Progressive Realist Peacemaking
A new strategic priority for UK foreign policy?
At the Fabian Conference in February 2024, David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, committed a future Labour government to “progressive realism” in its foreign policy. The approach, in Lammy’s words, would focus on “making practical, tangible progress with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” In accepting the reality of the modern world, without sacrificing a desire to improve it, he argued the approach would “combine the best of two great Labour traditions: the commitment to realism of Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary who gave us NATO; and the commitment to progress of Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary who put principle at the heart of foreign policy.”
This paper argues that a renewed focus on conflict prevention and resolution sits neatly within that framework. Preventing and resolving conflict requires accepting the messy and dangerous reality of the world as it is. But it also means engaging in the pursuit of a better one.
Less conflict doesn’t just serve those who live in conflict zones, producing marked improvements in their quality of life, opportunities for prosperity and respect for their human rights; it also delivers direct benefit to Britain itself. Conflict zones are fertile ground for terrorist groups, arms smugglers and human traffickers. Conflict itself produces mass displacements and refugees, some of whom will make their way to Europe, but many of whom will relocate regionally with often destabilising results. Such destabilisation produces adverse economic headwinds, contributing to global price increases and inflation. Conflict resolution and prevention efforts also provide Britain an opportunity to demonstrate our value and relevance to our allies and partners on the world stage. If Britain and like-minded states cede this ground, it will be filled by less principled actors, such as Russia, that may wish the UK harm and produce political settlements which are against our interests.
Since the end of the cold war, an increasing number of civil wars have ended through negotiated settlements. In many of these conflicts, Britain - often working through the UN and other peacemaking organisations - has played a central role in efforts to find a peaceful end to the violence. These successes reflect our national assets. The UK retains a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the main global body tasked with preserving peace and security. We are central to many of the most important ‘mini-lateral’ initiatives designed to resolve conflicts, from the International Contact Group in the Philippines, to the Troika in Sudan, and the Quint on Yemen. UK citizens and civil society organisations also play an outsized role. Jonathan Powell, whose foreword introduces this paper, was a key figure in the Northern Ireland peace process and supported the Colombian peace process at a critical juncture - and he is one of many.
However, over the past decade the UK’s prominence in these areas has diminished. In part, this reflects a reset following a decade of spectacularly costly failures of state-building. In Afghanistan, the Taliban swept back to power after 20 years of military occupation and efforts to impose Western norms. The conflict in Iraq has caused upwards of 200,000 civilian deaths. The civil war in Libya transformed the country into a failed state, a hotbed of terrorism and a human trafficking hub. These disasters will continue to constrain the impetus towards similar engagements in the future.
Conflict resolution and prevention activities produce demonstrably positive results at a far lower human and economic cost than other forms of intervention. Without mediation, the significant declines in armed conflict since the end of the cold war would not have occurred. A recent UN report catalogued some 300 significant results in 35 countries achieved by UN-led conflict resolution interventions, “including increased trust in government, improved social cohesion, lower levels of violence, increased capacity to peacefully prevent and resolve conflict, the inclusion of peacebuilding in public policy and durable political settlements.”
Conflict resolution
The next decades will be marked by growing geopolitical tensions and the threat of great power conflicts. This will inevitably absorb much of the international community’s attention. But behind the headlines, many lesser-known conflicts are likely to degenerate into regional conflagrations that will be impossible to contain if left unaddressed. The evidence suggests that conflict resolution is a cost-effective, high-impact means of responding to such threats. But this is only true when supported by strong commitment and long-term engagement by would-be mediators.
This paper argues that the UK could play that role once again. Such an approach would require high-level political leadership and a bold commitment to long-term engagement, in spite of setbacks and, in some cases, public opprobrium. Committed engagement requires diplomats and special envoys empowered by their governments to talk to every party within a conflict, including unsavoury actors. Mediation often requires engagement with authoritarian regimes and non-state armed groups. While these peacemaking efforts seek to uphold fundamental rights and principles, the agreements that are reached often fall below western standards of human rights, good governance and democracy. Resolution and mediation initiatives inevitably attract criticism and therefore require a willingness to weather political storms.
An incoming UK government committed to conflict resolution would be presented with the opportunity to determine where Britain’s greatest comparative advantages lie. This could include moral and historical rationales, as well as economic and security considerations. As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), the UK will play a leading role in addressing high-profile conflicts, as it has done in Ukraine (and to a lesser extent in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). However, there are other less headline-grabbing contexts where increased UK engagement could deliver outsized international and domestic benefits because of our specific mixture of interests and capabilities. This paper suggests that application of those principles could justify strengthening UK efforts in Yemen, Libya and Sudan and a more active role in Ethiopia and the Sahel. In all of these countries, the UK could play a strong role in assisting their emergence from conflict and ensuring that new regimes are more accountable to their citizens.
This paper also argues that an incoming government should take an ‘all-of-government’ and ‘all-of-nation’ approach to conflict resolution and prevention: leveraging capability and experience from across government, academia and civil society. Scotland and Northern Ireland provide positive examples of the peaceful resolution of constitutional disputes, as well as examples of the successful management of diversity and sectarianism. The Treasury, the Bank of England, the National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility provide a vast reservoir of knowledge on financial regulation and economic oversight, containing crucial, but often overlooked, foundations for stable government. The UK’s security services and military are models of respect for human rights and the rule of law. The British judiciary and legal profession remain the global gold-standard. If the next UK government were to marshal these resources, they could play a central role in building a safer, fairer world.
Preventative diplomacy
As recent events in the Middle East have made clear, responding to conflicts once they erupt is too late. Proactive, rather than reactive, engagement is vital. A 2015 report from the UN Secretary General noted that “international conflict management and resolution mechanisms have been stretched to breaking point. We now face real limitations in mustering more resources — funds, troops and political capital — to deal with the consequences of armed conflict. We urgently need to change our approach, broaden our set of tools and relieve the pressure currently placed on our emergency responses. Prioritising conflict prevention is by far our most pragmatic and cost-effective option.”[10] The cost-saving of such preventative efforts has been estimated to be between US$5 billion per year - if most initiatives are unsuccessful - to US$70 billion per year - if more interventions are successful.
As in conflict resolution, the next government could choose where to act based on a hard analysis of comparative advantage and capabilities. The UK’s long history of representative democracy, legal traditions and institutions mean that we are particularly well-placed to work with partners on the development of good governance, which often preempts conflicts. Democratic and representative government, working for the benefit of all citizens, remains the best bulwark against violence, instability and unrest. A UK conflict prevention strategy could focus particularly on supporting the restoration of democracy following unconstitutional changes of regime and the resolution of electoral disputes in unconsolidated democracies.
There has been a resurgence in military coups in Africa since 2020: eight African nations have had at least one successful coup in this time. Military coups not only produce lower growth and worse development outcomes in the longer-term, but also lead to greater risks of conflict, insecurity and instability. The recent coup in Mali has led to a breakdown in the 2015 peace agreement, ushering in renewed fighting in the north of the country with members of the Tuareg minority. The resultant instability produced by military coups harms populations and directly affects UK economic and security interests, whether by creating propitious grounds for terrorism and refugee flows, hostile environments for UK businesses, or installing governments closely aligned to our enemies. The UK’s conflict prevention strategy could therefore also focus on helping to prevent or rolling back such unconstitutional changes of political regime.
A new government could also focus its efforts on preventing the violence and instability which often follows elections. Seventy-six countries around the world are scheduled to hold elections in 2024 (though not all are democracies). Several of these are in a state of conflict or have recently emerged from civil wars, including Mozambique, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In some countries, such as Ethiopia and Ukraine, elections have been delayed due to conflict. In other countries, such as Venezuela and Libya, mediation efforts are underway to allow for a fairer and more peaceful vote to take place.
Identifying risks of electoral violence and opportunities for conflict prevention should be at the heart of UK foreign policy in fragile democracies and British diplomats should be better equipped to undertake these initiatives. However, the development of such an approach would require a bolstering of the relevant thematic and geographic expertise within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), as well as more flexible mechanisms to allow the rapid deployment of personnel.
Britain’s hard-won reputation for competence, fair play and respect for international law has taken a severe hit over the last decade. An increased focus on conflict resolution and prevention – based on a sober view of where the UK can make a genuine difference – offers huge opportunities to restore this reputation. Engaging with a troubled world as it is, without ever falling victim to fatalism, this is the very definition of what David Lammy has called “progressive realism”.
