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.

 

1282
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

 

 

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.

583:IMPORTANT BATTLES OF THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT: SIGNIFICANCE AND LESSONS

 

Pic Courtesy Internet

My Article published on the IIRF Website on 16 Jan 25.

 

The Indian subcontinent, a cradle of civilisations and a region of immense geopolitical importance has been shaped by monumental battles that have left an indelible mark on its history. These conflicts were driven by ambition, resistance, ideology, and external invasions, shaping the region’s political, cultural, and social landscape. Each war, from the ancient battles of the Mauryan Empire to the more modern confrontations during the colonial and post-independence periods, offers a unique lens through which to understand broader lessons on governance, diplomacy, strategy, and societal resilience.

 

Significant Battles

 

Battle of the Ten Kings (Rigvedic Period).  This was a significant event in the early history of the Indian subcontinent. Approximately in the 14th century BCE (speculative), between King Sudas of the Bharatas and a coalition of ten tribes. King Sudas was victorious and consolidated the Bharatas’ dominance. This battle, one of the earliest recorded in Indian history, highlights the tribal conflicts of the Rigvedic period, a time of significant cultural and social development. It marked the emergence of a powerful polity under the Bharatas, laying the groundwork for later Vedic civilisation. The battle highlighted the importance of leadership and strategy in uniting disparate groups and was early evidence of resource disputes and territorial expansion shaping societies.

 

The Battle of Hydaspes (326 BCE). The Battle between Alexander the Great and King Porus of the Punjab region. Alexander’s strategic brilliance and deception allowed him to cross the swollen Hydaspes River and defeat Porus despite the latter’s formidable forces. It marked the easternmost extent of Alexander’s conquests, showcasing the limits of even the most ambitious campaigns. Alexander showed respect for a valiant opponent by reinstating Porus as a regional ruler. It fostered long-term stability in the region and introduced the Indian subcontinent to Hellenistic culture, influencing art, architecture, and governance. The battle proved that adaptability and innovation in military strategy can overcome even the most daunting odds.

 

The Kalinga War. This war,/   dated 261 BCE, was one of the bloodiest conflicts in Indian history. It was fought between Mauryan Emperor Ashoka and the state of Kalinga. Ashoka won but with immense loss of life and suffering. The Kalinga War was not just a pivotal event in Indian history but a transformative one. The sheer scale of bloodshed led Ashoka to embrace Buddhism and propagate non-violence and dharma, influencing Indian and global history. The war transformed Indian history by ushering in an era of peace and governance based on moral principles. The conflict underscored the futility and human cost of war, the role of leadership in ideological transformation, and the potential for conflict to lead to moral and spiritual awakening.

 

The Battle of Tarain (1191 and 1192). These battles between Prithviraj Chauhan and Muhammad of Ghor were pivotal in shaping the political landscape of northern India. While the first battle was a victory for Prithviraj, the second saw Muhammad of Ghor prevail, leading to the establishment of Muslim rule in north India and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. It represented a shift in power dynamics and introduced new cultural and administrative practices. The lessons revealed the consequences of underestimating an adversary, the importance of unity among Indian kingdoms against foreign invasions, and military strategy and adaptation as keys to sustained success.

 

The Battles of Panipat (1526, 1556, 1761) are milestones in Indian history, each marking a significant power shift and a turning point in Indian history.  In the first battle (1526), Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi, establishing the Mughal Empire under Babur. In the second battle (1556), Akbar’s regent, Bairam Khan, defeated Hemu, reaffirming Mughal dominance under Akbar. In the third Battle (1761), Ahmad Shah Durrani defeated the Marathas, marking their decline and the resurgence of regional kingdoms. These battles provide valuable lessons on the strategic importance of alliances, the role of technological superiority (e.g., Babur’s use of cannons), and the catastrophic impact of disunity among Indian powers. They also showcase the changing dynamics of warfare, including the use of gunpowder, artillery, and disciplined infantry.

