News

Message by UN ODA High Representative Izumi Nakamitsu On the Global Days of Action on Military Spending

Each year, the Global Days of Action on Military Spending challenge us to pause
and reflect on the choices we are making, and the world those choices are shaping.

We are living through a period marked by geopolitical tensions, deepening
mistrust, and accelerating crises that affect every region of the world. Conflicts
continue to devastate communities. Inequality is widening. Climate change is
intensifying displacement and instability, and humanitarian needs consistently
outpace our collective response. Amid these challenges, global military spending continues to rise.

This troubling trajectory is clearly reflected in the figures released today by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which show that world military expenditure reached $2887 billion in 2025, an increase of 2.9% in real terms from 2024, and the eleventh year of consecutive growth.

In 2025, official development assistance (ODA) totaled $174.3 billion,
representing a 23.1% decrease from 2024. Global military spending was more
than 16 times higher than total ODA. By comparison, the United Nations regular
budget for 2025 was $3.72 billion, while global military spending exceeded that
amount by 776 times.

These trends should give us pause and prompt serious reflection.

We are just four years away from the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable
Development Goals. Yet only one in five SDG targets is currently on track, while
the annual global financing gap for sustainable development has reached four
trillion dollars.

This is not simply a resource gap. It is a priority gap.

As the Secretary-General made clear in his report “The Security We Need:
Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future”, rising
military expenditures are not delivering greater peace or stability. Instead, they
risk undermining the very foundations of long-term security and sustainable
development.

History has shown us, time and again, that arms races do not lead to peace. They fuel escalation, deepen distrust, and increase the risk of miscalculation. A cycle emerges in which insecurity justifies militarization, and militarization, in turn, breeds further insecurity. Meanwhile, the most pressing threats to humanity such as climate change, inequality, and food insecurity, remain chronically underfunded.

The opportunity costs are stark.

Every dollar diverted to militarization is a dollar not spent on preventing famine, building schools or strengthening climate resilience. It is a dollar that could be spent on diplomacy, conflict prevention, and advancing human security. The cost of inaction is not abstract. It is measured in lives lost, futures foregone, and trust eroded.

The question before us is not whether States have the right to invest in their
militaries to increase their security. They do. Nor is it whether real security threats exist. They certainly do. The question is: what kind of security are we building and at what cost?

True security cannot be measured solely by the size of our arsenals, but by the
well-being of our people and the health of our planet. A militarized approach
alone cannot address the root causes of conflict, instability, and violence.
The path forward is clear. We must reimagine what security means in the 21st
century—and we have the tools to do so. The Secretary-General’s report outlines practical steps: placing diplomacy first, strengthening confidence-building measures, ensuring transparency in defence budgets, and redirecting even a fraction of military spending toward sustainable development.

On these Global Days of Action on Military Spending, I urge all of us –
governments, civil society, and global citizens – to heed these warnings.

We must champion a human-centered approach to security, rooted in prevention, good governance and aligned with the principles of the UN Charter.

Let us make this moment a turning point. A moment when we choose diplomacy over escalation. Human security over excessive militarization and long-term peace over short-term calculations.

The world does not need more weapons. It needs more trust. It needs more
cooperation and more solidarity.

And above all, it needs more peace.

4.27 HR Statement (GDAMS)Download

The world spent 2.88 trillion $in the military in 2025.Take a stand with us today and protest this nonsense!

Today (Monday 27) might be the most important day of this year’s Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS), with several events taking place all across the world.

SIPRI has just published new data on military spending for the year 2025, and the figures show a new growth in military spending, reaching $2.88 trillion, an increase of 2.9% compared to last year, marking he 11th consecutive year of growth and the highest spending level ever recorded by SIPRI.Global military expenditure rose in 2025 despite a drop in spending by the United States, the world’s biggest spender. A sharp increase in European spending and continued growth in Asia and Oceania were more than enough to offset the decrease in US spending during the year. World military expenditure excluding the USA grew by 9.2 per cent in 2025. The five biggest spenders in 2025 were the United States, China, Russia, Germany and India, which together accounted for 58% of world military spending. The USA’s military spending fell by 7.5 per cent to $954 billion in 2025, while China’s spending rose by 7.4 per cent to an estimated $336 billion.

Continue reading “The world spent 2.88 trillion $in the military in 2025.Take a stand with us today and protest this nonsense!”

Trillions for War, Nothing for the People: Resist Militarization, Defend Sovereignty

Press Release by Stop the War Coalition Philippines on the Global Days of Action Against Military Spending (GDAMS)

Global military expenditure soared to an unprecedented $2.887 trillion in 2025, according to today’s Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Global Military Spending Report 2025. This staggering sum is funneled into weapons and warfare while the world grapples with pervasive hunger, escalating climate crises, and deepening inequality. The United States alone contributed a colossal $954 billion, accounting for a third of this global outlay. Concurrently, nations such as China, Germany, Ukraine, and Spain significantly augmented their defense budgets, fueling an alarming arms race across both Asia and Europe.

This war economy is not a distant concept; its impact resonates profoundly at home. In the Philippines, diesel prices remain stubbornly high at ₱98–₱112 per liter, rice hovers at ₱60–₱70 per kilo, and inflation registered 4.1% in March 2026. Yet, instead of substantive relief beyond temporary “ayuda” or one-time aid, the Philippine government maintains a “business-as-usual” approach, hosting Balikatan 2026—the largest war games in our history. Furthermore, the Marcos Jr. government actively facilitates U.S. military projects, including an ammunition hub in Subic (Zambales), a fuel depot in Mindanao, and the controversial Pax Silica enclave in Tarlac.

Continue reading “Trillions for War, Nothing for the People: Resist Militarization, Defend Sovereignty”

Korean A-bomb victims head to UN to tell their stories and seek accountability

Source: Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea(SPARK)

【Below are the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese versions】

A delegation of victims and advocates will head to the US next week to alert the international community about the toll that America’s atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on Koreans who were forced there during Japanese rule

Han Jeong-soon, the president of the Korean Society for the Second Generation Patients Atomic Bombs, pays her respects at a memorial space featuring plaques with the names of Koreans who died while suffering the aftereffects of the US atomic bombings of Japan, located at a welfare center for Korean A-bomb victims in Hapcheon, South Gyeongsang Province. (Choi Sang-won/Hankyoreh)

Han Jeong-soon, the president of the Korean Society for the Second Generation Patients Atomic Bombs, pays her respects at a memorial space featuring plaques with the names of Koreans who died while suffering the aftereffects of the US atomic bombings of Japan, located at a welfare center for Korean A-bomb victims in Hapcheon, South Gyeongsang Province. (Choi Sang-won/Hankyoreh)

Continue reading “Korean A-bomb victims head to UN to tell their stories and seek accountability”

Why it’s important to talk about military spending on Earth Day

By: Francesco Vignarca, Rete Italiana Pace e Disarmo, English and Italian

Militarism is deeply connected to the climate crisis. By prioritizing the domination and extraction of fossil fuels, it fuels conflict and causes environmental damage. Military operations require enormous amounts of energy, and armed forces are among the largest institutional consumers of fossil fuels and leading emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide.

As military spending continues to rise, it not only fuels wars and increases emissions but also diverts vital resources away from urgently needed climate solutions.

This Earth Day, it is important to highlight these issues within the framework of the Global Days of Action on Military Spending to demand concrete and urgent change from governments. This initiative, coordinated by the Working Group on Arms, Militarism and Climate Justice, reflects a growing awareness that peace and climate justice are closely interconnected.

Let’s fight for reduced military spending and to redirect resources towards climate action , care, and a just transition. 

Join us on Earth Day 2026 in support of the Global Campaign Against Military Spending and its international GDAMS days: Demilitarize for Climate Justice!

Militarism and the Climate Crisis: Key Points

Militarism and the climate crisis are deeply intertwined, yet this connection often remains invisible in public debate. The military is among the world’s largest institutional consumers of fossil fuels, powering jets, warships, military bases, and vast global supply chains that generate enormous—yet largely unreported—greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, militaries are estimated to be responsible for approximately 5.5% of annual emissions; if they were a country, they would rank as the fourth-largest emitter, after China, the United States, and India. The U.S. military alone is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

The scale of the problem is staggering. Every additional $100 billion in military spending generates approximately 32 million tons of CO₂ equivalent—roughly the annual emissions of 23 million cars. Global military spending reached at least $2.7 trillion in 2024 and continues to rise, with projections suggesting it could reach $6.6 trillion by 2035. The top twenty military spenders have generated at least 10 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent in military-related emissions in the first quarter of the 21st century, while collectively spending around $40 trillion on their arsenals since 2001.

The relationship between militarism and fossil fuels extends beyond direct emissions. Control over oil and gas reserves has long fueled geopolitical conflict: between 25% and 50% of interstate conflicts since 1973 have been linked to oil. Fossil fuel extraction is frequently militarized, with armed forces and private contractors deployed to protect infrastructure and suppress local resistance. Between 2012 and 2023, more than 1,900 environmental and land defenders were killed worldwide, with Indigenous peoples and women disproportionately affected.

Armed conflict further accelerates environmental destruction. Israel’s war in Gaza generated an estimated 33.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in its first 15 months—comparable to Jordan’s annual emissions. Russia’s war in Ukraine has caused climate damage estimated at 311 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Between 1950 and 2000, nine out of ten armed conflicts occurred in biodiversity-rich areas, leading to deforestation and long-term ecological damage that persists long after fighting ends.

Proposals to “green” the military offer a false solution. There is little evidence that armed forces can decarbonize at the scale or speed required. Weapons systems being deployed today—such as F-35 fighter jets, expected to remain in service well beyond 2050—lock in fossil fuel dependence for decades. Military emissions are typically excluded from national climate targets, and existing commitments remain vague and insufficient.

At the same time, the world’s wealthiest countries spend thirty times more on their militaries than they allocate to climate finance for vulnerable nations. Yet reallocating just 15% of global military spending in 2024—approximately $387 billion—would be enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries.

Reducing military spending and redirecting resources toward ecological transition is not only possible—it is one of the most powerful tools available to address the climate crisis while building a more just and peaceful world.

This version is an English translation. Please see the Italian version of the original article.

Italian Version

No war without the US Air Base Ramstein

01.04.26 – Reiner Braun, Berlin – International Peace Bureau – English and German

Military strike against Iran: Without this U.S. air base in Germany, the attack would not have been possible.

An incomplete compilation by Reiner Braun (IPB)

Weeks before the illegal war of aggression by the USA and Israel against Iran on 28 February 2026, there were numerous indications of its preparation. There was intense activity at Ramstein Air Base. Transport aircraft of the types Boeing C-17 Globemaster III and Lockheed C-130 Hercules were landing and taking off “every minute”, according to the portal austrianwings.info; in between, civilian Boeing 747 freighters of Atlas Air on behalf of the US military.

This was the logistical choreography of a war being fought thousands of kilometres away – but hardly conceivable in this form without the Palatinate hub.

Continue reading “No war without the US Air Base Ramstein”

Urgent Call for Support: The Marianas in Crisis After Super Typhoon Sinlaku

A Region in Crisis

The Mariana Islands are facing a severe humanitarian emergency following the impact of Super Typhoon Sinlaku, a Category 4 storm that struck the region last April 14. As communities begin the long and difficult recovery process, the full extent of the devastation is becoming clear.

The storm swept across the entire archipelago, with Saipan and Tinian experiencing the strongest impact, facing winds of up to 170 mph. Rota and Guam were also significantly affected, with winds reaching up to 80 mph. Moving slowly, the typhoon lingered for over 50 hours, bringing record rainfall and widespread flooding.

Impact on Communities

  • Homes destroyed and infrastructure severely damaged
  • Power lines down; thousands without electricity and running water
  • Over 800 people in emergency shelters in Guam
  • More than 500 displaced in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
  • Injuries reported, with some residents still trapped

This is a moment of deep loss and uncertainty for communities across the islands.

Support Community-Led Response

Local organizations, including Common Wealth 670 in Saipan and Prutehi Guåhan, have mobilized quickly to support affected families. They have created a directory for direct aid, allowing supporters to contribute directly to those impacted.

Give direct support to families here


Direct mutual aid is critical at this time to ensure resources reach communities quickly and equitably.

Why Your Support Matters

In the aftermath of disasters, recovery efforts can become centralized or controlled in ways that may not fully meet community needs. Supporting grassroots initiatives helps strengthen local resilience and ensures aid reaches those who need it most.

Additional Ways to Help

Call for Resources

If you are aware of funding opportunities, partnerships, or rapid response resources that could support local organizations, please get in touch.

Stand in Solidarity

With limited internet and cell service, communication remains challenging. While efforts are underway to deliver essential supplies, direct financial support remains one of the most effective ways to help.

Now more than ever, solidarity and mutual aid are essential—not only for recovery, but for building long-term resilience.

Pakistan, An Extraordinary Example of Peace Leadership

By: Raza Shah Khan, IPB Board Member

At a time when the world is increasingly fractured by geopolitical rivalries and hardened national positions, the recent tensions between the United States and Iran served as a stark reminder of how quickly crises can spiral into catastrophic conflict. In such moments, the true cost of war is not measured in strategic gains or losses, but in human suffering — borne disproportionately by ordinary citizens.

For a region already burdened by instability, a direct confrontation between the United States and Iran would have had far-reaching consequences. Beyond the immediate theatre of conflict, the ripple effects would likely have included economic disruption, particularly through energy markets, and increased insecurity across the globe. Yet, the gravest impact would have been humanitarian. Civilians — as seen repeatedly in conflicts across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen — inevitably bear the brunt of war: displacement, loss of livelihoods, and the erosion of already fragile public services.

In this fraught context, Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement to facilitate dialogue between Tehran and Washington reflects the kind of leadership that is too often missing in today’s international system. At a time when major powers remain entrenched in positions of confrontation, the willingness to prioritize de-escalation and dialogue is both necessary and commendable.

Maintaining working relationships with both Iran and the United States, Islamabad is uniquely positioned to act as a bridge in moments of crisis. Its engagement underscores an important principle: that even in deeply polarized environments, channels for communication must remain open. Dialogue, however difficult, is always preferable to escalation.

The significance of such efforts extends beyond a single crisis. In an interconnected world, conflicts are no longer contained within borders. Economic shocks reverberate globally, humanitarian crises strain international systems, and insecurity spreads across regions. The consequences of war are shared — but so too must be the responsibility to prevent it.

What is urgently needed today is a renewed commitment to what may be termed “peace leadership.” This requires states to move beyond reactive diplomacy and invest in sustained efforts to build trust, reduce tensions, and prevent conflicts before they erupt. It calls for political courage — the willingness to engage adversaries, absorb criticism, and prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains.

Pakistan’s role in the recent crisis offers a reminder that such leadership is both possible and necessary. It demonstrates that diplomacy, when pursued with intent and clarity, can serve as a powerful tool for stability in an otherwise volatile world.

The lessons are clear. The world cannot afford another protracted conflict in an already fragile region. Nor can it continue to rely solely on power politics to resolve disputes that demand dialogue and compromise.

Peace is not self-sustaining. It requires deliberate effort, sustained engagement, and leadership that is willing to place humanity above hostility.

In an age defined by division, the real test of leadership is not the ability to wage war, but the resolve to prevent it. The choice before the international community is stark: continue down a path of confrontation, or invest in the hard, necessary work of peace.

The cost of getting this wrong will not be measured in policy failures, but in human lives. And that is a price the world can no longer afford to pay.

Disclaimer: This article was originally written by the author(s). The views expressed do not necessarily represent the official position of the International Peace Bureau.

Iran’s Resilience, US’s Hubris, Israel’s Malevolence

Author: Anuradha Chenoy, IPB Board Member

The fragile ceasefire can hold only if Israel is restrained and ceases its aggression against Lebanon.

A two-week ceasefire and negotiations announced on 8 April, after six weeks of the illegal war by the United States (US) and Israel on Iran, and President Donald Trump’s threats of a genocide on “a civilisation,” remain fragile as its terms are already in dispute. Iran’s 10-point proposal includes a ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel disputes this and continues to bomb Lebanon. Trump is presenting different versions. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared that if Israeli attacks on Lebanon do not stop, then Iran will respond. In this context, negotiations between the sides will be challenging since the demands of the sides appear incompatible. Israel will be a spoiler. So, the truce remains fragile. 

The US’s reasons for the war on Iran included regime change, destruction of Iran’s missile production, seizure of enriched uranium, even though Trump claimed to have destroyed this during the June 2025 bombing of Iran. The US objective in the Gulf is to provide security for Israel and the Gulf and project US primacy. In this war, US bases across Gulf countries have been hit and damaged. The US spent $1 billion a day and has not been able to provide security for its Gulf allies. European allies did not support this war and maintained neutrality. US objectives have not been met, and the war exposed the limits of US power and hegemony.

Israel’s objective in this phase of its permanent war is to occupy South Lebanon, as finance minister Bezalel Smotrich called for Israel to extend its border to the Litani River—deep inside Lebanon’s south (Times of Israel, 23 March 2026). For Israel, this war is the continuation of its genocidal war against the Palestinian people and expanding its borders into Syria and Lebanon. To achieve this, Israel has to destabilise Iran and the “Axis of Resistance,” which comprises Iran’s non-state allies. 

Israel’s objectives remain unmet and so it continues bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire. It has ordered ethnic cleansing and one million are displaced from South Lebanon. Hezbollah, the militia that had removed Israel from its occupation of South Lebanon in 2000, continues to resist Israeli attacks. Israel, however, needs the support of the US to continue this war. Right now, the US does not seem to have an appetite to restart the war on behalf of Israel, as US citizens largely oppose the war and Trump is facing declining popularity numbers. 

For Iran, this war is about regime survival, which it has achieved at a high cost of lives and infrastructure destruction. The ceasefire in Lebanon is linked with Iran’s ceasefire proposal. The Iranian 10-point proposal for negotiations includes non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz (to be shared with Oman), acceptance of enrichment, lifting of all sanctions, compensation to Iran, and withdrawal of US forces from the region. The Iranian foreign minister specifically said that this temporary truce does not signify the termination of the war.

The war so far shows Iran’s resilience. Despite the killing of its top leadership, over 2,000 citizens killed, and battered infrastructure, Iran retaliated regionally across seven countries and showcased its resistance. The Iranian regime did not fall and Iran retains its capabilities. 

The reasons for such resilience lie in the nature of the Iranian state, embedded in its history and culture. Iran is a state in resistance. Its core, the IRGC, is tied with the clergy headed by the Ayatollahs, while the Iranian elected parliament coordinates with the two. The US killing Ali Khamenei in his home, not in an underground bunker, symbolised Shiite martyrdom, which is not lost on the Iranian public who remain mobilised behind the state. His son and successor, Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, served in the IRGC, in the Iran–Iraq war, worked in his father’s office and is closely connected to the IRGC. 

The popular 1979 Iranian revolution designed the IRGC as special forces to protect the Islamic Republic and the principles of the revolution. The IRGC is a layered structure with multiple capabilities across Iran’s 31 provinces and is integral to the functioning of the system. It is decentralised, adapted to local environments and operates in low-intensity conflicts with specialised subgroups like the Quds (overseas) force, the Basij (internal security) and the Iranian navy. This is the “mosaic” system, where the IRGC functions as modern guerrilla warfare to counter external intervention. 

Iran blocked the narrow Strait of Hormuz as leverage. Twenty percent of global oil, besides fertilisers and other resources, passes through it. Oil prices escalated ($120 at peak) and threatened global recession. Iran was able to sustain the war since 90% of its food requirements are local. While the Gulf states depend on desalination plants for 70%–100% of their drinking water, Iran relies on traditional water sources and only 3% on desalination. Forty-seven years of US sanctions have made Iran self-reliant where basic needs are locally manufactured. Iran was kept out of globalisation and has no active International Monetary Fund loan or outstanding debt. Iran’s borrowings are from oil revenues and bilateral deals with Russia and China. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran, causing the rial’s freefall that provoked the January protests (Al Jazeera, 13 February 2026) to attain quick regime change after the decapitation of the leadership. This plan failed. 

Iran developed strategic depth over the years by building a network with non-state informal resistance groups (militia) across the region, which include Hamas (Palestine), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Iraqi Shia militias, the Houthis in Yemen and, earlier, the Syrian Assad regime that fell. These are indigenous and autonomous groups and they coordinate with Iranian special forces. They joined the war with Iran. Hezbollah attacked Israel, Iraqi militia attacked US bases, and the Houthis of Yemen committed to support Iran by targeting the key strait of Bab-el-Mandeb on the Red Sea to block shipping lines of the Suez Canal. 

Trump has demanded an open and free passage in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran give up its enriched uranium, stop long-range missile production, and break its contacts with its non-state allies in the region. Iran had earlier rejected these proposals. If the US–Israel insist on these, the ceasefire cannot hold. There is far too much at stake for Iran, as it cannot betray its regional ally, Hezbollah. Iran has been betrayed by the US several times, as they bombed Iran while the talks were ongoing twice before, besides tearing up the United Nations Security Council ratified Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action curbing Iran’s nuclear enrichment. 

The international community has a stake in ending this war since the costs are high globally. The US is in this war to preserve its hegemony and control over oil and oil routes, which give it a leverage over China and Asia, maintain Gulf monarchies and the petrodollar. Israel is in a war for its dream of a greater Israel. Iran is defending its nationhood, existence, and people, and in doing so, defending a multipolar international system. 

The sane world of laws, civility, and respect for civilisation, invested in human security hopes for an end to this war without further damage and hurt. However, there is yet no cause for celebration. The US is not likely to agree to most of Iran’s demands. Israel will play spoiler, continuing the war to gain territory from Lebanon and Syria. Iran cannot give in without fulfilling several of its demands. The ceasefire will hold only if Israel is restrained. The ceasefire and negotiations will require extraordinary will from the sides involved. 

Disclaimer: This article was originally written by the author(s). The views expressed do not necessarily represent the official position of the International Peace Bureau.

This article is also published in the Economic and Political Weekly.