpower rivalries and proxy wars intensify global instability. Nations engage in conflicts to assert dominance, often using smaller states as battlegrounds for ideological and strategic competition.

 

The Role of Global Citizenship in Conflict Resolution

By addressing Conflict through Global Citizenship, promoting education, advocacy, and cross-cultural dialogue, global citizens can help bridge divides. Supporting diplomacy and sustainable policies fosters long-term peace and conflict resolution.

Promoting Cross-Cultural Understanding and Tolerance. One fundamental way global citizenship aids conflict resolution is by promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue. Many conflicts arise from misunderstandings, stereotypes, and historical grievances. Through global education initiatives, international exchange programs, and cultural diplomacy, global citizens help bridge divides and encourage mutual respect.

Advocating for Human Rights and Social Justice. Global citizens are crucial in advocating for human rights and challenging injustices contributing to conflict. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch raise awareness of human rights abuses and pressure governments and institutions to uphold international norms. By amplifying the voices of marginalised communities, global citizens not only help address the grievances that often lead to conflict but also foster a sense of empathy and compassion in the global community.

Strengthening International Institutions and Multilateral Cooperation. Global governance institutions, such as the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and regional organisations like the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU), play a critical role in conflict resolution. Global citizens support these institutions by advocating for international treaties, peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic initiatives. Civil society groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and grassroots activists engage with these institutions to ensure their effectiveness in maintaining global peace.

Engaging in Grassroots Peace Initiatives. While governments and international bodies play a significant role in conflict resolution, local peacebuilding efforts are equally important. Community-based reconciliation programs, interfaith dialogues, and nonviolent resistance movements help prevent and mitigate conflicts at the local level. Global citizens contribute to these efforts by participating in peace education programs, volunteering in conflict-affected regions, and supporting initiatives that empower local peacebuilders. This emphasis on grassroots initiatives is designed to make the audience feel engaged and involved in the peacebuilding process.

Economic Justice and Sustainable Development. Economic inequalities and resource scarcity are major drivers of conflict. Global citizens support fair trade policies, ethical business practices, and sustainable development initiatives that reduce economic disparities. Programs such as microfinance, impact investing, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects create economic opportunities and reduce tensions in conflict-prone areas.

Diplomacy and Conflict Mediation. Diplomatic efforts and mediation are crucial in resolving disputes before they escalate into violence. International organisations, such as the UN and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), often mediate conflicts between nations and communities. Global citizens can engage in diplomatic efforts by supporting negotiation processes, promoting dialogue-based solutions, and advocating peaceful conflict resolution strategies.

Harnessing Technology for Peacebuilding. Technology and social media have become powerful tools for conflict resolution and peace advocacy. Online platforms enable global citizens to mobilise support for peace initiatives, share real-time information about conflicts, and counter misinformation. Initiatives like digital storytelling, peace-focused online campaigns, and artificial intelligence (AI) for conflict prediction have revolutionised peacebuilding efforts worldwide.

Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation. After conflicts subside, rebuilding societies and fostering reconciliation is essential for lasting peace. Global citizens support post-conflict reconstruction efforts by participating in humanitarian aid projects, advocating for truth and reconciliation commissions, and ensuring war-torn regions receive the necessary resources for rebuilding. Programs that reintegrate former combatants into society promote mental health support for war victims and establish memorials to acknowledge past atrocities to help prevent the recurrence of conflicts.

 

Case Studies: Global Citizenship in Action

The Role of Global Citizens in the South African Reconciliation Process. After decades of apartheid, South Africa’s transition to democracy was facilitated by global advocacy, grassroots activism, and international diplomatic pressure. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) played a significant role in addressing past injustices. Global citizens contributed to this process by supporting anti-apartheid movements, engaging in international sanctions against the regime, and promoting reconciliation initiatives.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis and Global Solidarity. The Syrian civil war displaced millions of people, creating one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. Global citizens responded by advocating for humanitarian assistance, volunteering in refugee camps, and pressuring governments to provide asylum and support. Organisations like the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and grassroots initiatives helped resettle displaced communities and provide essential services.