 

The Battle of Plassey (1757). This battle marked the beginning of British colonial rule in India.  This war, fought between the British East India Company under Robert Clive and the Nawab of Bengal (Siraj-ud-Daulah), was a turning point in Indian history. The British victory, aided by Mir Jafar’s betrayal, established their dominance in Bengal and laid the foundation for their expansion across India.  The East India Company’s control over Bengal became the cornerstone of its expansion across India. The battle initiated a period of economic exploitation and political subjugation of India under British rule. It highlighted the dangers of internal betrayal and lack of loyalty, the significance of financial and military planning in modern warfare, and how colonial powers exploited local rivalries to establish dominance.

 

The Battle of Buxar (1764). British won this conflict between the British East India Company and Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, Nawab of Awadh, and Nawab of Bengal. This battle consolidated British power in India, granting them the Diwani (revenue rights) of Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. It marked the beginning of the systematic exploitation of Indian resources.  The battle revealed that unified resistance is essential against a common adversary, and control over resources and the economy is as crucial as military strength. Overdependence on external forces can weaken sovereignty.

 

Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767–1799). The four Anglo-Mysore Wars, which occurred between the Kingdom of Mysore under leaders like Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan and the British East India Company, were pivotal in the colonisation of India. Tipu Sultan’s resistance, modernisation efforts, and alliances with foreign powers are noteworthy. These included the Battle of Pollilur (1780) between Tipu Sultan’s defeated British forces and the siege of Srirangapatna (1799) when the British won with the death of Tipu Sultan. The Anglo-Mysore Wars were among the fiercest resistances to British expansion. Tipu Sultan, known as the “Tiger of Mysore,” became a symbol of defiance against colonial powers. Tipu’s defiance became a symbol of anti-colonial struggle, inspiring future generations. Tipu Sultan’s focus on economic reforms and military modernisation highlights the need for a strong domestic base to resist external aggression. The failure to secure lasting alliances with France and other European powers underscores the importance of reliable international partnerships in regional conflicts. The wars also underscored the value of technological innovation, such as the Mysorean rockets, and the challenges of sustaining resistance without broad-based alliances.

 

The First War of Indian Independence (1857). The Revolt of 1857. Often termed the First War of Independence, it was a widespread uprising against British rule sparked by grievances ranging from economic exploitation to cultural and religious insensitivity. It involved Indian soldiers and rebels against the British East India Company. The British suppressed the rebellion. Although it failed, it marked the beginning of the end for the East India Company and led to direct Crown rule over India. The revolt highlighted the potential strength of a united front across different regions, religions, and classes, even though lack of coordination undermined its success.

 

Battles of the India-Pakistan Conflicts. The partition of India in 1947 led to a series of wars between India and Pakistan, primarily over the contested region of Kashmir. These included the first Kashmir war (1947–1948), the second Kashmir war (1965), and the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh. Among these, the 1971 war stands out for leading to the creation of Bangladesh. These battles fought in the modern era shaped the geopolitics of South Asia and influenced international relations. The enduring conflict over Kashmir and the frequent wars reveal the long-term difficulties of unresolved partitions. The 1971 war, triggered by the genocide in East Pakistan, underscores the ethical imperatives of intervention in the face of humanitarian crises. India’s coordination of military, diplomatic, and intelligence efforts in 1971 serves as a case study in comprehensive strategy.

 

Kargil War. The Kargil War fought between India and Pakistan in the challenging terrain of the Himalayas, showcased the importance of surveillance, intelligence, and the role of international diplomacy in modern conflicts. The use of air power and precision weaponry highlighted the evolving nature of warfare. The media extensively covered war in South Asia for the first time, shaping public opinion and international perceptions. India’s ability to garner international support by diplomatically isolating Pakistan was a significant factor in resolving the conflict.

