When we consider conflict and the risks it poses, we often consider the physical impact on those within conflict zones as well as those in neighbouring or regional countries. International terrorism and the proliferation of extremist ideologies have been a hallmark of conflict in the 21st century. These risks are significant and should not be discounted; however, by focusing only on the tangible and constraining our perception of risk to physical locations, we fail to identify the secondary effects that can exacerbate existing risks or create new ones.

While physical conflict poses an obvious risk of injury or death, the economic impact is often felt much further afield and can continue to have an effect long after hostilities cease. This leads to situations where the risks posed are much less obvious but no less significant in terms of their impact.

The scale of conflict

The scale of a conflict can have a sizeable influence on the impact felt by neighbouring countries. This is measured not only in the physical size but also in the intensity of the fighting within that conflict, which will often transcend physical borders.

The Syrian civil war has remained largely constrained within the borders of that country; however, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have all felt major security repercussions because of the conflict. Each has taken in millions of Syrian refugees since the start of the conflict, creating significant strain on their respective economies, services and infrastructure. Critical trade and tourism have also been impacted, and when we factor in the increased expenditure for defence and border security, the economic impact is clear.

The increased risks faced in these countries are therefore not necessarily tied to physical security risks (although these cannot be discounted), but rather the secondary impacts on critical infrastructure like energy and health security.

The weapons utilised

The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s demonstrated that neighbouring countries are particularly vulnerable to indiscriminate weapons such as artillery and missile fire. Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia saw accidental targeting of their territory resulting in both damage and casualties, but there are other ramifications that aren’t as immediately obvious that will affect a country’s economic security.

The increased risks faced … are not necessarily tied to physical security risks, but rather the secondary impacts on critical infrastructure

Environmental degradation resulting from the use of weapons, such as chemical agents, can have lasting impacts on food and water safety, as well as trade viability. Similarly, the use of landmines and similar weapons can leave whole areas at risk.

To use the Iran-Iraq war example, unexploded ordinance continues to present a major risk in the oil fields of southern Iraq, affecting a key Iraqi export. This again leads to situations where countries are forced to prioritise certain trade options while limiting others, presenting economic challenges that would otherwise not exist, and serves to create secondary effects on that country’s economic viability.

International allies

The involvement of international allies and the impact this has on the external risks posed by conflict is significant. Allies of belligerent parties can get quickly drawn into the conflict either directly or indirectly, or face pressure to take sides. This involvement can rapidly escalate conflict and broaden the impact on neighbours.

For example, Saudi Arabia and Iran have both supported opposing sides in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, leading to a massive increase in weapon proliferation as well as the physical impacts created by an ongoing proxy war. This results in situations where non-direct neighbours are drawn into conflict or are targeted by belligerents because of their alliances, or where those same parties feel the necessity to increase their defence spending in order to counter potential future risks.

This regional instability is further compounded when those supporting allies have a direct influence on the dynamics of conflict resolution and exacerbate regional tensions, leading to conflicts that are protracted and economically damaging. When either side’s allies have a vested interest in continuing the conflict, regional stability is affected further, and impacts on global trade can be felt – as we continue to see with the targeting of international shipping by Yemen’s Houthi movement.

The international community

The perception and involvement of the international community and regional power brokers play a crucial role in determining the scale and impact of conflict-related risks in neighbouring countries. International condemnation (or support) for a conflict can impact the legitimacy and resilience of belligerents, and directly determines the level of humanitarian assistance afforded to those involved.

In some circumstances it can even lead to an increase in the scale of conflict or lead to conflict in new environments. For example, it could be argued that the limited response to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 effectively set the conditions for the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when the international community failed to act. Indeed, even before this, the 2008 Russo-Georgian war may have emboldened Russia to annex Crimea six years later.

Physical distance does not guarantee safety from the fallout of conflict, nor does it guarantee impact

This leads to situations where regional countries that feel threatened again increase defence expenditure and are often relied upon to provide humanitarian assistance at the expense of their own internal needs.

Physical distance

Physical distance does not guarantee safety from the fallout of conflict, nor does it guarantee impact. Countries geographically distant from conflict zones can experience significant repercussions because of our interconnected global economy, while those that share a border may remain largely protected from direct physical impacts due to ethnic, religious or geopolitical factors. Disruptions to trade routes, energy supplies and financial markets can affect whole continents or even broader regions. The South Sudanese civil war, for instance, directly contributed to global food insecurity and forced displacement, just as the rise of the Islamic State led to an increase in Islamist terrorism in Europe.

Similarly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine massively inflated the cost of essential energy products in Europe, but potentially the most damaging external impacts were felt in some of the poorest countries in Africa that are reliant on Ukrainian grain exports.

The result

In conflict environments the physical risks cannot be overstated, and these often impact on otherwise uninvolved neighbours; however, the secondary effects of economic downturn and the impact on critical infrastructure and services also pose a number of risks. When food and water security is threatened, or access to medical and energy infrastructure is impacted, people remain at significant risk of becoming otherwise avoidable casualties.

The inability to access basic medical services, for example, can lead to life-changing injury or death from a readily treatable injury or ailment. Similarly, environmental extremes that are normally countered by heating or air conditioning can create major risks when energy security is threatened.

When considering the risks posed by conflict, it is important we don’t allow ourselves to be tunnel-visioned into the obvious and immediate at the expense of the less overt and more insidious.