Mediation should matter for the incoming European Commission

As the European Parliament scrutinises newly nominated Commissioners, a basic question should be front and centre: how will the incoming leadership ensure Europe’s security? What strategy do they have in mind?

In light of Russian aggression in Europe, beefed-up investment in defence and crisis preparedness will be the obvious answer.

But beyond the robust response to Russia’s war in Ukraine, are the Commissioners committed to conflict prevention and mediation as a means to keep Europeans safe? These should be an essential component of a broader EU approach in an increasingly fraught international environment.

One in six people worldwide now live in areas beset by violence, most of them in Europe’s broader neighbourhood. After decades of decline, armed conflict is sharply increasing, as are the numbers of people killed, maimed and traumatised, with children and women paying an enormous price. In addition to the costs of physical destruction, investments are being undermined, and hard-won development gains reversed.

The situation now facing civilians is terrible; we are witnessing repeated, egregious violations of international law and basic norms on a daily basis. The risk of wider conflict is growing — in the Middle East, The Horn and West Africa or along fault lines between the US and China. Armed conflict in the South China Sea or nuclear conflict elsewhere would be catastrophic.

Lasting security needs a different approach

Geopolitical fragmentation, the emergence of new sources of power and the changing nature of conflict are dramatically increasing the complexity of the landscape. Its features include everything from drones to space-based delivery systems, the use of AI and “the weaponisation of everything,” including finance, food, history, identity and information.

EU investment in conflict prevention and resolution is not just in the interests of those most directly affected but of its supply chains, trade and economic relationships — and security. Even distant conflicts already have powerful domestic ramifications, contributing to the polarisation of politics over allocation of public resources, human rights and migration, increasing social tensions and triggering violence.

The EU can help member states by refreshing and broadening its strategy, building stronger partnerships and committing to sustained investment in this space. This will have both practical and political benefits. It is not starting from scratch.

The EEAS has developed approaches to mediation and dialogue, built technical capacity, and through the Foreign Policy Instrument, the Commission is funding a network of conflict prevention and mediation actors. This is premised on the recognition by member states that mediation is cost-effective as a means to prevent, contain and resolve conflict.

This fundamental point is often lost on politicians under pressure to deliver tangible and short-term results to anxious electorates. Defence, deterrence and counter-terrorism capacities are essential but not enough to address the threats posed by states, extremist groups and criminal networks that use violence to advance their objectives.

Lasting security requires something that military and intelligence actors are not typically mandated to explore: political pathways that reduce levels of violence, create space for dialogue and ideally advance peace agreements.

These need to recognise the core interests of the parties, ways to address their grievances, motivations and disputes, and investments that can deliver peace dividends that address the drivers and root cause of violence.

What can a refreshed EU strategy bring?

Each conflict is unique, but most share common features: greed and hunger for power, a sense of injustice, the impact of climate change and ecosystem collapse, inequality, exclusion of women and minorities, and poverty.

Conflicts that end by military means alone often re-ignite, rarely bring lasting peace, and freeze rather than resolve the disputes and dynamics that triggered them in the first place.

A refreshed EU strategy should not only support those willing to explore these issues and take risks for peace, recognising what the EEAS itself does, and what it can advance through partners, both official and civil society, but also map out how the EU’s capacities should be mobilised as part of a broader conflict prevention and mediation approach.

ADVERTISEMENT

Politically, the EU’s brand as a values-based actor committed to peace and human rights will be reinforced by adopting a strategic and principled approach to dialogue and mediation, emphasising its distinctiveness without compromising critical alliances, not least when the US-led West stands accused of having double standards in its application of international law.

This requires a commitment to listening, prioritising conflict prevention and mediation, and deploying its normative and economic clout in conflict-sensitive ways. As with defence and climate change, the EU needs strong partnerships with actors that have complementary capacities and credentials to achieve common objectives.

The danger now is that instead of upping its role in this area, the opposite may happen. Political and financial support for dialogue is decreasing in most European countries, given tight budgets and the prioritisation of defence spending.

This is a false economy, not least given the modest outlays involved in both relative and absolute terms. In 2023, approximately 0.057% of the EU’s GNI was spent on Peace, Stability, and Conflict Prevention.

ADVERTISEMENT

Principled and capable agent for peace

So, as the new Commission team members set out their objectives, they have an opportunity. This could include three steps.

First, the EU should develop a comprehensive conflict prevention and resolution strategy by mid-2025, reinforcing its commitment to peace, drawing on the 2020 Concept of EU Peace Mediation.

Second, a dedicated share of the EU budget should be allocated to supporting dialogue and mediation capacities, partnerships and initiatives.

Finally, a strategic communications plan should be launched to tell the story — the price of conflict, both direct and indirect, the incalculable benefits of conflicts avoided, success stories and the cost-effectiveness of dialogue and mediation, the motivation and activities of the EU, and the value of the work and partnerships it supports.

ADVERTISEMENT

These steps would strengthen the incoming Commission’s standing as a principled and capable agent for peace in an increasingly polarised and insecure world.

Michael Keating is Executive Director of the European Institute of Peace.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.