 

Broader Lessons from Indian Battles

 

The battles of the Indian subcontinent are more than just historical events; they offer valuable lessons on unity, strategy, and the importance of learning from history to shape a better future. By understanding these conflicts, modern societies can strive to resolve disputes through dialogue and avoid repeating past mistakes.

 

Unity is Strength. A recurring theme in Indian history is the detrimental impact of internal divisions. The subcontinent’s history illustrates how unity can amplify strength while fragmentation often leads to vulnerability. From the Battle of Tarain to the British conquests, the lack of unity among Indian rulers frequently facilitated foreign domination.

 

The Cost of Betrayal. Many battles were lost due to betrayal, such as Mir Jafar’s role in the Battle of Plassey. Loyalty and trust within ranks are critical in any conflict.

 

Adaptability in Warfare. Introducing new technologies, from gunpowder to modern surveillance systems, has been decisive in many wars.  Using innovative strategies and technologies, such as Babur’s cannons or Tipu Sultan’s rockets, underscores the importance of adapting to evolving military techniques. The ability to adapt and innovate remains crucial.

 

Economic Control as a Tool of Power. Battles like Plassey and Buxar show how economic dominance can be as powerful as military victory. Controlling resources often dictates the outcome of conflicts.

 

Ethics and Leadership. From Ashoka’s remorse to Tipu Sultan’s resistance, leaders’ moral compass has often shaped the course and memory of wars.

 

Cultural Resilience. Despite numerous invasions and conflicts, the Indian subcontinent has retained its cultural identity, showcasing the resilience of its societies.

 

Conclusion

The wars of the Indian subcontinent are not just tales of conquests and defeats. They reflect the interplay of ambition, strategy, and cultural evolution. While they have often been sources of immense suffering, they also offer enduring lessons in leadership, unity, and the pursuit of peace. A key lesson from Indian battles is the importance of international diplomacy alongside military strategy. Forming alliances and negotiating effectively on the global stage can often be as crucial as battlefield tactics in determining the outcome of conflicts. The human cost of prolonged conflict is a sobering reality that cannot be overlooked. Beyond the strategic and political implications, wars inflict untold suffering on individuals and communities, underscoring the need for peaceful resolution of disputes. As India and its neighbours navigate the complexities of the 21st century, these historical lessons remain as relevant as ever, offering insights into building a future that values peace, cooperation, and sustainable development. By studying these historical conflicts, we can better understand the forces that have shaped the subcontinent and gain insights into how to address contemporary challenges.

 

Please do Comment.

 

1282
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the Article on the website:-

Important Battles Of The Indian Subcontinent: Significance And Lessons

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

  1. Bose, Sugata. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. Routledge, 2022.
  1. Keay, John. India: A History. HarperCollins, 2010.
  1. Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press, 2004.
  1. Roy, Kaushik. Military Manpower, Armies, and Warfare in South Asia. Routledge, 2015.
  1. Chandra, Satish. Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals. Har-Anand Publications, 2007.
  1. Peers, Douglas M. “Gunpowder Empires and Mughal Military Technology.” Journal of Military History, vol. 64, no. 1, 2000, pp. 51-66.
  1. Roy, Kaushik. “The Classical Age of Warfare in South Asia.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 48, no. 3, 2013, pp. 56-65.
  1. Ludden, David. “India’s Historic Battles: A Spatial Perspective.” Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 20, no. 4, 2005, pp. 425-439.
  1. Metcalf, Barbara D., and Metcalf, Thomas R. A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  1. Dupuy, R. Ernest, and Dupuy, Trevor N. The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the Present. HarperCollins, 1993.
  2. Indian Ministry of Culture – Chronology of Indian Battles and Wars (https://www.indiaculture.nic.in/).
  1. The British Library – South Asia Collections and Military History (https://www.bl.uk/).

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.

450: TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS (2019-2023)

Pics Courtesy Internet

 

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), recently published its fact sheet about trends in international arms transfer covering the last five-year period i.e. 2014-23 and compared it with data from the previous five years of 2014-18. The gist of it is as follows:-

 

The global volume of international arms transfers decreased marginally, by 3.3 per cent.

