Category: Peacekeeping

A Prelude to Revisionism? The Stalemated Peace Model and the Emergence of Multipolarity in International Order

By Oliver P. Richmond

Based on his new article that focuses on the emergence of the concept of “stalemated peace”.

The dominant research methodologies, conceptual, and practical doctrines of the post- Cold War order related to peacemaking, such as ‘hurting stalemates’, ‘ripe moments’ and ‘backsliding’ operate within a conflict management framework associated with negative forms of peace. This framework was updated after the end of the Cold War with a broader, more positive ‘liberal peacebuilding’ paradigm. Both frameworks, to varying degrees, indicated a Northern/ Western convergence around limited goals for peacemaking, peacekeeping, international mediation, and conflict resolution, but it is only recently that the implications have become clearer at a system level as well as for institutions and civil society.

There is a more convincing interpretation now available, however: this Eurocentric approach has ultimately led to a ‘stalemated peace’ (SP) model of peacemaking, which has affected UN peace missions more generally, undermining the UN’s normative purpose as well as its practical tools. Unexpectedly, the stalemate model may also contribute to systemic, geopolitical tensions and conflicts in world politics, making it much more unstable than previously thought.

This epistemological weakness has allowed scholars and analysts to describe the “grand stalemate’ of the Minsk agreements after 2015 as one which might have achieved ‘stabilisation’. The stalemated peace model may in addition provide camouflage for strategies of forced displacement and partition, with long-standing consequences in Cyprus, Kosovo, Syria, Israel/ Palestine and Gaza, Amenia/ Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, and in many other recent wars. This association with a ‘negative peace’, limited ‘conflict management’ and power-driven pragmatic policy compromises ultimately contributes to the re-ignition of war, such as with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. A stalemated peace process may hold out the potential for a sudden or eventual agreement, but in an unstable international environment driven by geopolitical, material and ideational concerns it often leads to war in the longer term, rather than providing a basis for progress.

In the literature on peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding, significant problems were obscured by the development of apparently pragmatic concepts such as those of ‘hurting stalemates’ and ‘spoilers’, which actually disguised ‘backsliding’ where UN peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and political missions could not bring about a sustainable peace. This weakness cannot be addressed without a conceptual shift from problem-solving (or ‘stabilisation’) to new, more emancipatory frameworks for peacemaking where political claims are addressed across the wide scope of peacemaking, including issues of local and global justice and sustainability. These possibilities transcend the liberal peace model significantly, they mainly exist in the scholarship or amongst social movements,  have been translated into doctrine only in extremis and are long overdue.  Hints can be seen in UN documentation on ‘sustaining peace’ or in long running debates within the Non-Aligned movement dating back to the 1960s. Their insights remain unimplemented, underpinning stalemates rather than the redressal of unmet political claims, meaning that peacemaking and UN peace missions have become depoliticised from the perspective of civil society, while preserving political power-structures with only minor checks. Global order and security have thus become increasingly detached from the structural implications of critical, and peace research insights into local political claims in conflict-affected societies.

Related to only minor theoretical innovations (even if embedded in international doctrine and the increasingly dysfunctionality of the state and international system, this has meant the stalemated peace model has often been regarded as acceptable to international actors and disputants. Indeed, the fear of a related loss of power because of any concessions made under any agreement has encouraged key actors in peace processes to consider escalating violence as an alternative to compromise (as with Charles Taylor in Liberia). This dilemma has also been touched upon by some civil society actors which have envisioned further escalation in Ukraine in order to produce a victory before a liberal peace settlement can be attained.

Consequently, long-standing stalemates may not be a platform for a future breakthrough as previously thought, but instead may inculcate revisionist and revanchist sentiments, which also involve the revival of violence- both direct and structural- as a legitimate political tool.

Back to the Future? UN peacebuilding in a Multipolar World Order

In the current international environment characterized by multipolarity and rising geopolitical competition, what role the United Nations (UN) can play in peacebuilding? In a new article, Fanny Badache, Sara Hellmüller and Bilal Salaymeh try to provide some answers and uncover the role of the UN in a multipolar world order.

