At some point during the last decade, the world started accepting war as inevitable. Wars of aggression, from Ukraine to Lebanon to Iran, are on the rise, bringing horror, ruin, and the specter of a wider international confrontation. Governments increasingly treat war as something to budget and prepare for. Military spending is climbing, technological and arms races are intensifying, and more and more countries are considering whether they should acquire a nuclear deterrent to guarantee their security.
Nothing is more dangerous than the normalization of war. It represents a return to a norm that persisted for most of human history, when war was the main organizing principle of the international system. Armed conflict was the natural way for states to settle disputes or enlarge their territory at the expense of weaker neighbors.
[Leer en español aquí.]
Yet the vast wreckage of World Wars I and II in the first half of the twentieth century made the status quo unacceptable. Countries united behind an effort to turn war from a legitimate instrument of statecraft into an outlawed act. Wars did not end in 1945, but for years after they were overwhelmingly condemned by the international community.
In recent decades, however, governments’ commitment to the cause of peace has weakened. Millions of people took to the streets in hundreds of cities to oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, but the war proceeded nonetheless. Fought on false premises and in violation of international law, it brought destruction to Iraq, fed regional instability, and fueled resentment and terrorism directed at Western countries. The conflict also marked a turning point. Ever since, the pursuit of peace has steadily receded from the international agenda amid deepening geopolitical competition and inattention or indifference to the multilateral efforts that for decades discouraged acts of war.
At the end of this path lies another world war—the catastrophe the twentieth-century order was designed to prevent. With that dire future looming, governments must relearn the art of opposing war. It is the responsibility of every country, including my own, Spain, to take direct action that constrains others’ ability to wage war and to strengthen the international institutions that will serve as guarantors of peace.
The success of this project will depend on an expansive multilateralism that I call “maxilateralism”—cooperation that embraces as many countries as possible, rather than being limited to small, ad hoc groupings. Its ambition is to make war increasingly impractical, even unimaginable. In 2003, protesters across Spain chanted “No a la guerra!’’—“No to war!” The world cannot afford to ignore them again.
A DANGEROUS ESCALATION
International efforts to reject war as an instrument of national policy date back to the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928, a treaty signed in Paris by 15 countries and joined by dozens more later. It was insufficient to prevent World War II, but it planted a seed. When representatives of 50 countries gathered in San Francisco in 1945 to create the United Nations, they revived the spirit and principles of Kellogg–Briand and gave them what they had lacked: institutional form. The UN Charter prohibited the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. And, unlike its 1928 predecessor, it backed up the prohibition with institutions empowered to enforce it.
In the decades that followed, these institutions established an order that penalized violations and created incentives for diplomacy and cooperation. At the same time, public opposition to war was growing stronger around the world. Popular defiance of Cold War militarism was visible in worldwide resistance to the Vietnam War and in mass movements against nuclear weapons. Pacifism reached its high-water mark in the 1990s, when a vibrant global civil society mobilized to defend humanitarian causes and when the United Nations held sufficient authority to champion a sweeping peace agenda.
Today, however, there is more armed conflict than at any time since 1946. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, there were 65 active conflicts involving governments in 2025, double the number in 2010. An estimated 250,000 people died in those conflicts—the highest annual death toll in 30 years, since the Rwandan genocide. Close to 120 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced by war.
Worryingly, wars of aggression—which violate the UN Charter—are back. Russia invaded Ukraine. The United States and Israel attacked Iran. And as fighting continues year after year in places such as Lebanon, Sudan, and Yemen, it is becoming clear that war is being accepted as a normal occurrence.
Nothing is more dangerous than the normalization of war.
There is no sign of the trend slowing down. Military budgets have surged to levels not seen in generations, at the expense of social and development spending. In the past decade alone, global defense spending has increased by more than 40 percent, with many countries doubling their military budgets. The nearly $3 trillion the world spends annually on defense is close to the GDP of the entire African continent. Even countries with a long tradition of military restraint, such as Denmark, Germany, Japan, and Norway, are rearming rapidly. Some are reviving military service programs.
A renewed threat of nuclear war is cause for still greater dread. All nine nuclear-armed states are modernizing their arsenals, boosting their destructive capabilities. China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to have increased from 200 to 300 warheads in the late 2010s to 620 this year. North Korea has also expanded its arsenal from an estimated ten to 20 warheads in 2018 to around 60 this year, and it has developed increasingly sophisticated launch platforms. In March, France announced the first increase in its nuclear warhead stockpile since 1992. The United States and Russia, the world’s two largest nuclear powers, have failed to preserve the last remaining treaty constraining their strategic arsenals. And a growing number of nonnuclear powers have started to consider acquiring arsenals of their own.
