Across the international system, a significant shift is underway in priorities. While defence budgets are rising amid escalating geopolitical tensions, humanitarian and development assistance is stagnating or declining in relative terms. This is not simply a fiscal adjustment but a structural reordering of global security thinking with profound implications for human development, resilience, and long-term stability. At a time of overlapping crises—including conflict, climate shocks, displacement, food insecurity, and disease—the international humanitarian system is under unprecedented strain. Yet instead of increased investment in prevention and resilience, many states are prioritising military preparedness over the social and economic foundations of stability, raising fundamental questions about whether security can be achieved through military strength alone while the drivers of instability remain unaddressed.
The imbalance between defence spending and humanitarian assistance has become increasingly stark. Across G7 countries, military expenditure now far exceeds aid contributions, with estimates suggesting roughly US$60 spent on defence for every US$1 allocated to humanitarian appeals. In the United States alone, defence spending between 2020 and 2026 has reached approximately US$5.21 trillion, compared to about US$275 billion in official development assistance. Similar patterns are evident across other major economies, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Despite rising global needs, UN humanitarian appeals remain consistently underfunded. The result is a global security paradigm increasingly dominated by military responses, while structural drivers of crisis—poverty, inequality, weak governance, and climate vulnerability—receive insufficient sustained investment.
Efforts to contain instability militarily are undermined by neglect of the conditions that generate it.
This imbalance reflects a narrow conception of security. Over the past three decades, the concept of human security has expanded understanding beyond military defence to include health, education, livelihoods, and institutional resilience. These factors are essential to stability. Where human development is strong, societies are more resilient to shocks and less prone to conflict. Conversely, fragility in these systems amplifies crises, turning shocks into prolonged emergencies. Humanitarian and development assistance therefore function not only as emergency relief but as preventive investments in stability. Aid is thus not charity, but a form of strategic risk reduction that addresses the root causes of instability before they escalate.
The consequences of declining investment are already visible across multiple crises. In Sudan, escalating conflict has driven acute food insecurity and mass displacement, while funding shortfalls limit life-saving assistance. In Gaza, widespread destruction and displacement have generated immense humanitarian needs constrained by access and financing gaps. In Afghanistan, reduced international assistance has weakened basic services and livelihoods, deepening dependency and vulnerability. Ethiopia continues to face overlapping conflict and climate shocks, with constrained resources limiting recovery and resilience. Across these contexts, a consistent pattern emerges: when humanitarian funding declines, needs do not disappear but intensify and accumulate, resulting in larger and more costly crises over time.
A deeper consequence is the emergence of a global “resilience deficit.” Resilience—the capacity of systems and communities to absorb shocks and recover—depends on sustained investment in health, education, social protection, governance, and climate adaptation. Yet these long-term investments are often deprioritised in favour of immediate expenditures, including defence. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which reduced resilience increases vulnerability, generating greater humanitarian need and further strain on response systems. Combined with rising defence spending and declining development assistance, a security paradox emerges: efforts to contain instability militarily are undermined by neglect of the conditions that generate it, including poverty, inequality, weak institutions, and climate stress.
The current trajectory risks locking the international system into recurring cycles of crisis. Military spending alone cannot address the structural drivers of instability. Sustainable security requires a balanced approach that integrates defence with sustained investment in human development and humanitarian action. Health, education, governance, and opportunity are not peripheral to security—they are its foundation. Without such recalibration, rising defence expenditures may coincide with increasing global instability, as underinvestment in resilience continues to fuel the conditions for future crises. The choice is therefore not between defence and development, but between short-term containment and long-term stability.