Peacebuilding is the flagship activity of the United Nations (UN). It was defined by Boutros Boutros-Ghali – former Secretary-General – in his ‘Agenda for Peace’ as the “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace”. As of October 2022, the UN deploys 12 peacekeeping operations led by the Department of Peace Operations and 24 field missions led by the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (special envoys and special political missions).

The mandate that member states confer to the UN determines its peacebuilding approach. In our article, we examine what major powers see as the role of the UN in peacebuilding. We analyze peace-related speeches at the UN Security Council from 1991 to 2020 by three types of actors: France, UK, and US as western permanent members; China and Russia as non-western permanent members; and Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey as non-western non-permanent members.

To examine the role conferred to the UN, we distinguish between conflict management and conflict resolution. We then analyze both the types of tasks the UN is legitimized to carry out as well as the approach through which it should carry out these tasks. In conflict management, the main tasks of the UN are to help the parties find a settlement and to monitor that settlement once it is reached in view of stabilizing the situation. The main approach to peacebuilding is state-centric in that it should strictly uphold the sovereignty and consent of the host state. On the other hand, in conflict resolution, the main tasks of the UN are to support wide-ranging peacebuilding programs addressing the root causes of conflict in view of building a long-term positive peace. The main approach to peacebuilding takes a societal rather than a state focus. While the idea is still to work with the respective governments, it also foresees an important role for other actors, such as civil society.

What tasks for the UN in peacebuilding?

We found that UN member states differ in terms of their conceptions of the peacebuilding tasks the UN should engage in. France, the UK, and the US see the UN’s role in conflict resolution tasks that overlap with a liberal peacebuilding approach, such as democratization, good governance, and human rights promotion. China and Russia mostly stress conflict management tasks, such as finding a political settlement, demilitarization and demining. While they sometimes mention conflict resolution tasks, they underline more “value-neutral” areas, such as economic reconstruction, security sector reform, and rule of law. Among the rising powers, South Africa is the only one who refers more often to conflict resolution tasks (in particular rule of law and reconciliation). Brazil and Turkey mostly refer to conflict management tasks, in particular the provision of good offices to stabilize the security situation.

Despite these differences in countries’ conceptions of the UN’s role, we can see that some peacebuilding tasks such as mediation, security sector reform, and fostering the rule of law are underscored by both traditional and rising powers. These tasks could thus constitute the common denominator for future UN peacebuilding efforts.

What approach of the UN in peacebuilding?

The main fault line among the member states studied rests in their conception of the UN’s approach to peacebuilding. France, the UK, and the US underscore a conflict resolution approach which consists of working with governments, but also societal groups. To the contrary, China and Russia constantly underline that peacebuilding activities (whatever they are) should be done in cooperation with national authorities only and in full respect of state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference. As regards to rising powers, their discourse on the approach is more nuanced. Like Western powers, they advocate for the UN to work with local communities and civil society actors beyond governmental actors. Yet, at the same time, similar to China and Russia, they insist on the need to foster national ownership in the peacebuilding process by building national capacities. Their narrative is particularly centered on the need to avoid dependency (and conditionality) upon international aid and to adopt context-specific approaches.

Conclusion

So, what kind of UN peacebuilding are we likely to see in a multipolar world order? Our research shows that states see a role for the UN in terms of tasks beyond mere conflict management as long as it is conducted with the respect of national sovereignty and in cooperation with state authorities. We can thus expect that future debates in the UN Security Council will be more about the extent to which peace interventions are intrusive in states’ internal affairs and prescriptive in terms of values and norms they promote. We thus concur with other scholars that it is likely that the UN will engage less in multidimensional peacebuilding endeavors and concentrate its efforts on managing conflicts through more focused missions. In a sense, it is possible that “the future of peacebuilding is its past”.

Fanny Badache, Sara Hellmüller and Bilal Salaymeh work at the Geneva Graduate Institute in Switzerland. They are the authors of “Conflict management or conflict resolution: how do major powers conceive the role of the United Nations in peacebuilding?”, Contemporary Security Policy, which can be accessed here.