Obtaining world peace is a tall order and one that requires extensive cooperation among various actors at all levels, from local to global. Much research and thought has gone into devising strategies for peace based on different theories and approaches, which often results in contradictory solutions. While there may not be a single pathway to peace for all societies, it has largely become an accepted truth among researchers, academics, diplomats, and even military personnel, that a hardline show of brute military force is not sufficient in obtaining world peace or national security. This issue demands a much more complex and nuanced look at the underlying causes of conflict if one hopes to reach a long-lasting state of stability. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on this point, which was most recently reflected in the budget proposal set forth by President Trump.

The proposal, which would have to be approved by Congress before being implemented, calls for a $54 billion increase in the United States’ defense budget. This increased spending would be paid for by large cuts to non-defense budgets, particularly in the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Trump’s plan may never come to fruition, but what does this say about the President’s vision for global stability and American security?

Trump argues that this shift in funding would increase national security by providing the military with new ships and aircrafts, and by expanding U.S. military presence in places such as the South China Sea. This is based on a narrow conceptualisation of peace and security. It follows the premise that the more hard power a country has, the more stable it will be; enemies will either be deterred from attacking or easily put down by the excessive military force of the United States. However, this ignores the fact that expanding military power could potentially increase the target on the U.S., as other nations could attempt to check their own power. It also disregards the fact that less powerful enemies of the U.S. have long used tactics designed specifically to skirt the country’s military strength, such as terrorist attacks and guerrilla warfare, which render ships and aircraft rather useless. Even if an increased military were effective in creating stability, it must also be considered what type of peace one is seeking.

Within peace studies, there are two widely accepted definitions of peace. Negative peace is simply the absence of violence; while positive peace is the creation of a just society into which humans are equitably integrated. Coming from a negative peace viewpoint, Trump’s proposal may seem justified, more guns may indeed deter some from attacking the country. However, this approach is often effective only in the short term and does not make for a truly peaceful society. It often results in the need to constantly increase the level of control the government has, to utilise excessive force, and to infringe on privacy, all things that have been a source of growing concern. Negative peace is achieved by using fear to control populations. It does not foster a society in which people are able to live freely and peacefully.

Positive peace is more complex and requires certain attitudes, institutions, and relationships to be achieved. It is also a more viable pathway to a long-lasting peace. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) defines eight pillars which make up a peaceful society. Among these eight pillars there are the acceptance of the rights of others, the free flow of information, a sound business environment, and high human capital. These things are much more closely related to sustainable development and diplomacy than they are to military power. Only by moving toward initiatives and policies which foster positive peace will the international community achieve stability. Modern conflicts often stem from things like inequality, poverty, lack of access to resources, marginalization, and exclusion. Addressing these direct and indirect underlying causes of conflict can help achieve a truly peaceful society, rather than a fragile and fear-based absence of war. Trump’s plan not only fails to do this, but it actively reduces spending in the areas that could prove most useful, namely foreign aid and the environment.

The shift in spending will only magnify already unbalanced funding practices. The United States currently accounts for nearly 40% of annual global military expenditure, estimated to be $1.7 trillion, equivalent to the past 15 years combined of Official Development Assistance (ODA). Worldwide ODA contributions have historically fallen short of the United Nations’ target of 0.7% of GDP, despite the fact that there is increasing evidence that underdevelopment and conflicts are closely related. It is not only the U.S. that falls short on ODA contributions, but having one of the most powerful nations within the international community shift away from this type of development spending reinforces the idea that it is not a priority.

Poverty, unemployment, forced migration, and rapid urbanization can all contribute to a rise in conflict. Low income levels can correlate with higher levels of violence within societies, which can easily spill out into the wider international community. This type of instability will not be deterred by showing greater military strength. Instead, diplomacy should be used to foster stable governments and economic environments. Fair trade should be used to provide equitable sources of income for people. Moreover, aid should be provided responsibly, and to projects that benefit all. Increasing access to education, healthcare, and meaningful work can go a long way to creating a society which is stronger, more prosperous, and stable. In fact, following the release of Trump’s proposal, a group of 120 retired U.S. generals and admirals urged Congress to fully fund diplomacy and aid, saying that they are critical aspects of keeping America safe. They understand that this type of spending is not a waste of taxpayer dollars, but a contribution to safety and security, both at home and abroad.

With the EPA being another target for Trump’s cuts, it is clear that the President has failed to make the connection between climate change and future conflicts. However, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), climate-related security risks are one of the most pressing issue facing the world in the near future. Researchers refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” which has the potential to exacerbate existing tensions. Climate change contributes to water and food insecurity, sea level rise, and severe weather events which in turn can result in mass migrations, unemployment, and poverty. As a result, the risk of violence and conflict increases.

Due to the interconnected nature of the global climate, and as the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, decisions made in the United States can impact the entire world. Unfortunately, President Trump has rejected the reality of climate change and, by calling for cuts to the EPA, has only further threatened the possibility of the country taking meaningful action to curb the effects. Just as the rest of the world is not immune to the actions of the U.S., the U.S. is not immune to the rest of the world. If and when other countries start to feel the full impact of climate change, something already evident in the ongoing famine crisis in a number of African countries, it is not unreasonable to expect blame to be placed on one of the largest emitters of CO2. Frankly, ignoring this problem only puts a larger target on the United States. Continuing to fund research and development in the environmental sector and contributing to the mitigation of the impact of climate change worldwide will be much more effective in promoting global stability than expanding military power.

Trump’s approach reflects a narrow understanding of peace and war. It is based on the premise that force and military capability can prevent or win wars and maintain peace simply through a show of strength. This completely disregards the political, economic, and social factors which contribute to conflicts, and leaves the underlying causes of war unaddressed. It also assumes that increasing military strength will be a deterrent for enemies, which is more suitable to Cold-War era big-power political conflicts than to the types of conflicts we see most often today. The only long-term, sustainable solution is to address the underlying causes of conflict through diplomacy, fostering fairness in the global community, and addressing the inevitable impacts of climate change.