The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, was facilitated by diplomatic negotiations, public engagement, and peacebuilding efforts. International mediators, civil society organisations, and global advocacy groups were crucial in fostering dialogue between conflicting parties. The success of this agreement demonstrates the power of global citizenship in supporting diplomatic and nonviolent conflict resolution.

 

Challenges to Global Citizenship in Conflict Resolution

While global citizenship plays a crucial role in peacebuilding, it faces several challenges:

Political Resistance. Many governments view global governance mechanisms as threats to national sovereignty and resist international cooperation. Nationalist policies often prioritise domestic interests over global peace efforts, making it difficult to establish common frameworks for conflict resolution. This resistance weakens institutions like the United Nations, limiting their effectiveness in peacebuilding.

Misinformation and Propaganda. The rapid spread of fake news and biased narratives distorts public perception of conflicts, fueling divisions. Governments and interest groups manipulate information to justify aggressive policies, making it harder to foster mutual understanding. Misinformation can erode trust in diplomatic efforts and escalate tensions rather than promote peaceful solutions.

Economic and Political Interests. Nations frequently prioritise economic and strategic interests over peace initiatives, leading to prolonged conflicts. Arms trade, control over resources, and geopolitical rivalries often overshadow humanitarian concerns. Countries may exploit conflicts for economic gain or to expand their influence, undermining global citizenship’s role in promoting stability.

Limited Resources for Peacebuilding. Many peace initiatives suffer from inadequate funding and institutional backing, limiting their impact. Due to financial constraints, international organisations and grassroots movements struggle to sustain long-term peace efforts. Mediation, humanitarian aid, and educational programs cannot effectively address the root causes of conflicts without sufficient support.

Despite these challenges, global citizenship remains vital in fostering peace through advocacy, dialogue, and education. By promoting cross-cultural understanding and supporting grassroots initiatives, individuals and organisations can counter misinformation, pressure governments for ethical policies, and contribute to building a more just and peaceful world.

 

Conclusion

In an era of globalisation, conflict resolution and peacebuilding require collective action beyond national boundaries. Through education, activism, diplomacy, and economic justice, global citizens play an essential role in addressing the root causes of conflict and fostering lasting peace. By promoting cross-cultural understanding, supporting international institutions, engaging in grassroots initiatives, and leveraging technology for peace, individuals and communities worldwide can contribute to a more just, peaceful, and interconnected world. The future of global conflict resolution depends on global citizens’ commitment to upholding principles of justice, human rights, and sustainable development.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1202
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

  1. Benhabib, Seyla. “The End of Sovereignty? Global Citizenship and Democratic Attachments.” Public Culture, vol. 19, no. 3, 2007, pp. 27-39.
  1. Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics.” International Organization, vol. 48, no. 4, 1998, pp. 99-120.
  1. Richmond, Oliver P. “The Dilemmas of Peacebuilding: The Liberal Peace and Beyond.” International Peacekeeping, vol. 16, no. 5, 2009, pp. 74-97.
  1. Tarrow, Sidney. “The New Transnational Activism.” Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 45-72.
  1. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier – Human Development and the Anthropocene. New York: UNDP, 2020.
  1. UNESCO. Global Citizenship Education: Preparing Learners for the Challenges of the 21st Century. Paris: UNESCO, 2015.
  1. World Economic Forum. The Future of Global Governance: Strengthening Multilateralism for Sustainable Peace. Geneva: WEF, 2019.
  1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Global Order 2025: The Future of International Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment, 2018.
  1. Amnesty International. Annual Report on Human Rights and Global Justice 2022. London: Amnesty International, 2022.
  1. United Nations Peacekeeping. “The Role of UN Peacekeepers in Conflict Resolution.”
  1. Oxfam International. The Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding. Oxfam, 2021.
  1. The Elders. “A Call for Ethical Leadership in Global Governance.” The Elders, 2022.
  1. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
  1. Falk, Richard. On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
  1. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
  2. Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

514: CONFLICTS, MILITARY SPENDING & ARMS TRANSFERS

 

 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) launched its Yearbook 2024 on 17 June. The yearbook contains the annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament, and international security.