Simultaneously, artificial intelligence is powering ever more dangerous weapons of war. Human oversight is being progressively reduced as AI makes it possible to automate cyberattacks against power grids, hospitals, and financial systems. AI systems have hacked government bodies and enabled the mass production of deepfakes and disinformation campaigns.
The integration of AI into nuclear technologies poses an existential threat: as AI speeds up decision-making, it reduces the time available for human judgment. Similarly, the use of AI in biotechnology could dramatically lower barriers to harmful experimentation and the development of bioweapons. In both areas, this technology is elevating the risk of miscalculation, unintended escalation, and mass destruction to a level higher than ever before.
Together, these dynamics are multiplying the chances that any crisis will quickly spiral into planetary annihilation. Countries are building the instruments of catastrophe at the blinding speed of innovation while the instruments of control move at the much slower pace of diplomacy.
WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
Political change is pushing the world away from peace and toward confrontation and militarization. A multipolar world is not, by definition, a more dangerous one, but the erosion of rules and institutions that manage tensions between poles has made today’s world particularly volatile. Competition among great powers is increasing, with hegemonic ambitions encouraging assertive foreign policies and revisionist states challenging established rules and borders. Belligerent nationalism is on the rise, and far-right movements are advancing a worldview in which international relations is a zero-sum game and countries must compete rather than cooperate. Even centrist leaders are embracing the language of war preparedness. Although they do not intend to start a war, their words feed a dangerous militaristic mindset.
In this context of rivalry, wars of aggression come wrapped in narratives of necessity, liberation, self-defense, or historical justice. The attackers present their operations as inevitable, having demonized their targets to justify preemptive action against them. They describe each war as an answer to insecurity—a war to end all wars.
But these wars will not make a safer world. Every time a state embarks on a war of aggression, it erodes the norms that protect all countries from the arbitrary use of force—including the aggressor itself.
Wars exact immense costs. They shatter societies and interrupt lives. In 2025, at least one civilian died in an armed conflict every 14 minutes, according to UN records, and more than five million people were forced to flee their countries. The economic costs are high, too; the U.S. and Israeli war with Iran has severely disrupted maritime trade and air traffic, driving up the prices of energy, fertilizer, and other commodities, and millions of people across the world are suffering the consequences.
War also creates new dangers. Once the fighting begins, its course is unpredictable. Conflict tends to draw in new actors and spill into neighboring countries. The war in Iran serves, again, as a prime example. Since February 2026, Iran has struck targets in several Gulf countries and other neighbors—actions Spain has consistently condemned. Attacks on civilian and commercial vessels threaten broader regional stability. And the war has reignited conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Finally, wars rarely produce lasting peace. Instead, they deepen grievances and entrench divisions that fuel future violence. Russia’s war in Ukraine, for instance, has destroyed trust in Moscow. The genocide in Gaza has inflamed anger toward Israel, potentially leading to new waves of terrorism. And the war against Iran has further destabilized the Middle East, hindering cooperation across the region.
HOW TO OPPOSE A WAR
The world has a responsibility to resist the normalization of wars. Remaining silent is an act of cowardice and complicity. Spanish society is making its position clear: three of four Spaniards identify war as their greatest fear, and an even greater number believe another world war is on the horizon.
But it is not enough to simply condemn war in principle. The ambition of ending war must be matched with action that makes it increasingly difficult for countries to start, sustain, and justify armed conflict.
Spain has endeavored to take such action. It has defended the international laws that stand between an order governed by rules and one governed by force. Spain has consistently denounced armed attacks that violate the UN Charter.
From day one of the war in Gaza, Spain has been calling for an immediate and permanent cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and the unrestricted delivery of humanitarian assistance. In May 2024, Spain recognized the state of Palestine in the hope that this step would help advance a negotiated and lasting solution to the conflict. And Spain has actively supported the efforts of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to hold Israeli leaders accountable for violations of international humanitarian law. Israel had the right to self-defense after the October 7 terrorist attacks, but that right does not justify genocide in Gaza or the expansion of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank.
Deterring war also requires raising the costs of aggression. The rest of the world must ensure that those who choose to wage war cannot do so without paying a price. Throughout Russia’s war in Ukraine, for example, the European Union has introduced a series of sanctions on Russia, which Spain has consistently supported. Spain has also provided financial, humanitarian, and military assistance to Ukraine, helping it defend its territory and deny Russia the spoils of war.
Countries must refuse to help belligerents expand existing conflicts. Spain, for instance, has maintained an arms embargo on Israel since 2023. This year, it also denied the United States the use of its territory and facilities for the war against Iran. Spain’s decision was not an act of hostility toward an ally. Nor was it an expression of neutrality or sympathy for the Iranian regime. It was, rather, a judgment that getting involved would enable escalation of the conflict, deepening regional and global insecurity. To keep its commitment to peace, Spain had to be willing to say no, even when doing so carried a political cost. Had more countries done the same, the wars in Gaza and Iran would have been far harder and costlier to wage.
Investing in prosperity is also essential. Security is strengthened when societies are resilient, inequalities are reduced, and citizens can rely on public institutions. Spain’s decision last year to opt out of NATO’s proposed defense spending target of five percent of GDP reflected this understanding. This position did not stem from a lack of commitment to European defense—in fact, my government has championed Europe’s push for strategic autonomy and has tripled net defense spending over the eight years I have been in office. But military deterrence and social welfare must reinforce each other. By keeping defense spending proportionate, Spain has preserved the fiscal space to invest an additional 145 billion euros in social protection, housing, health care, and education, as well as more than 30 billion euros in the green transition—programs that make society more cohesive and adaptable, and therefore more secure.
A COLLECTIVE EFFORT
Yet one country’s efforts can accomplish only so much. Starving war of its lifelines requires all hands on deck, a collective effort rooted in genuine multilateralism. This is the only strategy that has worked before. The multilateral system built after World War II spanned the globe, and it helped keep peace among great powers and prevent a third world war.
Reinforcing it will not be an easy task. Geopolitical competition and widespread mistrust have weakened the United Nations, international financial bodies, regional organizations, and other multilateral institutions. Many countries perceive them as ineffective and trapped in perpetual crisis, so they have turned to alternative frameworks to try to end wars.
Some have tried unilateral approaches, pursuing transactional bargains that end up benefiting economic and political elites while sidelining the populations affected by the conflict. The cease-fires or peace deals they achieve may be preferable to continued war, but any peace imposed through power politics rather than law rests on shaky foundations.
Today, there is more armed conflict than at any time since 1946.
Other countries, frustrated with multilateralism, have tried recruiting coalitions of the willing, or other “minilateral” groups, to provide security guarantees or reach ad hoc arrangements on matters of trade and technology. This approach might be a temporary solution to the paralysis of traditional institutions, but its exclusivity further fragments an already divided international order. What is needed is not minilateralism but maxilateralism. International cooperation is powerful when it is, or aspires to be, universal. Leaving part of the world outside of multilateral efforts, moreover, is a recipe for confrontation down the road.
The twentieth-century system was not perfect. The application of its rules has been uneven, its standards inconsistently upheld, its procedures frustratingly slow. But it is undeniable that the world would be much more dangerous without it. To take just one example, it was a lattice of international treaties—including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Limited Test Ban Treaty—that ended a wildly expensive arms race that was driving the world to the brink of nuclear war.
All of this institutional architecture is now eroding. Yet without it, the world cannot aspire to preserve peace.
REFORM MANDATE
Strengthening multilateral institutions must be at the center of a global campaign to relegate war to history. This will require substantial reform to restore these institutions’ legitimacy and their capacity to act, prioritizing measures that will contribute the most to peace and security.
The first is increasing representation at the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions. An update to the structure of the UN Security Council is particularly important, given that body’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace. A Security Council that gives permanent seats and a right to veto only to the five victors of World War II, which together account for barely a quarter of the global population, does not reflect today’s world. The council’s elected membership should be expanded and the terms of those members should be extended beyond the current two years. The new seats should be given primarily to countries in underrepresented regions, particularly Africa and Latin America. Regional organizations such as the European Union and the African Union should also be represented in the council, potentially taking over seats currently occupied by states. A more representative Security Council would not merely be fairer; it would also be more effective. Countries are more likely to defend and enforce international rules when they consider themselves to be authors of those rules.
Permanent members’ veto power must also be strictly limited, particularly when the Security Council considers cases of mass atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Ultimately, the veto should be abolished outright. Only then can the council respond to all acts of aggression without being paralyzed by the objections of a single state.
A similar spirit should guide structural change at international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The distribution of voting power in both still reflects twentieth-century economic balances, and by convention, a European always leads the IMF and an American leads the World Bank. This must end. Emerging economies need better representation, and leadership positions should be open to all candidates regardless of nationality. Responsibilities within institutions such as the World Trade Organization should also evolve as economic growth moves countries that were once categorized as “developing” into the ranks of the wealthy. Fairer economic governance would ease the inequality and resentment that so often feed instability and conflict.
Remaining silent is an act of cowardice and complicity.
Another key reform will involve reinvigorating the international framework that limits the risk of nuclear escalation. Some of that work depends on the nuclear powers; it is up to the United States and Russia, for example, to negotiate a successor to the bilateral New START treaty that preserves verifiable limits on strategic nuclear deployments. And this time, China should be part of the discussions.
Yet the broader effort requires the engagement of all countries. Their priorities should include ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to prevent a resumption of nuclear testing and advancing negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would ban production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons. All countries must also work together to regulate the use of AI in the military domain, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, to preserve human control over launch decisions and reduce the risk of catastrophic errors. Nonnuclear powers should commit to not acquiring nuclear weapons themselves, and they should use every tool at their disposal to encourage nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals, strengthen verification mechanisms, and rebuild the diplomatic guardrails that for decades have helped prevent nuclear catastrophe.
Technology can help with some of this. Advances in satellite imagery, remote sensors, and data analytics can increase transparency and make compliance with arms control agreements more observable. But more must be done to avoid situations that can escalate into war. If nuclear-armed states agree to lower operational readiness and strengthen crisis communication, that can help ensure that governments have the time and the means to defuse dangerous situations. Each country must protect its command-and-control systems from cyberattacks and AI-driven manipulation of information, so that a false alarm or miscalculation never leads to nuclear war.
The final priority is to ensure that the international justice system can enforce courts’ decisions. Dismantling the International Criminal Court, as some countries are trying to do, would only ensure that the world’s gravest crimes go unpunished. The ICC should not only prosecute cases of genocide, aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity but also have the authority to bring to justice those who are responsible for these crimes. When a state becomes a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC, it agrees to submit itself to the court’s jurisdiction. Yet if that state refuses to cooperate or surrender a suspect, there is no real punishment, only an embarrassing censure. This must change. States that shelter individuals indicted by the ICC should face legal, diplomatic, and financial consequences. Starting and waging war should carry a real cost.
Proposals to reform international institutions have long struggled to gain traction, but the coming election of a new UN secretary-general offers a rare opportunity to inject fresh momentum into these efforts. Were the UN to appoint its first female leader, it would be a powerful symbol of renewal, inclusion, and institutional adaptation. The organization cannot truly claim to speak on behalf of all humanity until it has had a woman leading it. Reaching this milestone could kindle a new sense of ambition and instill greater confidence in the capacity of international institutions to reform themselves—and to reclaim their role in constraining war.
MAKING WAR UNIMAGINABLE
Halting the world’s march toward war will require the broadest possible commitment. All countries, large and small, must refuse to look away or to participate in escalatory action. They must stand by the international norms that constrain war today, and reform and empower the institutions that will make it impossible tomorrow.
Ultimately, what will make war unimaginable is a positive peace agenda that addresses the root causes of insecurity. Every step toward eradicating poverty, expanding access to quality education, advancing gender equality, strengthening democratic institutions, and increasing disaster resilience also eases the conditions that produce violence.
International financial institutions must be able to deliver financing quickly, at scale, and at reasonable cost, so that no developing country is forced to choose between servicing its debt and investing in its people. Multilateral development banks must be able to mobilize funds for the green and digital transitions, so that climate migration and competition over resources do not become drivers of interstate conflict. And the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement must be finalized and put into force to ensure that all countries will be able to access vaccines and treatments when the next global health emergency strikes.
This is why Spain has sought to place development at the heart of its foreign policy. The Spanish government has championed the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, and last year the city of Seville hosted the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, where delegates committed to easing the debt burden of vulnerable countries and unlocking investment for sustainable development. Spain has also promoted initiatives such as the Global Hub on Debt for Development Swaps, launched with the World Bank; the multilateral Debt Suspension Clause Alliance, which allows vulnerable countries to pause debt payments after disasters; and its own mechanism to provide up to 60 million euros in debt relief for developing countries each year. In addition, Spain has backed climate finance, global health, gender equality, food security, and social protection initiatives in partnership with multilateral institutions and international organizations. These development policies are peacebuilding policies, too.
A larger project to rally the world behind legal norms and genuine multilateralism may seem unrealistic. But we have seen what happens when the normalization of war drags humanity into hell. The men and women who emerged from the ruins of World War II, the darkest chapter in human history, found a way to construct a multilateral world order. The question before our generation is whether we will preserve the rule of law or allow a return to rule by force. Whether we build the world of tomorrow through foresight and cooperation, or through the chaos and pain of another world war. We must choose wisely while the choice is still ours to make.
Loading…