 

Imports of major arms by states in Europe increased by 94 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23.

 

There were overall decreases in arms transfers to all other regions, but states in Asia and Oceania and the Middle East continued to import arms in much larger volumes than those in Europe.

 

Nine of the 10 biggest arms importers in 2019–23, including the top 3 of India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were in Asia and Oceania or the Middle East.

 

Ukraine became the fourth biggest arms importer globally after it received transfers of major arms from over 30 states in 2022–23.

 

Arms exports by the United States, the world’s largest arms supplier, rose by 17 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, while those by Russia fell by more than half (–53 per cent).

 

France’s arms exports grew by 47 per cent and it moved just ahead of Russia to become the world’s second-largest arms supplier.

 

 

THE EXPORTERS (2019–23)

 

SIPRI has identified 66 states as exporters of major arms in 2019–23.

 

The five largest exporters of arms during that period—the USA, France, Russia, China and Germany—accounted for 75 per cent of all arms exports.

 

US and French arms exports rose between 2014–18 and 2019–23, while Russian, Chinese and German arms exports fell.

 

The USA and states in Western Europe together accounted for 72 per cent of all arms exports in 2019–23, compared with 62 per cent in 2014–18.

 

USA

 

The USA’s arms exports grew by 17 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23 and its share of total global arms exports rose from 34 per cent to 42 per cent.

 

The USA delivered major arms to 107 states in 2019–23, which was more than the next two biggest exporters combined.

 

The volume of arms exported by the USA in 2019–23 was 282 per cent higher than that of France, the second biggest arms exporter globally.

 

In 2019–23 the largest share of US arms exports went to states in the Middle East (38 per cent).

 

US arms exports to states in Asia and Oceania increased by 14 per cent overall between 2014–18 and 2019–23, with the region account- ing for 31 per cent of all US arms exports in 2019–23.

 

Three states in the region were among the 10 largest recipients of US arms in 2019–23: Japan accounted for 9.5 per cent of all US arms exports, Australia for 7.1 per cent and South Korea for 5.3 per cent.

 

A total of 28 per cent of US arms exports went to states in Europe in 2019–23, which was up from 11 per cent in 2014–18. US arms exports to the region increased by just over 200 per cent between the two periods. Ukraine accounted for 4.7 per cent of all US arms exports and 17 per cent of those to Europe.

 

Deliveries of combat aircraft typically make up a significant part of the USA’s total arms exports. It delivered 420 combat aircraft in 2019–23. Of these, 249 were advanced F-35 aircraft, which were delivered to a total of 10 states and accounted for 24 per cent of all US arms exports. The USA has many pending arms export deliveries, including a total of 1071 combat aircraft, of which 785 are F-35s.

 

France

 

France narrowly overtook Russia to become the world’s second largest exporter of major arms in 2019–23.

 

France delivered major arms to 64 states in 2019–23, but India was by far the largest recipient, accounting for 29 per cent of French arms exports.

 

The bulk of France’s arms exports in 2019–23 went to states in Asia and Oceania (42 per cent of arms exports) and the Middle East (34 per cent).

 

France has been trying to expand its arms sales to other European states for many years; however, its exports to European states in 2019–23 accounted for only 9.1 per cent of its total arms exports. More than half of its European arms exports (53 per cent) went to Greece, mostly made up of transfers of 17 Rafale combat aircraft.

 

A sharp rise in deliveries of Rafale combat aircraft accounted for most of the growth in French arms exports in 2019–23. France exported 23 Rafales in 2014–18. This increased to 94 in 2019–23, representing just under one third (31 per cent) of French arms exports in the period. A further 193 Rafales were on order for export as at the end of 2023. However, most of the aircraft France has already delivered (96 out of 117) and those on order (178 out of 193) are for states outside Europe—Egypt, India, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

 

This highlights the challenge France still faces in selling its major arms to European states, especially in the context of the strong competition from the USA. Notably, 8 out of the 10 European states that preselected or ordered combat aircraft in 2019–23 opted for US F-16s or F-35s, with only Croatia and Greece opting for the Rafale.