 

Summarised excerpts from the yearbook:-

 

Conflict Trends

 

Although the number of states experiencing armed conflicts fell from 55 in 2022 to 52 in 2023, the estimated number of conflict-related fatalities worldwide rose from 153,100 in 2022 to 170,700 in 2023, reaching the highest level since 2019.

 

In 2023, four conflicts were categorised as major armed conflicts (i.e. conflicts involving 10,000 or more conflict related fatalities in the year), one more than in 2022: the civil wars in Myanmar and Sudan, and the Israel–Hamas and Russia–Ukraine wars.

 

The number of high intensity armed conflicts (i.e. conflicts involving 1000–9999 conflict related fatalities) also increased, from 17 in 2022 to 20 in 2023.

 

The Russia–Ukraine war continued throughout 2023 at a high cost to both sides. Russian air attacks continued, and Ukraine began to reply in kind, although not on the same scale. Both sides sought and received ammunition and weapons from their allies. There were no formal Russian–Ukrainian peace talks during the year, and the one noteworthy diplomatic success—the 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative—unravelled in 2023.

 

In contrast to the stalemate in Ukraine, in September 2023, Azerbaijan secured a decisive victory in its long running conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

High intensity armed conflicts continued in Iraq, Syria and Yemen throughout the year.

 

Israel responded to the events of 7 October (the killing of over 1000 civilians and more than 350 Israeli soldiers and police, and the capture of around 240 hostages) by declaring a state of war for the first time since 1973. By the end of the year, more than 22,000 Palestinians had been killed in the ensuing air strikes or ground operations by Israel. Houthi forces in Yemen, claiming support for the Palestinians, started to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, prompting Western powers to dispatch warships to the area to address the threat.

 

Sub­Saharan Africa remained the region with the most armed conflicts, although many were low intensity conflicts (involving fewer than 1000 conflict-related fatalities), and levels of violence fluctuated considerably. There were decreases in conflict related fatalities in several countries experiencing high intensity armed conflict, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Sudan. However, there were notable increases in conflict­related fatality rates elsewhere, including in Sudan (+537 per cent compared with 2022), Burkina Faso (+100 per cent) and Somalia (+28 per cent).

 

The fighting that erupted in Sudan on 15 April 2023 between forces led by rival military generals triggered a humanitarian crisis and resulted in an all-out civil war.

 

In the Sahel, a coup in Niger and a decision by Mali to expel United Nations peacekeepers added to regional tensions.

 

The Americas is the only region not to have had a major armed conflict in 2018–23. The two countries in the region with the highest number of conflict­related fatalities—Brazil and Mexico—primarily faced criminal rather than political violence in 2023. Criminal gang related violence also escalated significantly in Haiti during the year.

 

Despite the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, the overall conflict­related fatality rate for Asia and Oceania more than halved between 2021 and 2023. This was partly due to a continuing decline in conflict­related fatalities in Afghanistan following the return to power of the Taliban in 2021.

 

Military Spending

 

Estimated global military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year in 2023, surpassing $2.4 trillion, driven by the Russia–Ukraine war and broader geopolitical tensions.

 

The 6.8 per cent increase in total military spending in 2023 was the largest rise since 2009, pushing estimated world spending to the highest recorded level.

 

As a result, the global military burden {world military expenditure as a share of world gross domestic product (GDP)} rose to 2.3 percent.

 

Governments allocated 6.9 per cent of their budgets to the military or $306 per person.

 

Estimated military spending increased across all five geographical regions for the first time since 2009.

 

Spending by African countries rose the most (by 22 percent in 2023), while the smallest increase was in the Americas (2.2 percent).

 

The United States remained by far the largest military spender in the world. Its $916 billion expenditure was more than the combined spending of the nine other countries among the top 10 spenders and 3.1 times as large as that of the second biggest spender, China.

 

The trend for increased military spending by European states in response to Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine gained traction in 2023. 39 of the 43 countries in Europe increased military spending. The 16 per cent surge in total European expenditures was driven by a 51 per cent rise in Ukrainian spending and a 24 per cent rise in Russian spending, as well as by 10 of the 28 European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reaching or surpassing the 2 per cent of GDP spending target in 2023.

 

Estimated military expenditures in Asia and Oceania rose for the 34th consecutive year. Half of the regional total consisted of spending by China, which grew by 6.0 per cent to reach $296 billion in 2023. China’s spending influenced spending decisions in neighbouring countries and the broader region: in Japan, for example, spending rose by 11 per cent, the largest year­-on-­year spending increase since 1972.

 

Estimated military spending in the Middle East grew by 9.0 per cent in 2023, with increases in all three of the biggest spenders in the region: Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkiye. The Israel–Hamas war was the main driver for the 24 per cent increase in Israel’s military expenditure.

 

Arms Transfer

 

Suppliers of Major Arms

 

In 2019–23, 66 states exported arms, but most were minor exporters. The 25 largest suppliers accounted for 98 per cent of the total volume of exports, and the top five (the United States, France, Russia, China, and Germany) accounted for 75 per cent.

 

The USA’s share of global exports has increased in recent years while Russia’s share has decreased. In 2019–23, the USA’s arms exports were 17 percent higher than in 2014–18, and its share of the global total increased from 34 to 42 percent. In contrast, Russia’s arms exports decreased by 53 per cent, and its share of the global total dropped from 21 to 11 per cent.

 

France’s exports rose by 47 percent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, making it the second largest exporter of major arms in 2019–23.

 

Known plans for future deliveries of major arms strongly indicate that the USA will remain unchallenged as the largest arms exporter in the coming years and that France will consolidate its position in second place. They also indicate that Russia’s arms exports may reduce even further, while some of the other current top 10 exporters are likely to remain steady or increase.

 

Recipients of Major Arms

 

In 2019–23, 170 states imported arms. The five largest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Ukraine, and Pakistan, accounting for 35 percent of total arms imports.

 

Asia and Oceania received the largest volumes of major arms in 2019–23, accounting for 37 percent of the total, followed by the Middle East (30 percent), Europe (21 percent), the Americas (5.7 percent), and Africa (4.3 percent).

 

Between 2014–18 and 2019–23, the flow of arms to Europe increased by 94 per cent, while flows to all other geographical regions decreased: Africa (−52 per cent), Asia and Oceania (−12 per cent), the Middle East (−12 per cent) and the Americas (−7.2 per cent).

 

Many of the 170 importers are directly involved in armed conflict or in tensions with other states where the imported major arms play an important role.

 

Moreover, many exporters are direct stakeholders or participants in at least some of these conflicts and tensions, which partly explains why they are willing to supply arms, even when the supply seems to contradict their stated arms export policies. It is also noteworthy that, for most suppliers, arms exports are only a small part of the financial value of their total exports.

 

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an independent, international think tank based in Stockholm that provides research, data, and analysis on arms control, disarmament, military expenditure, and armed conflict. It was founded in 1966 by Alva Myrdal and Tage Erlander. SIPRI’s work is intended to help researchers, policymakers, and the public understand the state of the arms industry and the preconditions for a stable peace. 

 

SIPRI’s work is based on open sources and includes:

 

  • Databases. SIPRI’s Arms transfers, Arms industry, and Military expenditure databases provide data on nearly every country in the world.

 

  • Documents. SIPRI provides documents on arms embargoes since the 1950s and national reports on arms export controls.

 

  • Analysis. SIPRI researchers analyse the data to identify trends and potential impacts on global security. 

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

1202
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी