By: Roger Mac Ginty
Brief Summary
New, and newly prominent, actors are playing an increasing role in peacemaking, and mediation. Based on interviews with 30 senior peacemakers and mediators, this policy brief seeks to assess how these actors fit into, or upset, the existing peacemaking landscape. The crucial question is, how can the new and established peacemaking actors work in tandem for better and more peaceful outcomes?
Key Messages
The context for peacemaking has changed markedly, with competition among regional actors having a significant impact on conflicts and the prospects for peace
Major powers do not have a common vision of what peace should look like
New, and newly visible, actors are playing more prominent roles in peacemaking. This is posing challenges for more established actors.
Flexibility and adaptability are called for in an era of networked multilateralism and multi-mediation
The ‘crowded field’ of peacemaking and mediation requires greater information-sharing to optimize more effective peace outcomes
A Rapidly Changing Geopolitics
Interviewees were very aware that the context for peacemaking was undergoing massive change. One interviewee noted ‘a world order with local implications’ in which ‘the long arms of great powers were reaching in’ to conflict zones. Interviewees pointed to competition between regional powers and how this was exploiting and prolonging conflicts, with Libya, Sudan and Yemen being mentioned in particular. One observed that there were ‘many actors with enough power to foment violent conflict and not enough actors to stop them doing that’.
This point was echoed by another interviewee who observed that ‘Conflict actors are working very hard to avoid being cornered into the peace negotiations of the type we had in the 1990s’. There was a recognition that the ‘sense of possibility of the late 1990s and early 2000s’ seemed to have been replaced by an era of polarization. As one senior peacemaker noted, ‘the middle ground is disappearing from politics’ and another observed that ‘the number of peace agreements in the last few years has been paltry’.
The dysfunctional nature of the United Nations Security Council was mentioned repeatedly, and how ‘there is no joint vision among the great powers’. So how should peacemakers navigate what one called ‘a small boat in a difficult sea’?
The New Peacemakers and the Challenges this Presents
Many of the mediators and peacemakers mentioned the increasingly prominent roles of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, China and others in peace activities. They particularly mentioned prisoner exchanges and other humanitarian initiatives in relation to the Russian-Ukrainian war. While there was a recognition that these peacemaking activities helped save and improve lives, there was scepticism that they were leading to major peace accords that ended wars.
There was a sense of nostalgia for an earlier era in which comprehensive peace accords, and negotiations with a limited number of actors, seemed more possible. At the same time, there was a recognition that some of the main western proponents of peacemaking and peacebuilding ‘had left the field of play’ and their attentions were elsewhere. One diplomat in the western capital noted that ‘we have limited, commitment and resources’, and so it was natural that other actors filled any vacuum.
Many of the interviewees understood the attractions of the new peacemaking actors. One interviewee noted that “There is a real sense of African countries being fed up with western peacemaking’. Another noted that, ‘There is this binary of the west and the rest. The rest doesn’t want to play anymore’. Non-western peacemaking did not seem to attach ‘moral imperatives’ to their peacemaking efforts and so apparently offers an easier route for conflict actors.
The Possibility of Working Together
Interviewees observed that peacemaking and mediation now operated in a crowded, and sometimes competitive, field. Is it possible for peacemakers with different geopolitical orientations to work together?
Interviewees discussed two major obstacles to productive working together. The first was that there did not seem to be a common understanding of how international peace infrastructure could be used. One mediator mentioned that ‘China does not accept the existing framework – it is creating its own framework’. They and others discussed the need for the United States and China to agree on an international peace framework. But this would mean the United States ceding some global leadership to China.
The second major obstacle to new and established peacemakers working together was the type of peace that they envisaged. As one western mediator noted, ‘Without democracy and human rights – can a political transition be sustained?’ This is a significant dilemma for many western peacemakers and they struggle to contemplate peaceful outcomes that are not linked to a rights agenda.
Yet, in the words of one mediator, ‘The new actors are a tremendous resource’. Other interviewees noted that in some conflict contexts, it is the new (or newly visible) peace actors that have the legitimacy, authority and access that makes them a better fit for peacemaking activities.
In multi-mediation contexts, in which there are a number of possible mediators working on a range of different issues, conflict parties may engage in ‘mediator shopping’, hoping to find the mediator that best fits their outlook.
One mediator, recognizing that this is an era of networked multilateralism, asked ‘How do we position ourselves?’ The emerging context is one in which adaptability and flexibility among peacemakers is likely to pay off but this involves tough choices about ceding responsibility and negotiating over the type of peace that might follow mediation efforts.
What seems to be absent at the moment is a mutual understanding among peacebuilders of the work undertaken by others, and an understanding of the end goals. Notwithstanding the competitiveness among some in the peacemaking and mediation sector, regional information-sharing networks seem advisable. These could help identify more clearly who has the access, capacity and legitimacy to engage in various parts of the peacemaking challenge.
About the Research
Thirty senior mediators and peacemakers were interviewed in June- August 2024 on effectiveness in peacemaking. All had over two decades of experience and had worked in multiple contexts. They worked for international organizations, governments, INGOs, NGOs, and donor organizations. A number worked independently. They mainly worked in Track 1.5 and often between Tracks 1 and 2. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and on the basis of complete anonymity for individuals and employer organizations. Questions centred around effectiveness and “What works?” in mediation and peacemaking rather than on peacebuilding.
About the Author & Acknowledgments
Roger Mac Ginty is a Professor at the Durham Global Security Institute and the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University. The author is grateful to the interviewees and the Effective Peace Initiative. Contact: roger.macginty@durham.ac.uk
X @rogermacginty
How to Cite
Roger Mac Ginty (2024) ‘Helping established and new peacemakers work together’
Comments