 

Russia

 

Russia’s arms exports fell by 53 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23 and it accounted for 11 per cent of total global arms exports. It delivered major arms to 41 states in 2019–23.

 

In 2019 the annual volume of Russian arms exports was at a similar level to that in each of the preceding 20 years. However, the export volumes in 2020, 2021 and 2022 were at much lower levels than in 2019, and in 2023 the volume was 52 per cent lower than in 2022. Another indication of the decline of Russia as a global supplier of arms is that whereas 31 states received major arms from Russia in 2019, only 14 did in 2022 and that number fell to 12 in 2023.

 

States in Asia and Oceania received 68 per cent of total Russian arms exports in 2019–23, while Middle Eastern and African states received 13 per cent and 10 per cent respectively.

 

Just under two-thirds of Russian arms exports went to three states in 2019–23: India (34 per cent), China (21 per cent) and Egypt (7.5 per cent).

 

India was also the largest recipient of Russian arms in 2014–18, but exports to India decreased by 34 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, while exports to China decreased by 39 per cent and to Egypt by 54 per cent.

 

Algeria and Vietnam were the third and fourth largest recipients of Russian arms in 2014–18; however, exports to Algeria (–83 per cent) and Vietnam (–91 per cent) dropped significantly between the two periods.

 

The low volume of pending deliveries of major arms from Russia suggests that Russian arms exports are likely to remain well below the level reached in 2014–18, for at least the short term.

 

China

 

China accounted for 5.8 per cent of total global arms exports in 2019–23. Its arms exports decreased by 5.3 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23.

 

The bulk of Chinese arms exports (85 per cent) went to states in Asia and Oceania, followed by states in Africa (9.9 per cent). China delivered major arms to 40 states in 2019–23, but well over half of its arms exports (61 per cent) went to just one state—Pakistan.

 

Others

      • Germany. Arms exports by Germany made up 5.6 per cent of the global total in 2019–23. They were 14 per cent lower than in 2014–18. States in the Middle East received the largest share of all German arms exports in 2019–23 (39 per cent), followed by states in Asia and Oceania (28 per cent) and Europe (25 per cent).

 

      • Italy accounted for 4.3 per cent of the world’s arms exports in 2019–23. Its arms exports were 86 per cent higher in 2019–23 than in 2014–18. A total of 71 per cent of Italian arms exports went to the Middle East.

 

      • The 4 other suppliers making up the top 10 arms exporters in 2019–23 were the United Kingdom, Spain, Israel and South Korea. Arms exports by the UK (–14 per cent), Spain (–3.3 per cent) and Israel (–25 per cent) all decreased between 2014–18 and 2019–23, while arms exports by South Korea increased by 12 per cent.

 

THE IMPORTERS (2019–23)

 

 

SIPRI has identified 170 states as importers of major arms in 2019–23. The top five arms importers—India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Ukraine and Pakistan— received 35 per cent of all arms imports in the period.

 

States in Asia and Oceania accounted for 37 per cent of all arms imports in 2019–23, followed by states in the Middle East (30 per cent), Europe (21 per cent), the Americas (5.7 per cent) and Africa (4.3 per cent).

 

Asia and Oceania

 

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania decreased by 12 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, mainly because of a sharp drop in Chinese arms imports.

 

However, it remained the region with the highest volume of arms imports and 6 of the world’s 10 largest arms importers in 2019–23 were in Asia and Oceania: India, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, South Korea and China.

 

The main suppliers to the region were the USA, with a 34 per cent share of regional imports, Russia (19 per cent) and China (13 per cent).

 

India

 

India’s tensions with Pakistan and China largely drive its arms imports.

