The 27th Annual Conference of the International Association of Peacekeeping Training Centres was held from November 6–10, 2023, in Nairobi, Kenya. Under the theme of leveraging partnerships in training for complex peace operations environments, this conference came at a very opportune time.

For over half a century, peacekeeping operations have undergone considerable evolution, shifting from observer missions to robust peace enforcement. This change demonstrates the flexibility of peacekeeping instruments to meet the demands of dynamic operational environments.

During this period, peacekeeping significantly contributed to conflict resolution.

Due to their success in Cambodia, El Salvador, Namibia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, peacekeeping missions have played significant roles in international conflict resolution and peacebuilding. These missions facilitated ceasefires and political solutions to conflicts, protected civilians when local authorities were unable or unwilling, and helped rebuild post-conflict societies. The efforts of these missions extended to disarming combatants, supporting democratic development, and promoting long-term stability. These successes underscore the invaluable role of peacekeeping in international peace and security.

However, the mandating, resourcing, and potential success of peacekeeping operations depend largely on the cooperation between and among the permanent members of the UN Security Council. As seen during the Cold War period, whenever there was geopolitical tension within the UNSC, the nature and purpose of peacekeeping changed to reflect these tensions.

Two scenarios under which the superpowers allowed peacekeeping missions exemplified the above assertion. During the Cold War, the UNSC was inclined towards the use of peacekeeping as a tool to manage conflicts that were peripheral to the core ideological clash between the East and West, and these were mainly in areas of no strategic interest or with no direct conflict between the superpowers. Missions like UNTSO and UNMOGIP are good examples. This allowed both blocs to support neutral efforts that stabilised troubled areas without worsening the conflict between the superpowers.

Maybe UNEF I represented the second type. It represented a significant case where there was a convergence of interests; the Suez Crisis threatened international norms and trade routes like the Suez Canal, prompting cooperation to reinstate the status quo. Similarly, UNOGIL in Lebanon was a response to a regional crisis where both blocs desired stability over the potential spread of conflict.

Notably, during the same period, conflicts that directly touched on the core interests of one superpower failed to benefit from peacekeeping operations. During the Cold War, the superpower rivalry often resulted in the UN Security Council being unable to authorise peacekeeping due to vetoes or the threat thereof. The geopolitical chess game between the US and Soviet Union sidelined peacekeeping in significant conflicts like the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958), the Tibetan Uprising (1959), the protracted Guatemalan Civil War (1961), the Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961), and the Berlin Crisis (1961), with direct interventions overshadowing the possibility of UN mediation.

While it could be argued that superpower rivalries are a constant in international relations and haven’t historically blocked all peacekeeping efforts, it should also be noted that since the Cold War, the nature of these rivalries has evolved. The ideological split between communism and capitalism has given way to a multipolar world, with economic power shifting towards Asia, notably China. This shift has created a tangled web of interests that influence international interventions.

The military balance has diversified as well, with China, Russia, and other regional powers expanding their forces. Deep economic ties, particularly between the West and China, could promote compromise but also complicate peacekeeping, as economic interests are increasingly at stake. Conflicts now, often involving a mix of state and non-state actors, present new sets of complex challenges for peacekeeping that were not as prevalent during the Cold War’s binary confrontations.

The evolving geopolitical, economic, and military dynamics significantly impact the capacity to mandate and resource peacekeeping operations. Contemporary conflicts are intricate, often involving superpowers that back different factions, complicating the deployment of peacekeepers both logistically and financially.

These challenges are pronounced in Africa, where superpower military support can fuel conflict and hinder peace efforts. Due to the current state of the global economy and the high costs of both people and things needed, it is getting harder and harder to send out peacekeeping missions efficiently. Additionally, the lack of funds and staff makes it even harder to act quickly and decisively.

A good example closer home is the ongoing crisis in Niger, where ECOWAS is learning that things have changed since the days of the interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In Niger, the ECOWAS decision for military intervention to reinstate democracy lingers unresolved, highlighting geopolitical tensions: the West supports ECOWAS, while the East, through clandestine actions, undermines it, driving up intervention costs. This standoff is exacerbated by technology, with misinformation and AI-generated narratives skewing perceptions and serving various international agendas over the interests of Niger’s people.

Therefore, for peacekeeping operations to be effective and scalable, they must evolve or end. To keep superpowers from taking advantage of this change, the UN Security Council needs to be reformed and made more democratic. Regional groups like the African Union also need more power to stop this. There needs to be a focus on political solutions instead of military ones, and a lot of money needs to be put into community-driven peacemaking methods that put people’s needs first.

Concretely, these will take the form of the actualization of the long-standing demands for:

 Reform the UN Security Council: Undertake an urgent reform of the UNSC to ensure representation that reflects current geopolitical realities and implement voting procedures that prevent deadlocks on urgent peacekeeping matters.
 Empower regional organizations: Strengthen the African Union’s capacity for self-led peace operations and provide technical and financial support to regional peace initiatives.
 Prioritize conflict prevention: Invest in early warning systems and diplomatic engagement to address tensions before they escalate and create international frameworks for proactive peacebuilding.
 Focus on political solutions: Facilitate dialogue and negotiation platforms for conflicting parties and encourage inclusive governance that addresses the grievances leading to conflict.
 Invest in community-driven peace: Fund grassroots peacemaking projects that address local needs and train community leaders in mediation and conflict resolution techniques.
 Enhance training partnerships: Develop specialised programmes tailored to the complexities of current conflict zones and establish joint training initiatives with experienced peacekeeping nations.

Without these significant shifts, those shaping peacekeeping policy and practice must brace for the challenge of navigating conflict resolution in a future where the present form of peacekeeping may no longer be tenable.

Author

Dr Remember Miamingi is a co-founder and CEO of Integrate Africa Advisory Services and a former advisor within the Political Affairs, Peace, and Security Department of the African Union.

Dr Miamingi is a graduate of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria, and holds a Master of Laws and Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

About Integrate Africa Advisory Services

Integrate Africa Advisory Services (IAAS) is a leading pan-African consulting firm headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. We assemble a team of African experts, strategists, political and policy analysts, researchers, and communicators, each with significant government and diplomatic experience and specialised knowledge in African integration. Our diverse expertise allows us to offer tailored advisory, research, and contracting services in African Union laws and policies, peace and security, economic integration, and geopolitical strategies.

IAAS’s mission is to empower Africans, African organisations, pan-African institutions, African Union member states, and international organisations. We aim to help them anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and adapt their engagement strategies to maximise the opportunities and mitigate the risks associated with African integration.