On Sept. 9, at a press conference held at the U.N. headquarters in New York, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres unveiled his report entitled “The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future.” His message was unambiguous: the world’s colossal military expenditures do not guarantee security; on the contrary, they deepen fragility and undermine our collective capacity to build peace. Perhaps the report’s most striking warning is the stark reality that humanity devotes far more resources to financing war than to building peace.
This is not a routine U.N. summit product; rather, it falls into what might be called the secretary-general’s “prestige report” category. It is not a General Assembly resolution or a summit declaration that reflects consensus among member states on an action plan. Instead, it serves as Guterres’s vehicle to communicate his strategic message and vision to the world. Yet, what makes it powerful is its candor: the findings resemble a “the king is naked” moment – what everyone knows but few dare to say. Trillions poured into armaments are not delivering security; they are feeding fragility and threatening global justice.
From the perspective of economic rationalism, the implications are especially troubling. Those of us who know that every supply creates its own demand can clearly see the danger: advances in the defense industry and the relentless growth of military budgets increase the likelihood of an unavoidable war on a global scale. And this unease is not mine alone; leaders, economists and security analysts across the world share the same concern.
Although Guterres’s term ends in 2026, this report, much like the landmark initiatives of his predecessors, may well lose momentum with a change in leadership, yet it still holds the potential to shape debate far beyond his tenure. Its true significance lies not in binding commitments but in its urgency: it challenges the entrenched notion that security depends on ever-expanding military spending, reminding us instead that peace and development must not be suffocated under the shadow of defense budgets.
In short, Guterres’s report is more than a set of statistics or budgetary charts; it is a wake-up call. The world, caught in an accelerating spiral of militarization and security competition, is becoming ever more fragile. And recognizing this fragility, like in the fable of the naked king, demands courage.
“Everything is the opposite of what it appears to be, and nothing is the opposite of what it appears to be.” This sentence, in fact, captures the spirit of the latest report by Guterres. This work is not just another bureaucratic document or a collection of diplomatic jargon; it reflects the awareness and expertise of an institution devoted to securing sustainable peace and prosperity. With the striking weight of its data alone, the report demands attention.
What I am attempting to do here is to move this report from the desks of top-level decision-makers into a wider circle – to share with not only diplomats and bureaucrats but also with everyone who cares about the future of our planet. This is not meant as a critique, but rather as a modest contribution, an act of individual responsibility. Because Guterres’s warnings are not only the business of heads of state or security councils, they directly concern the future of ordinary citizens as well.
The issue is complex and multifaceted. It touches on economics, security, development and even ethics. But the aim of this piece isn’t to branch off in every direction – it’s to stick to the framework Guterres has laid out. Sometimes the clearest way to understand the big picture is to focus on a single point and examine it thoroughly. For me, this article is not just about repeating Guterres’ words; it’s about interpreting them through the lens of an engaged citizen and bringing that perspective to a wider audience.
My goal isn’t simply to summarize the report; it’s to make sure its findings and data reach as many people as possible. As a citizen, amplifying Guterres’ message and keeping it in the public conversation is a small but meaningful responsibility. When you read the data in the next section, you’ll see that the warning isn’t meant only for the corridors of the U.N.; it should resonate across the globe, and you’ll gain a clearer sense of what the future may hold.
The report highlights the following: Global military spending reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024. This represents the largest increase in military expenditure since 1988. In per capita terms, this figure amounts to $334 worldwide, 750 times the U.N. budget, and 13 times the official development assistance provided by the wealthiest countries. Over the past decade, total spending has approached $23 trillion – equivalent to the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of all African nations. In other words, the war economy is expanding at the expense of development and human lives. Moreover, commitments by institutions such as NATO to further increase spending create a snowball effect.
Guterres’ message is clear: Military spending does not guarantee peace. Yet, peace is the cornerstone of the security we need. Arms races do not ensure security; on the contrary, they deepen insecurity and undermine development. The report emphasises the development economy. It highlights the opportunity costs and crowding-out effects of directing current resources to defense, as well as the long-term costs of potential conflicts. Channelling global resources into the military generates long-term losses in areas such as health, education, and infrastructure. If current trends continue, military expenditures could reach historically unprecedented levels by 2035. Guterres sees the solution in a security strategy that prioritises diplomacy and cooperation.
Over the past decade, the majority of military spending has been carried out by only 10 countries, which in 2024 accounted for 73% of global military expenditure; among them are all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Shares of global GDP dedicated to defense show regional disparities: Middle Eastern countries allocate an average of 4% of GDP to armaments, whereas countries in the Americas spend only 1.3%. This imbalance demonstrates that military spending is strongly influenced by economic capacity and strategic priorities.
The report also highlights the lack of transparency in military expenditures as a major problem. States spend significant portions of their budgets beyond public scrutiny, rendering the opportunity costs of these resources invisible. In 2024, funds allocated to the military were roughly five times the annual budget required to end global hunger by 2030. Every dollar spent on war represents a loss for humanity and development. By contrast, social investments generate much higher multiplier effects; studies in Europe show that the returns on social programs can be up to three times higher than those of military spending.
As Guterres emphasizes, security cannot be achieved through military power alone. Human-centred security is directly linked to peace and development; territorial defense and deterrence are not sufficient on their own. Rising military expenditures weaken development financing and multilateral cooperation, threatening not only resources but the very architecture of global security.
It is important to emphasize that this is not about criticizing the defense spending of any single country. Nor is the aim to argue for zero spending. The point is to highlight the lack of balance, where disproportionate increases in military budgets undermine stability. What we are discussing is a global dynamic: when one nation increases its military expenditures, others often follow suit, creating a vicious cycle in which insecurity itself drives further spending. This reflects not the choices of a single state, but a structural feature of the current international security environment.
Yet, the outcome is clear. The king is naked: rising military expenditures, rather than increasing security, amplify fragility. For lasting peace, investment priorities must change; human-centred development and diplomacy must take precedence over the arms race. The world needs bold and visionary leaders for this purpose. Only decisive words and effective solutions can inspire hope for humanity. In the long run, we will all share the consequences of these decisions, and as British economist John Maynard Keynes reminded us, “we are all dead,” a statement that underscores both the urgency and the responsibility we share. It is for this reason that I present my observations with good intentions and concern: not to assign blame, but to walk together toward a safer and more sustainable future.
