The New Agenda for Peace: A Bold Vision Stifled by Old Challenges
How the UN's New Agenda for Peace Aims to Reshape Security
The New Agenda for Peace: A Bold Vision Stifled by Old Challenges
Commentary by M. Nuri Shakoor, SRMP-C
At the Summit of the Future on Sunday, September 22, the UN General Assembly discussed the United Nations’ New Agenda for Peace (NAFP), which was unveiled in 2023. With a mission to reform peacekeeping, promote conflict prevention, and eliminate nuclear weapons, the agenda aims to address the world’s most pressing conflicts. Yet, beneath its ambitious vision lies a familiar challenge: implementing these goals in an increasingly fragmented world.
At first glance, the NAFP seems like a comprehensive solution to escalating global conflicts. It promises to strengthen multilateral cooperation, engage in early conflict detection, and shift peacekeeping duties to regional organizations like the African Union. But in practice, the NAFP faces obstacles that threaten to make it another well-intentioned but ineffectual UN initiative. Let’s break it down.
Key Features of the NAFP
The agenda’s emphasis on conflict prevention is its most innovative feature. By utilizing early warning systems, the NAFP aims to detect potential conflicts before they escalate — a noble goal, albeit with significant logistical hurdles. Meanwhile, peacekeeping reform advocates for delegating responsibilities to regional organizations. This is a step in the right direction, recognizing that local groups often understand the dynamics on the ground better than far-removed international bodies. Yet, even this solution is fraught with challenges.
The NAFP also ambitiously targets global nuclear disarmament, a goal that sounds inspiring but feels hopelessly out of reach. In today’s polarized geopolitical environment, major powers like Russia, the U.S., and China are more focused on ramping up their arsenals than reducing them. Lastly, the NAFP’s call for multilateral cooperation reflects the UN’s commitment to fostering global partnerships, but in an era of rising populism and protectionism, how realistic is this?
Realistic Challenges to Implementation
State-Centric Focus
At the heart of the NAFP lies its state-centric focus, which places governments at the center of peace efforts. While this may work in stable countries, it can backfire in regions where governments are part of the problem. Take Sudan, for example, where the government has been actively involved in ethnic violence and suppression of protests. Can we really expect these regimes to spearhead peace efforts? It’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse (source: 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sudan ). This approach, while convenient for multilateral diplomacy, leaves gaping holes in regions where state legitimacy is questionable at best.
Exclusion of Local Peacebuilders
Despite the NAFP’s promises of inclusivity, local peacebuilders — community leaders, NGOs, and grassroots organizations — are often sidelined. This exclusion undermines efforts in regions where governments lack trust and legitimacy. In South Sudan, local peacebuilders have negotiated crucial ceasefires and truces, often in situations where national authorities have failed (source: Crisis Group Report on South Sudan). Ignoring these actors limits the NAFP’s effectiveness, as they are often the first responders to conflict and play a vital role in reconciliation.
Implementation Gaps
While the NAFP promotes ideas like early warning systems, these often remain empty promises due to lack of funding and coordination. Take the African Union’s early warning mechanism, which has been praised for its potential but suffers from chronic underfunding (source: African Union Peace and Security Report). Without the necessary financial backing and on-the-ground support, these systems are little more than wishful thinking.
Limited Adaptation to Modern Conflicts
The NAFP is designed for interstate conflicts, but today’s most dangerous threats come from intrastate conflicts involving militias, rebel groups, and non-state actors. This oversight significantly weakens the agenda’s relevance in conflict zones like Mali, where insurgent groups continue to grow despite state-led peacekeeping efforts (source: UN Mali Overview). The agenda needs to adapt to the realities of these modern, asymmetrical conflicts if it is to remain effective.
Regional Delegation and its Complexities
The idea of delegating peacekeeping to regional bodies like the African Union could be a game-changer. In theory, these organizations are better suited to manage conflicts in their own backyards. But the reality is that many regional organizations are underfunded and overstretched, which hinders their ability to execute peacekeeping missions effectively. For instance, the African Union has struggled to maintain peacekeeping operations in Somalia and the Sahel, where resources are scarce and local dynamics are complex (source: African Union in Somalia).
Impact in the Short, Medium, and Long Term
Short-Term (1–2 Years)
In the short term, the NAFP is unlikely to make significant progress in regions like Myanmar or Sudan, where entrenched government interests conflict with peacebuilding efforts. Local actors will continue their push for inclusion in the decision-making process, but the heavy reliance on state-led solutions will likely slow down any meaningful change (source: UN Myanmar Crisis Overview).
Medium-Term (3–5 Years)
With proper resources and coordination, regional organizations like the African Union could see some improvements in regional stability, particularly in West Africa. However, if the NAFP fails to address non-state actors, its relevance will continue to dwindle. The agenda must evolve to tackle modern conflict dynamics, including the increasing involvement of militias and insurgents.
Long-Term (5+ Years)
If the NAFP can reform its approach and become more inclusive, it has the potential to significantly strengthen global security. But this requires the agenda to adapt to the realities of intrastate conflicts and empower local actors who are often more effective than national governments. Without these changes, the NAFP risks becoming another bureaucratic UN initiative, full of promise but lacking in tangible results.
Evolving the NAFP for Success
The New Agenda for Peace is a bold vision, but it must evolve to meet the challenges of today’s conflicts. To succeed, the UN must embrace a bottom-up approach, involving local peacebuilders, civil society, and marginalized communities in the peace process. This requires not only a shift in policy but also flexible funding mechanisms that empower grassroots organizations.
Additionally, the NAFP must adapt to modern conflict dynamics, where non-state actors and insurgencies play a leading role. Only by addressing these realities can the NAFP hope to fulfill its ambitious goals and truly contribute to global peace.
In short, the NAFP’s vision is sound — but without structural reforms and a more inclusive, adaptive approach, it risks becoming just another line item on the UN’s long list of unmet goals.
Sources:
Summit of the Future: Pact
Impact Analysis and Risk Assessment: assisted by Peacekeeper Insight. A detailed risk assessment is available at newsletter.arac-international.org
Peacekeeper Insight Structured Analysis: Risk Assessment for The New Agenda for Peace (NAFP)
To see the full risk assessment, consider a paid subscription to the ARAC Newsletter. ARAC International is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advocates for global security, human rights, and peacebuilding. A paid subscription is a tax-deductible donation that helps to fund our work and awareness campaigns.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to ARAC International to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.