Geneva, Switzerland (GenevaLunch) - The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Friday hosts an event to launch a major new study on peace in the Middle East. The report offers a detailed assessment of the costs as well as benefits of a potential peace settlement in the region, for the first time in 60 years of conflict.

The report was prepared by the Strategic Foresight Group (SFG), a think-tank based in Mumbai, India, and supported by leaders and governments in Norway, Switzerland, Qatar and Turkey. More than 50 experts contributed, including former ministers and heads of think-tanks in the Middle East.

It uses 97 parameters to assess in depth �€œeconomic, human, military, environmental, social, political, diplomatic, psychological, and all other costs and benefits of potential peace in the Middle East,�€ note the authors. Among their findings: military expenditure by governments in this region increased more than in any other part of the world for the decade ending in 2006, with the United States running second. The arms race includes an increase by Saudi Arabia from $18 billion to $30b, Iran from $3b to $10b, Israel from $8b to $12b.

�€œOpportunity loss,�€ measured as lost potential GDP, is highest for Saudi Arabia, but Iraq ranks very high and the report notes that it had already registered a high opportunity loss before the period covered by the report began.

The study takes some pains to explain what it means by the term �€œcosts�€: �€œStates are concerned about measurable costs such as those having a bearing on resource allocation, arms race, destruction of assets, among others. People are concerned about costs that have a bearing on their living conditions, such as security at cafes and dignity at check-posts, opportunities for education, damage to environment and social fabric. Some costs have monetary value. It would be insensitive and inappropriate to interpret some other costs in financial terms. For instance, it is possible and useful to measure the economic burden of refugees for both home and host countries. However, it would be inappropriate to measure the economic costs of death of children.�€