While the need for international peacekeeping today is great, the current approach is not fit for purpose, owing to a variety of geopolitical and historical factors. The situation demands reforms and new thinking at all levels of governance, from global bodies down to the boots on the ground.
MONROVIA – As violent conflicts grow in volume and intensity, the global peacekeeping paradigm is being called into question, not least in Africa. According to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, conflicts across 16 countries have displaced more than 40 million people. That figure is larger than the populations of Angola, Ghana, or Morocco, and double what it was in 2016.
But while the need for peacekeeping is great, the current approach is not fit for purpose. While international missions generally include nationals from other countries and lack any participation on the part of regional bodies, peacekeeping must start at home, through national-level conflict prevention and resolution. Until the international peacekeeping architecture incorporates this perspective, it will remain wanting.
Making matters worse, geopolitical conditions no longer allow for effective international peacekeeping. Not only is there a lack of cooperation among the major powers who provide the funding for international missions, but many countries are unable to commit troops because they are already dealing with conflicts within their own borders or subregions.
Moreover, today’s wars tend to include the major powers as direct or indirect participants – as in Gaza and Ukraine – whereas the wars of the past were predominantly internal conflicts that could be addressed by international bodies. In my own country, Liberia, which endured 14 years of brutal civil war from 1989 to 2003, peacekeeping operations were successful because national authorities and political leaders fully supported the work of the United Nations Mission in Liberia.
By contrast, in Sudan today, all the major players within the country are at war with each other, and many external regional and global powers are backing different factions for their own narrow purposes. Under such conditions, it is exceedingly difficult to establish international monitoring mechanisms, let alone launch an effective peacekeeping mission. Peacekeepers cannot become a part of the war; when they go into a country, their function is to maintain order. In the absence of a well-coordinated peacekeeping force supported by the affected country’s leaders and all the major regional and global powers, there is little the UN can do.
Another problem is the growing role of mercenaries, like the Kremlin-controlled Wagner Group, which has a growing presence in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, among other countries. While this story has gotten a fair amount of coverage in Western media, Wagner has never been widely condemned in Africa. Instead, some African leaders see it as a useful tool for securing arms or illegally intervening in other countries, either to meddle in ongoing conflicts or to start new ones.
More broadly, major powers’ continued arms sales to warring parties all but ensures that peace will remain out of reach. It is unforgiveable that the international community cannot devise an enforceable policy to prevent this – or even offer a blanket condemnation of it – but that is the reality.
Given the deep divisions within the UN Security Council – where each of the permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) wields a veto – the UN’s peacekeeping efforts will remain hobbled for the time being. One can only hope that the major powers will recognize the need for cooperation to address destabilizing conflicts, climate change, and artificial intelligence – among other pressing global issues. Opening the Security Council to participation by permanent regional institutions would advance this objective.
In the meantime, regional peacekeeping forces could help to fill the gap and mitigate some of the harm to the most vulnerable. But while the costs of violent conflict are borne disproportionately by women and children, regional peacekeeping forces have a glaring lack of women in any role, from senior leadership ranks to boots on the ground. There have already been far too many occasions where peacekeepers themselves have abused and assaulted women and children.
Another intermediate solution is to leverage digital technologies, recognizing that the absence of clear lines of communication within and between communities is often a major factor in conflict. While the areas most vulnerable to violent conflict tend to lack the infrastructure to support digital technology and connectivity, efforts are underway to address this challenge. For example, the current US administration’s Digital Transformation with Africa initiative, launched as a part of the 2022 US-Africa Leaders Summit, seeks to “invest over $350 million and facilitate over $450 million in financing” to support digitalization on the continent.
Similarly, the Partnership for Digital Access in Africa aims to double the number of Africans connected to the internet to one billion, with a focus on achieving gender parity. Such investments represent a welcoming shift in global momentum to bridge the digital divide.
Looking ahead, this year’s UN General Assembly will revolve around Secretary-General António Guterres’s highly anticipated Summit of the Future and proposed reforms to the global-governance architecture. One goal will be to expand participation in all international bodies to offer full regional representation for Africa and the rest of the Global South.
For too long, major powers’ dominance in financial institutions and rule-setting bodies has allowed them to dictate terms that all others must follow while restricting any reform or initiative that may be out of step with their own national interests. The faster this changes, the better positioned we will be to resolve today’s conflicts, prevent future ones, and alleviate the suffering of tens of millions of people.