 

India’s arms imports increased by 4.7 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, making it the world’s biggest arms importer in 2019–23 with a 9.8 per cent share of all arms imports.

 

Russia remained India’s main supplier, but its share of Indian arms imports has shrunk from 76 per cent in 2009–13 to 58 per cent in 2014–18 and then to 36 per cent in 2019–23.

 

India has instead looked to Western suppliers, most notably France and the USA, and its own arms industry to meet its demand for major arms. This shift is also visible in India’s new orders, many of which are placed with Western suppliers, and its arms procurement plans, which seemingly do not include any Russian options.

 

Pakistan. Arms imports by Pakistan grew by 43 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23 and accounted for 4.3 per cent of the world total, making it the fifth largest arms importer globally. Pakistan continued to strengthen its arms procurement relations with China: 82 per cent of its arms imports came from China in 2019–23, as against 69 per cent in 2014–18, and 51 per cent in 2009–13.

 

Africa

 

Imports of major arms by African states fell by 52 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, which was mainly due to decreases in the arms imports of the two largest importers in the region, Algeria (–77 per cent) and Morocco (–46 per cent).

 

The main suppliers to Africa in 2019–23 were Russia, accounting for 24 per cent of African imports of major arms, the USA (16 per cent), China (13 per cent) and France (10 per cent).

 

East Asia, Oceania and South East Asia

 

Arms imports by states in East Asia (–6.1 per cent), Oceania (–10 per cent) and South East Asia (–43 per cent) decreased between 2014–18 and 2019–23.

 

China.  China’s arms imports fell by 44 per cent and accounted for 2.9 per cent of the global total in 2019–23. Most Chinese arms imports (77 per cent) came from Russia. The drop in Chinese imports is due to China’s growing ability to design and produce its own major arms. Its arms imports will probably decrease further as it develops this capacity.

 

Japan and South Korea are expanding their military capabilities, mainly because of tensions with China and North Korea. Japan (+155 per cent) and South Korea (+6.5 per cent) increased their arms imports between 2014–18 and 2019–23. The USA is the main supplier to both states, accounting for 97 per cent of Japan’s arms imports and 72 per cent of South Korea’s. The two states are investing heavily in long-range strike capabilities. The USA supplied 29 combat aircraft to Japan and 34 to South Korea in 2019–23. Japan also ordered 400 long-range land-attack missiles from the USA in 2023 (see box 2). These will, for the first time, give Japan the capability to reach targets deep inside China or North Korea.

 

Taiwan’s arms imports dropped by 69 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23 despite heightened tensions with China. However, major deliveries are planned to take place over the next five years, including deliveries of 66 combat aircraft, 108 tanks and 460 anti-ship missiles. All these planned deliveries are from the USA, which supplied over 99 per cent of Taiwanese arms imports in 2019–23.

 

Australia was the eighth largest arms importer in 2019–23 after its arms imports dropped by 21 per cent. However, in 2023 it reached an agreement with the UK and the USA to import at least six nuclear-powered submarines.

 

Arms imports by South East Asian states fell by 43 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23. However, tensions, mainly with China, continue to drive arms acquisitions by many states in the subregion. For example, arms imports by the Philippines (+105 per cent) and by Singapore (+17 per cent) increased between the two periods. In addition, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

 

Europe

 

Arms imports by states in Europe were 94 per cent higher in 2019–23 than in 2014–18.

 

Ukraine received 23 per cent of the region’s arms imports in 2019–23. It was, by far, the largest arms importer in Europe and the fourth largest in the world.

 

The UK, which accounted for 11 per cent of European arms imports, and the Netherlands (9.0 per cent) were the next biggest arms importers in the region.

 

A total of 55 per cent of European arms imports came from the USA in 2019–23, compared with 35 per cent in 2014–18. The next largest suppliers to the region were Germany and France, which accounted for 6.4 per cent and 4.6 per cent of European arms imports respectively.

