The Global Risks Report 2025: A World of Growing Divisions

Geopolitical Recession (Part 2)

Worsening humanitarian crises 
Even beyond global security considerations, multilateralism appears set to endure its most difficult period since the founding of the UN in 1945. Over the next two years, more questions are likely to be asked by national governments about the roles and priorities of key multilateral institutions, and there could be constraints placed on their funding. The outlook for this broader weakening of multilateralism is associated with declining global budgets for humanitarian aid. 

Declining funding translates into an acute risk of humanitarian crises deepening. Global humanitarian efforts are highly dependent on the financial and human resources and institutional know-how provided by the UN. This know-how, in areas such as logistics or relationships with local governments and NGOs, has been built up over decades and is irreplaceable over a short- or even medium-term time horizon. Over 90 million people in need receive humanitarian aid or development assistance from UN institutions on an annual basis. A rising number of these individuals, as well as others who also need support but are unable to access it, will be at increasing risk of insecurity, disease, malnutrition and starvation over the next two years if UN institutions and the humanitarian sector overall are weakened further. 

Furthermore, higher levels of desperation will in some settings create more opportunities for armed groups to recruit. Countries in which serious humanitarian crises risk deepening further over the next two years and in turn fuelling more violence include Sudan, Mali and Haiti. In Sudan, the domestic and regional impacts of reduced agricultural production and exports are already far-reaching. Like Ukraine, Sudan is a large exporter of agricultural products. It plays a critical role for neighbouring countries Ethiopia, South Sudan, Chad and Egypt.

Forced displacement is also set to rise as international humanitarian aid efforts struggle to keep up. It is already at an all-time high, with over 122 million forcibly displaced people globally, and 56% are displaced within their own countries. Among the 44% who are cross-border refugees, three quarters are hosted in low-income countries that have limited resources to support them. Sometimes refugees are confronted with nationalist sentiment or identity-related violence because of their ethnicity or religion, further fuelling the potential for conflict in border areas. Increased competition for jobs between refugees and locals can also be a source of tensions. 

Rising unilateralism will have softer implications, too. Societies are developing more disinterested mindsets when it comes to conflicts and humanitarian crises in which their own citizens are not involved. As local media deprioritize reporting on “far-away” conflicts, a self-fulfilling cycle emerges, with greater tolerance by governments and societies of civilian casualties in warfare. This is a risk that has already started unfolding with respect to current conflicts, for example when it comes to Sudan: This war has rarely been at the top of global policy agendas despite its huge humanitarian toll. Such disinterest makes internationally coordinated humanitarian responses more difficult, especially when combined with the prevailing geopolitical and funding conditions. 

Actions for today

A. Support multilateral institutions 
The GRPS finds that the approach that respondents believe has the most long-term potential for driving action on risk reduction and preparedness regarding State-based armed conflict is Global treaties and agreements, followed by Multistakeholder engagement. These findings strongly suggest that it is critical for public, private and civil society stakeholders across all countries to work together to reinforce existing multilateral institutions wherever feasible. This includes the UN Security Council; despite the challenges and complexity of reforming it, governments should continue dialogues with that ultimate objective in mind. 

In highlighting the benefits of multilateralism in conflict resolution, leaders should draw on case studies of resolution of seemingly intractable conflicts. An example was the Colombian government’s peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in November 2016. Broad international cooperation has also helped to tackle armed threats, for example in combating piracy off the Somali coast over the course of many years from 2008. Global leaders can draw optimism from such examples and showcase lessons learned and actionable strategies for ending current conflicts. 

B. Expand the role of regional organizations in managing tensions 
Amid the current challenges facing global multilateralism, there is space for regional organizations to expand their roles in managing geopolitical tensions in their regions. The African Union is a good example: It already has a track record in this regard, having carried out several peacekeeping operations across Africa and on other occasions has played a mediator role. Nonetheless, there is a need for it to play a greater role in future in both peacekeeping and mediation. 

​C. Diversify supply chains 
For organizations, one of the big lessons taken from the ongoing conflicts is the need for supply chain resilience and diversification. With geopolitical volatility likely to remain high over the next two years, organizational investment in geopolitical risk foresight and risk management is a must. When the level of uncertainty around conflicts or potential conflicts is high, scenario planning exercises can be a valuable tool to help organizations prepare for a range of different outcomes. Organizations need to consider not only whether their suppliers and supply routes are vulnerable to conflicts, but also what the reputational risks are of partnering or doing business with counterparts that are in any way party to a conflict. 
 
Reference: The Global Risks Report 2025 20th Edition. World Economic Forum.