Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Prevention: Obstacles and Opportunities

Preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention and other forms of preventive action intended to stop armed conflicts before they escalate to widespread violence are the subject of intense debate. And despite their elevation to a norm in the United Nations, challenges include coordination and quality control, nuanced decentralisation of preventive action, and availability of evidence. Recommendations include: align conflict analyses to local understandings and terminology; begin a dialogue on coordination of preventive action; and research drivers of peace separately from drivers of violence.

Drawing from recent high-level consultations on the topic, the article identifies recurrent obstacles to preventive action:

Coordination and quality control: While the diversity and heterogeneity of new players may offer some exciting innovation, it also produces challenges of cooperation and mutual awareness. A common complaint among officials, civil society representatives, religious leaders and activists in countries affected by chronic collective violence is of being invited to an endless array of workshops, courses, and conflict resolution forums. The highly variable quality of the conflict prevention ‘community’ has also generated negative feedback.
Decentralisation of preventive action: Progress in decentralising preventive action to the regional and local levels has yielded successes but also undermined the likelihood that conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy will occur. For example, regional institutions tend to primarily concerned with the interests of their member governments and not necessarily non-state actors.
The evidence base for preventive action: This remains weak and unlikely to improve in the short term.

However, stakeholders that are fragmented can be better coordinated. The presumption that regional or national entities are inherently better at conflict prevention than international actors can be nuanced, and analyses of past experience and political arrangements can show where a regional or sub-regional body may be effective and where either international or local strategies may be warranted. Specific recommendations include the following:

Share but don’t align conflict analyses: While sharing of conflict analyses can help distil possible interpretations of a violent conflict, aligning perceptions could result in generic and potentially flawed analyses. More dispersed analysis might increase the likelihood that someone will ‘get it right’.

Align conflict analyses to local understandings and terminology: Overly intellectual and prescriptive studies of violent conflict causes may have analytical value but may not be as useful to mediators on the ground that are dealing not only with objective factors but with the local framing of those issues. Local narratives and connotations are crucial to grasp in any conflict analysis or form of preventive diplomacy or conflict prevention.

Research drivers of peace separately from drivers of violence: Understanding the drivers of peace, which are as contextually rooted as the drivers of conflict, is crucial for preventing conflict recurrence or for establishing conditions that make conflict unlikely even amidst periods of political, social or economic turmoil.

Study the micro-determinants of success in preventive action: While it is unlikely that researchers will be permitted to observe, document and publish the factors which lead to a successful mediation effort, they could study subnational and local conflict resolution and prevention activities to understand what does and does not work.

Begin a dialogue on coordination of preventive action: The range of actors involved in preventive action is too diffuse and fragmented for any coordination body to step in and impose a degree of order. However, a trusted stakeholder could facilitate discussion of questions such as the following: Do you believe there is a need for increased coordination? What institution or set of institutions should host such a coordination mechanism? What would be its purpose and goal? Who should be included and excluded? How should sensitive information be safeguarded?

Ensure sufficient and flexible financing for preventive action: The formation of a dedicated, multi-donor trust fund for preventive action which disallows earmarking for pet countries or projects could present one way forward.

Summary