 

West and Central European States. Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 increased the demand for arms in West and Central European states. For example, by the end of 2023, these states had a total of 791 combat aircraft and combat helicopters on order for import. After it launched the full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia began a campaign of missile attacks against Ukraine. In response, many West and Central European states supplied air defence systems to Ukraine and several placed new import orders for them or accelerated existing procurement processes. In 2023 Poland ordered 12 air defence systems from the USA, and Germany ordered a single but particularly high-value system from Israel. In 2022–23 Austria, Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia ordered air defence systems from Germany, while Finland and Slovakia ordered Israeli systems, and Lithuania and the Netherlands ordered Norwegian systems. In addition, some states ordered missiles for domestically produced systems or to arm newly acquired imports or their existing systems. For example, in 2023 Poland and Norway ordered missiles from the UK and the USA, respectively, for their new systems, while Germany ordered 500 missiles and Romania 200, all from the USA, for their existing systems.

 

The Middle East. Arms imports by states in the Middle East were 12 per cent lower in 2019–23 than in 2014–18. Three of the top 10 arms importers in 2019–23 were in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. The USA accounted for 52 per cent of Middle Eastern arms imports. The next biggest suppliers were France (12 per cent), Italy (10 per cent) and Germany (7.1 per cent).

 

The Gulf Region. Saudi Arabia was the world’s second-largest arms importer in 2019–23, with an 8.4 per cent share of all arms imports. Its arms imports fell by 28 per cent after peaking at their highest point ever in 2014–18. The USA supplied 75 per cent of Saudi Arabian arms imports in 2019–23, which included the delivery of 67 combat aircraft and hundreds of land-attack missiles.

 

Qatar was the third largest arms importer in the world, with a global share of 7.6 per cent, as its arms imports increased by 396 per cent between 2014–18 and 2019–23. Its main suppliers in 2019–23 were the USA, which accounted for 45 per cent of Qatari arms imports, France (25 per cent) and Italy (15 per cent). Qatar’s arms imports in the period included 36 combat aircraft from France, 36 from the USA and 25 from the UK, as well as 4 frigates from Italy. Iran’s arms imports have been at a very low level relative to those of other arms importers in the Gulf region since around 1993. In 2023 Iran placed by far its largest import order for major arms in 20 years, for 24 combat aircraft from Russia.

 

IsraelBetween 2014–18 and 2019–23, arms imports by Israel rose marginally (+5.1 per cent). The USA accounted for 69 per cent and Germany for 30 per cent of Israeli arms imports. Imported weapons, in particular combat aircraft received from the USA over several decades, have played a major role in Israel’s military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah. At the end of 2023 the USA rapidly delivered thousands of guided bombs and missiles to Israel, but the total volume of Israeli arms imports from the USA in 2023 was almost the same as in 2022. By the end of 2023, pending deliveries of major arms to Israel included 61 combat aircraft from the USA and 4 submarines from Germany.

 

Arms imports and the war in Ukraine

 

At least 30 states supplied major arms to Ukraine after the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022, mostly as military aid, meaning that Ukraine was by some distance the world’s largest arms importer in the year 2023.

 

The USA supplied 39 per cent of Ukrainian arms imports in 2019–23, followed by Germany (14 per cent) and Poland (13 per cent).

 

To broaden Ukraine’s military capabilities, suppliers began to deliver long-range systems in 2023. For example, Poland and Slovakia donated 27 surplus combat aircraft, and France and the UK supplied missiles with a range of 300 kilometres. During the year, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway also started to prepare for the delivery of over 50 surplus combat aircraft.

 

Russia relies primarily on its industry for its major arms. However, in 2022–23 it imported flying bombs from Iran and ballistic missiles from North Korea, the latter in violation of a United Nations arms embargo on North Korea.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome

 

For regular updates, please register here

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

SIPRI

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 sources deemed reliable and accurate. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for purposes of wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी