The Peacemaking Paradox: Why Old Strategies Are Failing and What Comes Next
The world is demonstrably less peaceful than it was just a decade ago. While the immediate aftermath of the Cold War offered a brief window of optimism, today’s geopolitical landscape – marked by great power competition, eroding international norms, and a surge in intra-state conflicts – presents a starkly different reality. This isn’t simply a cyclical downturn; the very foundations of peacemaking are shifting, demanding a radical reassessment of how we approach conflict resolution. Understanding these changes, as highlighted by Crisis Group President & CEO Comfort Ero, is no longer just an academic exercise – it’s critical for navigating a future increasingly defined by instability.
From Bosnia to Sudan: A Changing Conflict Landscape
The peacemaking toolkit of the 1990s, forged in the fires of the Bosnian War and subsequent interventions, relied heavily on Western-led multilateralism and a relatively clear international order. The assumption was that establishing peace required imposing solutions, often through peacekeeping operations and conditionality tied to aid. But that order is unraveling. As Ero points out, the rise of new global powers, coupled with a potential return to isolationist policies in the US, is creating a vacuum where traditional peacemaking mechanisms are losing their effectiveness. The war in Sudan, a brutal and complex conflict, serves as a chilling illustration of this failure. Despite numerous attempts at mediation, the situation continues to deteriorate, hampered by regional power struggles and a lack of unified international pressure.
Africa’s Shifting Perspectives and the Erosion of Western Influence
A key dynamic reshaping the peacemaking landscape is the changing perception of Western influence in Africa. Leaders across the continent are increasingly wary of external interference and are actively seeking alternative partnerships and solutions. This isn’t necessarily a rejection of peace, but a demand for agency and a rejection of externally imposed models. As Ero explains, there’s a growing sense that Western approaches often fail to address the root causes of conflict, which are frequently linked to local grievances, economic inequalities, and political marginalization. This shift necessitates a move away from top-down interventions towards more inclusive, locally-led peace processes. Ignoring this evolving dynamic risks further fueling resentment and undermining peacemaking efforts.
The Rise of Non-State Actors and Fragmenting Worlds
The traditional focus on state-to-state conflict is also becoming increasingly obsolete. Today, many conflicts are driven by non-state actors – militias, terrorist groups, criminal organizations – operating across borders and exploiting weak governance structures. These actors often have different motivations and priorities than states, making them difficult to engage in traditional peace negotiations. Furthermore, the fragmentation of the global order – the rise of populism, nationalism, and geopolitical competition – is creating a more complex and unpredictable environment for peacemaking. The ability to forge consensus on key issues is diminishing, making it harder to mobilize international support for conflict resolution.
Beyond Mediation: New Approaches to Peacemaking
So, what does the future of peacemaking look like? It requires a fundamental shift in mindset and a willingness to embrace new approaches. Traditional mediation, while still valuable, is often insufficient on its own. Greater emphasis must be placed on:
- Prevention: Investing in early warning systems, addressing root causes of conflict, and promoting inclusive governance.
- Local Ownership: Empowering local communities and civil society organizations to lead peace processes.
- Economic Development: Addressing economic inequalities and creating opportunities for sustainable livelihoods.
- Climate Security: Recognizing the link between climate change and conflict and integrating climate resilience into peacebuilding efforts. (See The Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program for more on this connection.)
- Adaptive Peacemaking: Recognizing that peace processes are rarely linear and require flexibility and adaptability.
Furthermore, a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics is crucial. Peacemaking isn’t simply about bringing warring parties to the table; it’s about addressing the underlying power imbalances that fuel conflict. This may require challenging vested interests, promoting accountability, and ensuring that all voices are heard.
The challenges are immense, but the stakes are too high to ignore. The erosion of the international order and the rise of new conflicts demand a bold and innovative approach to peacemaking. As Comfort Ero’s insights make clear, clinging to outdated strategies will only lead to further instability and suffering. The future of peace depends on our ability to adapt, innovate, and prioritize local ownership in a world undergoing profound transformation. What steps can we take, individually and collectively, to foster a more peaceful and just world?