MONROVIA – As violent conflicts grow in volume and intensity, the global peacekeeping paradigm is being called into question, not least in Africa. According to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, conflicts across 16 countries have displaced more than 40 million people. That figure is larger than the populations of Angola, Ghana, or Morocco, and double what it was in 2016.
But while the need for peacekeeping is great, the current approach is not fit for purpose. While international missions generally include nationals from other countries and lack any participation on the part of regional bodies, peacekeeping must start at home, through national-level conflict prevention and resolution. Until the international peacekeeping architecture incorporates this perspective, it will remain wanting.
Making matters worse, geopolitical conditions no longer allow for effective international peacekeeping. Not only is there a lack of cooperation among the major powers who provide the funding for international missions, but many countries are unable to commit troops because they are already dealing with conflicts within their own borders or subregions.
Moreover, today’s wars tend to include the major powers as direct or indirect participants – as in Gaza and Ukraine – whereas the wars of the past were predominantly internal conflicts that could be addressed by international bodies. In my own country, Liberia, which endured 14 years of brutal civil war from 1989 to 2003, peacekeeping operations were successful because national authorities and political leaders fully supported the work of the United Nations Mission in Liberia.
By contrast, in Sudan today, all the major players within the country are at war with each other, and many external regional and global powers are backing different factions for their own narrow purposes. Under such conditions, it is exceedingly difficult to establish international monitoring mechanisms, let alone launch an effective peacekeeping mission. Peacekeepers cannot become a part of the war; when they go into a country, their function is to maintain order. In the absence of a well-coordinated peacekeeping force supported by the affected country’s leaders and all the major regional and global powers, there is little the UN can do.
Another problem is the growing role of mercenaries, like the Kremlin-controlled Wagner Group, which has a growing presence in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, among other countries. While this story has gotten a fair amount of coverage in Western media, Wagner has never been widely condemned in Africa. Instead, some African leaders see it as a useful tool for securing arms or illegally intervening in other countries, either to meddle in ongoing conflicts or to start new ones.
BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Subscribe for as little as $34.99
Subscribe now to gain access to insights and analyses from the world’s leading thinkers – starting at just $34.99 for your first year.
Subscribe Now
More broadly, major powers’ continued arms sales to warring parties all but ensures that peace will remain out of reach. It is unforgiveable that the international community cannot devise an enforceable policy to prevent this – or even offer a blanket condemnation of it – but that is the reality.
Given the deep divisions within the UN Security Council – where each of the permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) wields a veto – the UN’s peacekeeping efforts will remain hobbled for the time being. One can only hope that the major powers will recognize the need for cooperation to address destabilizing conflicts, climate change, and artificial intelligence – among other pressing global issues. Opening the Security Council to participation by permanent regional institutions would advance this objective.
In the meantime, regional peacekeeping forces could help to fill the gap and mitigate some of the harm to the most vulnerable. But while the costs of violent conflict are borne disproportionately by women and children, regional peacekeeping forces have a glaring lack of women in any role, from senior leadership ranks to boots on the ground. There have already been far too many occasions where peacekeepers themselves have abused and assaulted women and children.
Another intermediate solution is to leverage digital technologies, recognizing that the absence of clear lines of communication within and between communities is often a major factor in conflict. While the areas most vulnerable to violent conflict tend to lack the infrastructure to support digital technology and connectivity, efforts are underway to address this challenge. For example, the current US administration’s Digital Transformation with Africa initiative, launched as a part of the 2022 US-Africa Leaders Summit, seeks to “invest over $350 million and facilitate over $450 million in financing” to support digitalization on the continent.
Similarly, the Partnership for Digital Access in Africa aims to double the number of Africans connected to the internet to one billion, with a focus on achieving gender parity. Such investments represent a welcoming shift in global momentum to bridge the digital divide.
Looking ahead, this year’s UN General Assembly will revolve around Secretary-General António Guterres’s highly anticipated Summit of the Future and proposed reforms to the global-governance architecture. One goal will be to expand participation in all international bodies to offer full regional representation for Africa and the rest of the Global South.
For too long, major powers’ dominance in financial institutions and rule-setting bodies has allowed them to dictate terms that all others must follow while restricting any reform or initiative that may be out of step with their own national interests. The faster this changes, the better positioned we will be to resolve today’s conflicts, prevent future ones, and alleviate the suffering of tens of millions of people.