Courage the key to ending conflicts

Courage the key to ending conflicts

Are we living in a world with a greater propensity for war and conflict? And as we reflect on 2025, have we seen any moves away from conflict, not least in the Middle East? How seriously is conflict resolution and prevention taken? Or do we have to settle for low-grade conflict management?

The Doomsday Clock managed by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in January shifted its dial to just 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to predicting catastrophe. Can one argue with this? Perhaps. All in all, about 122 million people are currently displaced by war, persecution or disasters — an indication of the impact of conflict.

But the evidence is there. In the Middle East alone, 2025 saw a major Israeli war on Iran that dragged in the US. An Iranian missile was fired at Doha. The chances of another Israel-Iran round in 2026 are alarmingly high. Israel also targeted Hamas negotiators in Doha, a ploy that backfired as it infuriated the Trump administration. The November 2024 Lebanon ceasefire is as good as over. In Gaza, the Israeli genocide has slowed but far from ended. As for Sudan, the country is totally divided between two warring factions, with most Sudanese caught up in a horrendous war that has led to the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

What is driving these conflicts? Climate change is one factor. The economic situation has encouraged certain powers to flex their military muscle. But so many societies are more deeply polarized. A dip into any social media platform usually exposes tsunamis of hate and racism. Far-right and populist movements have both promoted and benefited from this.

A breakdown in the international system has led some to exploit the opportunity, with naked force becoming an attractive option. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been in the lead on this. Under his rule, Israel has bombed five Middle Eastern capitals in 2025.

Who can determine for certain what conflicts have been prevented by diplomatic actions? No doubt some interventions may have helped prevent a worse situation between India and Pakistan. Sometimes, diplomacy serves to constrain but not end a conflict.

How can one discuss the art of peacemaking in this period without focusing on the American president? Donald Trump covets a Nobel Peace Prize and promises to be a leader who gets deals done through his highly transactional approach.

Trump has huge confidence in his abilities as a dealmaker and a peacemaker. The Trump approach to peacemaking is hyperpersonal. He likes to be in the room with the top guys, to look into their eyes. He clearly could not do that with Hamas but, in a major break from long-standing American policy, he authorized direct talks with the group. In his first term, he met with the North Korean leader. So, the American president believes devoutly in face-to-face talks.

A breakdown in the international system has led some to exploit the opportunity, with naked force becoming an attractive option

Chris Doyle

Where he differs from many is that he does not believe in being constrained by the international system, which he abhors, and international law, which he does not recognize. His administration has ignored the International Court of Justice and sanctioned the International Criminal Court. As a result, some international institutions, including UN agencies, are far from flourishing, not least with the massive cuts in US funding during 2025. They may yet be required whatever their detractors argue.

The current White House also has a short attention span and refuses to get bogged down in detail. The Gaza peace plan is very vague and light on detail. This can be both a strength and a weakness. The lack of clarity allowed both Israel and Hamas to agree to it, but at the same time they argue daily as to the exact meaning of some clauses.

Much the same could be said of the 28-point plan for Ukraine. This was another example of Trump’s dealmaking. He can be flexible. Those 28 points became 19 after talks with Ukraine and the major European powers.

But are other powers leaving too much to Trump? Not always. China has brokered a number of deals in recent years. The European powers, meanwhile, look diplomatically inert and divided, therefore largely impotent in terms of fashioning their own peacemaking initiatives.

Two conflicts have triggered widespread accusations of genocide — in Gaza and in Sudan. Both involve massive humanitarian disasters and famine. The international response to both has been uneven and sadly ineffective. Neither Palestinians nor Sudanese have had meaningful involvement in what peace efforts have been mounted.

Palestine is a conflict that should have been prevented, could have been resolved and is not even being managed. Israeli actions in Gaza constitute genocide, one that has only been slowed by the ceasefire deal that emanated from Trump-Netanyahu negotiations.

That 20-point plan, subsequently translated into a bizarre and disturbing UN Security Council resolution, entrenched Israel’s lethal dominance over Gaza. Israeli forces have direct control over 53 percent of the Strip, the only area where there is any chance of reconstruction happening. This will become the equivalent of Area B in the West Bank. Israel remains in control of the pipeline of aid into Gaza, to be turned off or reduced at will.

Tel Aviv has imposed on Gaza a neocolonial structure, including the Board of Peace that will oversee any Palestinian technocratic administration. UN agencies have been reduced to mere distributors of aid, their long-term experience of postconflict situations and transitions ignored.

Palestine is a conflict that should have been prevented, could have been resolved and is not even being managed

Chris Doyle

It was claimed that the plan is comprehensive. It is anything but. It only refers to Gaza and deliberately excludes the rest of Palestine. It was designed to render the Palestinian national movement irrelevant — a long-term Israeli government ambition. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has become a bystander, a status it has barely sought to challenge.

Other powers, both regional and European, have attempted to tinker with this approach but with little success. Those states that will act as donors to the reconstruction of Gaza will have some leverage, as will those that may agree to volunteer military forces to join the International Stabilization Force. They must hold their ground and demand greater Palestinian agency, including over reconstruction, a return to considering the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit and proper accountability for all those who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The US cannot do all the heavy lifting alone. Hopefully, the White House will collaborate with a wide array of different actors. Those with influence over Trump will have to find ways to keep him involved in these major conflicts and develop more strategic patience. Wars are not ended in 24 hours.

Sudan also does not look ripe for resolution. Both the main factions believe they can prevail and therefore see no need to sue for peace. Both are accused of war crimes but the abhorrent atrocities perpetrated by the Rapid Support Forces in El-Fasher in the autumn finally pricked the world’s conscience — a chilling reminder of what happened in Darfur back in 2003. Impunity reigns supreme here, as in Gaza.

In Sudan, external actors are accused of arming these parties and keeping the conflict running. Other actors have not done enough to end the war.

If the international community truly wants to end these conflicts, then it needs to invest time, energy and resources into doing so. A reversion to core principles and rules would be a start. Throttling the amount of arms sent to conflict participants would help. Insisting that those committing atrocities are held to account might act as a significant deterrent. But above all, it requires courage and imagination to return to the diplomatic scene.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech

 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News’ point-of-view