Ukraine, Global Conflicts, and Their Resolution

To better understand the global consequences of the war against Ukraine, the Helmut Schmidt Foundation (BKHS) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) have established a “Global Expert Group on Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding”. In this interview, Dr. Julia Strasheim and Tina Blohm explain exactly what this entails and how peacebuilding can succeed in the future. Dr. Julia Strasheim is Deputy Executive Director and Program Director for Europe and International Politics at the BKHS. Tina Blohm is a Senior Advisor for Global Peace and Security Policy with a focus on peace and development at the FES.

What is the goal of the “Global Expert Group on Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding,” and why is this project being launched right now?

Both: Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has significant—but, depending on the context, also very different—consequences for global conflict dynamics and for efforts at conflict resolution and peacebuilding in all regions of the world. We want to better understand these consequences. Furthermore, as a result of the war in Ukraine, other conflicts and wars—whether in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, or Syria—are receiving less attention here in Germany and across Europe. Therefore, our goal with this project is to bring the concerns of experts from these countries into the German and European debate at this very moment.

What key questions should be discussed within the network, and who is the target audience for the project’s findings?

Both: We plan to develop the specific topics in June 2023 during a workshop together with the members of the “Global Expert Group.” But the three central questions underlying our considerations so far are:

• What specific impacts does Russia’s war against Ukraine have on conflict and post-conflict countries, for example with regard to the role of food insecurity as a driver of conflict or military relations with Russia?
• What does the war in Ukraine mean for the future of the global peace architecture and international engagement in other crises and conflicts worldwide?
• Are there experiences and insights from reconstruction and support efforts worldwide that could potentially be relevant for Ukraine as well?

Our findings are aimed in particular at policy makers and experts in conflict resolution and peacebuilding—both here in Europe and, of course, in the countries and regions from which the experts originate.

The members of the Expert Group come from a wide variety of countries, some with very different experiences of conflict. How do you plan to leverage this diversity and identify “lessons learned”?

Julia Strasheim: For me, the very diversity of our network is the first and most important “lesson learned”: measures for conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and reconstruction should always be developed and implemented in a context-specific manner. That is how they achieve their greatest possible effectiveness. What works in one country or region may not work in the next: there are no blueprints for peace.

To this end, it is essential that local experts are heard and can influence the design of measures. At the same time, however, important lessons have been learned over the past decades and in many conflicts worldwide about what can sometimes make a difference. These include, for example, documenting war crimes as early and as accurately as possible so they can be prosecuted later, or creating the conditions even during an ongoing war so that peace processes can take place with broad societal participation.

Tina Blohm: I fully agree with Julia. One lesson from interventions over the past decades is that those intervening lacked sufficient context-specific knowledge and showed too little humility regarding the impact of their own actions. We are focused on deep listening and analysis to find specific solutions.

Yet even specific solutions within a local context are embedded in national and international frameworks that we must understand and, where necessary, change. Furthermore, it is important to uncover blind spots in our own perceptions. Security and peace mean very different things to different people. A comprehensive political-economic understanding of conflicts and conflict actors is therefore essential.

Are there already noticeable changes in the global peace architecture and impacts of the war against Ukraine on peacebuilding measures, and if so, what examples illustrate this?

Julia Strasheim: Last week, I conducted expert interviews for our project in Brussels—and using the example of EU instruments in the field of peace and security, some changes are already becoming very clear. While most of my interviewees emphasized that many changes had already begun before the Russian war against Ukraine, they also noted that the war has accelerated or intensified existing developments. For example, almost every conversation I had touched on the European Peace Facility (EPF), which has been in place since 2021 and through which the EU is now, for the first time in its history, sending lethal weapons to a war zone—that alone is a noticeable change!

Many of my interviewees suspect that Ukraine could set a precedent for the future use of the EPF in other crises and conflicts as well, and they expect the EU to act even more geopolitically in the future. While some interviews also identified opportunities in this—such as the EU becoming better at understanding external influence as a driver of conflict—many of my interviewees see dangers in it. Viewing the situation through a “geopolitical lens” can lead to local conflict dynamics being overlooked or subordinated, and thus, in the worst case, further exacerbate conflicts.

What role can or should the Federal Republic of Germany play in the context of the “turning point” in the field of conflict resolution? Does this turning point perhaps even threaten Germany’s position as one of the strongest supporters of civilian conflict management measures?

Tina Blohm: Germany has always played a very active role in civilian conflict management—many actors abroad view it as a role model and pioneer. To fulfill and expand these tasks, we need resources, expertise, political attention, and the ability to forge new global alliances. It is important that security, peace, and development are considered equally and in tandem.

In a few weeks, the new National Security Strategy will be released, and there will be intense debates about its interpretation and implementation in the context of an integrated concept of security. In this regard, it will be particularly important to keep the full range of conflict management tools in mind and carefully weigh which tool is needed when. Furthermore, with the Enquete Commission “Lessons from Afghanistan for Germany’s Future Networked Engagement,” we have reached a point where we are intensively examining lessons from the past for future foreign and security policy. Here, too, these lessons can point the way forward for approaches to conflict resolution and civilian conflict management.

Originally published on the portal Fokus Zeitenwende: A New Era of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation; questions were posed by Felix Kösterke.