President Donald Trump’s willingness to personally intervene and offer U.S. mediation to de-escalate so many interstate conflicts at once is significant in the modern presidency. His engagement has contributed to some early – albeit tentative – breakthroughs toward peace in conflicts between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia and Thailand, India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. But turning these peace overtures into more sustainable deals will require considered approaches that take advantage of the significant body of peace research and practice that now exists.
Unsurprisingly, the bloody wars in Gaza and Ukraine have eluded Trump’s ceasefire pleas and continue unabated. And in some of the conflicts where certain skirmishes or tensions have eased, such as in eastern Congo, the agreements are fragile and likely to be short-lived if Trump and his administration fail to advance a broader, coordinated strategy to promote peace. Significant advancements in peace research and practitioners’ experience in recent decades make clear that ending war requires sustained, coordinated engagement by insiders in the conflict and a committed coalition of external supporters. The latter can provide smart and varying levels of investment – in funding and politically – to effectively accompany societies moving toward a sustainable peace.
The challenges posed by today’s wars – let alone those on the horizon – are highly daunting. But world leaders are not starting from scratch in trying to foster peace. Researchers have more data than ever before, driving new insights and approaches. They have a much better understanding of the structural and proximate factors that lead to violent conflicts, the most effective (and ineffective) methods for advancing peace processes and agreements, and the components that foster more peaceful, resilient societies over time. Put to use, this knowledge will make Trump’s peace diplomacy more likely to succeed on the ground.
For example, Trump has sometimes called for ceasefires and at other times been skeptical of their effectiveness. As journalist and author Linda Kinstler recently explained, ceasefires have many limitations. The most noteworthy for Trump’s rapid-fire style of high-level agreements among warring leaders is they neither substantially change the dynamics fueling the conflict nor lead to broader, multiple actor supported peace processes. A recent study drawing on the Peace Accords Matrix – the largest collection of related data – underscores that the most lasting agreements have been based on incremental steps and multiple measures building an end to violence.
Six Ways to Bolster Initial Overtures
If Trump wants to achieve lasting wins for peace, he and his team should focus on and put resources into six areas that can bolster, and then solidify, his diplomatic initiatives. These will create greater chances for durable peace – whether in Africa’s Great Lakes region, the Middle East, or almost anywhere else, for that matter.
First, forge credible third-party monitoring and verification mechanisms, backed by multinational forces. Monitoring mechanisms and especially well-equipped peacekeeping forces can increase confidence in ceasefires and lead to broader agreement while addressing inevitable violations. In various past conflict situations, the United Nations and multilateral bodies have deployed teams to play this function. While the administration has proposed severe cuts to U.N. peacekeeping, the evidence demonstrates that U.N. peacekeeping has been especially well-suited and cost-effective in this task. Restoring funding to U.N. peacekeeping operations would help prevent a return to large-scale fighting in places like eastern Congo and be consistent with the administration’s clear statement that the U.N. must return to its original purpose of restoring peace and security. At the same time, other effective third-party options – peacekeepers organized by regions or ad-hoc alliances, for example – could be mobilized. Moreover, there are new opportunities to leverage advanced technologies. A recent, in-depth study examined 18 different technologies, including drones (UAVs), infrasound sensors, aerial platforms, and satellite imagery, to bolster monitoring.
Second, mobilize early “peace dividends” that can rally public support for peace. Beleaguered publics in war zones are rightly skeptical that bargains between elites will make a difference in their lives. Quick actions that yield concrete economic and security benefits, especially across war-affected communities, can instill public confidence and expand political support for agreements. External donors are critical catalysts of early recovery, because national resources or means tend to be limited, at the very least by the effects of the conflict, even if they existed at sufficient levels previously. The World Bank should be prompted to prioritize and to move quickly in supporting peace openings. The challenges with mobilizing external aid to support the opening in Syria, for example, even after Trump moved to lift sanctions, illustrates how difficult this remains.
Third, anticipate and isolate the spoilers who believe they would benefit more from continued war than a stable peace. One of the reasons these wars are so difficult to end is that various unscrupulous actors may profit from them continuing. In Sudan’s vicious civil war, both sides are deeply entrenched in the lucrative, illicit trade in gold. Failure to consider and confront such economic dynamics will undermine promising peace initiatives, as the Congo case also illustrates. Sustainable peace depends on shutting down criminal networks, even if incrementally through negotiation. This also fosters transparency and confidence in the rule of law, key planks of enduring peace. One major U.S. tool, smart sanctions, can be more astutely deployed to both constrain and/or incentivize economic spoilers to engage in negotiations. These instruments of selective mining sanctions, visa denials, financial asset seizure, and prohibiting arms acquisitions can assist U.S. efforts to influence parties toward peace-supporting behavior.
Fourth, support initiatives that begin to bridge societal divisions. As scholar-practitioner John Paul Lederach has explained, effective peacebuilding is ultimately about building relationships, communication, and understanding across divided communities or identity groups – at all levels. This is especially true in places where violence has been fueled by rampant de-humanizing rhetoric, hate speech, and disinformation. Many promising programs worldwide that have supported civil society peacebuilding have been derailed as part of the sweeping U.S. cuts to foreign aid. For example, until the recent cuts, the now-dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supported programs to help Colombia implement its peace agreement with aims such as reducing youth support for armed groups. The cuts not only slashed humanitarian aid to war-torn communities in places like Sudan, but also undercut local initiatives reporting on war crimes and facilitating dialogue across communities. Many local organizations that could play important roles sustaining future agreements now report they could run out of money by the end of the year. Renewed, targeted support of local partners is critical to buttress peace efforts.
Fifth, don’t lose sight of justice. Various peace professionals and proponents, notably the late Pope Francis, have stated: “Without justice, there is no peace.” Documenting and accounting for past human rights abuses and crimes committed during and around violent conflict are essential to help communities move on from cycles of violence. Sustainable peace in Ukraine will require justice for war crimes committed by Russia including, but not limited to, the return of thousands of abducted children. These needs are highly sensitive and often get sidelined in too swift a push to broker agreements. But post-conflict countries have employed many and varied models for transitional and restorative justice. For example, Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission – alongside the work of a special court – helped the country address abuses committed during its decade-plus civil war. Colombia embarked on a wide-ranging transitional justice effort as part of its 2016 peace agreement that included targeted prosecutions for atrocities, truth-telling, and reparations to victims. Each country’s situation requires a different approach, but there is now an extensive body of research that can help point the way.
Sixth, mobilize and re-energize existing institutional knowledge and capabilities to sustain needed engagement. To turn Trump’s peace overtures into sustainable deals, the administration needs a more structured approach that can tap into this substantial body of research and institutional successes that can empower the five areas noted above. As part of the recent U.S. government restructuring, many of the established hubs of this kind expertise – within the State Department, USAID, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and others – have been eliminated. But Congress seems open to supporting new staffing models. The State Department reauthorization bill introduced last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee calls for establishment of a new “center for conflict analysis, planning, and prevention.” Thus, new possibilities are on the horizon.
Conclusion: A Collaborative Approach
To further enhance and sustain these peace efforts, the president and his team should reach out to and seek support from the various university departments, think tanks, specialist associations, and private foundations dedicated to peacebuilding and conflict resolution. This kind of collaborative approach would make the president’s overseas peacemaking initiatives more likely to succeed and serve as a needed balance to the focus on enhancing warfighting abilities. It would provide one worthy cause to bring Americans together at a time when our internal conflicts feel more formidable and dangerous by the day.
