The post-Cold War era of institutionalized peacemaking, anchored by multilateral organizations and shared norms, is giving way to a more power-politics-driven approach, according to senior analysts. In a Foreign Policy analysis, Comfort Ero and Richard Gowan argue that while the old model has waned, influential capitals are still actively seeking to end and avoid conflicts—but now through direct, often self-interested, negotiations rather than through established international frameworks.
In a world marked by rising great-power competition and the erosion of trust in multilateral institutions, the practice of peacemaking is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Writing in Foreign Policy, experts Comfort Ero and Richard Gowan contend that the post-Cold War model—characterized by UN-led mediation efforts, adherence to international law, and broad-based peacekeeping missions—no longer commands the same authority or effectiveness. Instead, they observe, key states are increasingly resorting to bilateral diplomacy, coercive bargaining, and strategic leverage to resolve or contain conflicts.
The shift reflects deeper structural changes in global politics. The United Nations Security Council, once the primary venue for authorizing peace operations, is often paralyzed by divisions among its permanent members, particularly between the United States, China, and Russia. As a result, regional powers and ambitious middle powers—such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or even the European Union in certain contexts—are stepping into the fray, offering their own mediation services, often with distinctly national interests in mind.
Ero and Gowan emphasize that this is not a retreat from peacemaking per se, but rather a redefinition of it. Today's peacemaking is more transactional, more focused on immediate geopolitical gains, and less concerned with achieving comprehensive, long-term settlements. For instance, recent ceasefires and diplomatic breakthroughs in conflicts from the Horn of Africa to the South Caucasus have been brokered by individual nations, not by international organizations. These agreements are often fragile, reflecting the interests of the mediators as much as the parties to the conflict.
The analysts also note that while the old model is fading, it has not entirely disappeared. The UN and regional bodies like the African Union still play important roles in conflict prevention, humanitarian access, and post-conflict stabilization. However, they now operate in a more contested environment, where their authority is frequently challenged by powerful states. The implications are profound: peacemaking is becoming more ad hoc, less predictable, and more dependent on the whims of powerful actors.
This evolution carries both risks and opportunities. On one hand, it may enable faster, more flexible responses to crises, bypassing cumbersome multilateral bureaucracy. On the other hand, it risks producing settlements that favor strong parties at the expense of weaker ones, undermining the principles of justice and inclusiveness that were central to the post-Cold War peacemaking architecture. As Ero and Gowan conclude, the era of peacemaking as a neutral, rules-based enterprise is over; it is now a domain of power politics, for better or worse.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Direct impact on conflict zones: The shift to power-politics peacemaking means that civilians in war-torn countries may face agreements that prioritize great-power interests over local needs, potentially leading to less stable peace.
- Broader erosion of multilateralism: The decline of institutional peacemaking reflects a wider trend of weakening international norms and institutions, which affects global cooperation on issues from climate change to trade.
- Unpredictable outcomes: As peacemaking becomes more ad hoc and driven by individual states, the international community loses a central coordinating mechanism, making future conflicts more difficult to anticipate and manage.
Background
For much of the post-Cold War period, peacemaking was synonymous with the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the UN Security Council gained new authority, authorizing a wave of peacekeeping missions and mediation efforts in places like Cambodia, the Balkans, and Sierra Leone. This era was characterized by a belief in the primacy of international law and the possibility of neutral, technocratic intervention to resolve conflicts.
However, the failures of the 1990s—most notably in Rwanda and Bosnia—eroded the legitimacy of this model. The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, conducted without Security Council approval, dealt a further blow. In recent years, the rise of China and Russia has fractured the consensus in the Security Council, while the United States under various administrations has shown skepticism toward multilateral engagements. Meanwhile, conflicts have become more protracted and complex, involving non-state actors and regional proxies, making traditional UN mediation less effective.
The transition has been gradual but unmistakable. The 2020 Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States, sidelined the UN entirely. Turkey’s mediation in the Russia-Ukraine grain deal and Saudi Arabia’s role in Yemen peace talks exemplify this new trend: powerful states using their leverage to shape outcomes, often outside formal multilateral frameworks.
Key Perspectives
[UN and multilateral advocates]: They argue that institutional peacemaking remains essential for legitimacy and sustainability. While acknowledging its flaws, they warn that abandoning the multilateral framework will lead to a "law of the jungle" where powerful states dictate peace terms, leaving weaker parties without recourse.
[Great powers and regional mediators]: Countries like the US, China, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia see power-politics peacemaking as more efficient and aligned with their national interests. They contend that the UN is too slow and politicized to address today’s fast-moving crises, and that direct diplomacy yields quicker results.
[Critics and civil society]: Human rights organizations and conflict experts caution that the new model often prioritizes stability over justice, allowing war crimes to go unaddressed and entrenching inequalities. They fear that peace agreements brokered by self-interested states may collapse once mediator attention shifts elsewhere, leaving conflict to reignite.
What to Watch
- The next test case: Watch how the international community handles a major conflict outbreak, such as a renewed escalation in the Middle East or the Horn of Africa. Will the UN take the lead, or will individual states step in? The response will signal the balance of power.
- UN reform efforts: Any serious push to restructure the Security Council or strengthen the Secretary-General’s mediation role could indicate a revival of institutional peacemaking. So far, prospects are dim.
- Success or failure of recent mediations: Monitor the durability of ceasefires and agreements brokered by regional powers (e.g., in Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Sudan). Their collapse would strengthen arguments for a return to broader, more inclusive processes.