The Lost Art of Peacemaking

By David Harland

For 20 years after the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, most armed conflicts were resolved by agreement — with life-saving results. No longer. The United Nations, in particular, has almost lost an art it once mastered.

The UN led the way ending wars from Lebanon to Liberia, Croatia to Cambodia. Its diplomacy was personalised, discreet, neutral and deeply informed. Others played a role too: the US brokered peace in Bosnia (1995) and Northern Ireland (1998); the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) mediated an end to violence in Aceh, Indonesia (2002 & 2005).

Yet since 2008, the number of successful mediations has declined.[i] Failures are stacking up — Sri Lanka, Libya, South Sudan, Yemen, Syria. Non-UN actors have scored some successes, but they cannot replace the UN.

Why the decline? Structural reasons are key. The world’s most powerful countries are mired in geopolitical wrangling — Russia with the West, China with the US. Proxy wars, in Syria, Ukraine and Somalia, are back. Conflicts are more atomised. The “Twitter revolutions” in the Arab world and beyond challenge peacemakers with their proliferation of players and agendas.[ii] “Internationalised internal conflicts” have surged,[iii] as jihadis use technology to recruit foreign fighters and transboundary trafficking to resource operations.[iv]

Also important, however, is the erosion of the UN’s peacebroking skills. Four missing factors stand out: