By Sara Hellmüller and Bilal Salaymeh
At first glance, it seems contradictory: how can the same external actors who support the warring parties in a conflict also be the ones initiating efforts to resolve it? Yet, it is becoming increasingly common that warmakers are also peacemakers. In a world marked by heightened geopolitical competition, this phenomenon is on the rise as states position themselves both by militarily intervening in conflicts while also sharpening their profiles as peacemakers.
For instance, both Russia and Türkiye were militarily involved in Libya while also attempting to broker a ceasefire. Similarly in Syria, three states who intervened militarily in the conflict – Iran, Russia, and Türkiye – were the guarantors of a process attempting to de-escalate violence. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia, being one of the key military actors in the conflict, and the US who supported it, tried to forge deals in view of ending the civil war. In Ukraine, Belarus hosted talks while providing territorial support to Russia. And in the Middle East, the US who is supporting Israel militarily, also contributed to brokering a ceasefire deal.
In our article, which contributes to a special issue on The Impact of World Politics on United Nations Peace Missions, we argue that this conflation of warmaking and peacemaking turns peace processes into political marketplaces characterized by ad-hoc governing mechanisms and a constant bargaining around loyalties and allegiances. In these political marketplaces, peacemaking dynamics are driven by the political budget that states built through their military interventions and the main modus operandi becomes transactionalism. So, what is transactional peacemaking and how and why does it matter?
What is transactional peacemaking?
Transactional peacemaking is a rising trend in peace processes where peacemakers prefer bilateral over multilateral relations with conflict parties, engage in exclusive and interests-based negotiations, and prioritize short-term over long-term arrangements. Because they use the peace process as a tool to further their geopolitical goals and interests, peacemaking becomes less about addressing underlying causes of conflicts and more about securing temporary political gains. By engaging in one-on-one negotiations with specific conflict parties, they sideline more comprehensive and inclusive efforts like those led by the United Nations (UN). The approach then leads to peace deals that are not comprehensive but mainly focus on limiting the violence. While such deals might reduce violence temporarily, it is questionable if they lead to lasting peace.
Can the UN adapt to transactional peacemaking?
The UN, historically a champion of multilateral, inclusive, and long-term peace promotion, has found itself increasingly sidelined in this new peacemaking landscape. UN-facilitated peace processes usually aim to include a wide range of stakeholders and focus on building institutions and on fostering democratic systems. However, in the current environment, peace processes in places like Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been shaped by parallel processes in which transactional peacemakers have exerted their leverage over the conflict parties. Where the UN remains involved, its role has often shifted to hosting or facilitating shorter-term and narrower arrangements. In some cases, the UN has taken up a transactional stance itself in an effort to at least keep the conflict parties engaged. The UN therefore faces an important dilemma: If it further embraces the transactional nature of current peace processes, it risks reinforcing weak institutionalism and ad-hoc solutions and hence furthers its own marginalization. But if it continues to insist on more comprehensive and long-term approaches, it risks being even more sidelined as conflict parties turn to those with more political capital in the political marketplace to respond to their key interests.
What’s at stake for global peace efforts?
While any attempt to reduce violence is valuable, the rise of transactional peacemaking raises concerns for global peace efforts. This is because it gives more power to states that have militarily invested in the conflict, and have vested interests in the outcome of peace talks, meaning that they pursue their own priorities for peace rather than the ones of domestic actors. This may render it more difficult to resolve conflicts as peace processes become arenas for political bargaining amongst external actors. In countries like Syria, Libya, and Yemen, peace processes are more contested because so many different actors are invested in the political marketplace. The powerful states involved secure their interests through temporary ceasefires or conditional truces, which leaves peace agreements fragile and prone to collapse and narrows the space for comprehensive agreements. However, the recent overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria shows that such temporary arrangements do not hold forever, and underlining root causes of a conflict will eventually resurface. Transactional peacemaking is thus not enough to resolve conflicts durably.
What does the future hold for peacemaking?
The rise of transactional peacemaking has profound implications for the future of international peace processes, and thus, the international peace architecture. As more conflicts are shaped by geopolitical interests, the international community must grapple with the challenge of balancing short-term political interests with long-term peacebuilding goals. The UN and other multilateral actors will have to find ways to adapt to the changing dynamics of conflicts to remain relevant in this new world.