Home Blog Page 33

The Challenges and Opportunities of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus

By
Rodrigo Mena Fluhmann, Summer Brown and Sylvia Brown
-
0
Children splashing in water in Idlib, Syria, photo by Ahmed Akacha via Pexels.

In the complex and ever-evolving landscape of international aid, the “triple nexus” — an integrated approach combining humanitarian, development, and peace efforts— has emerged as a strategy for improving response to crises. While the humanitarian-development nexus has long been a focus, the addition of peace as a third pillar has stirred both hope and debate. 

By addressing root causes of conflict and striving to mitigate or prevent them entirely, the approach aims to foster sustainable development while meeting urgent humanitarian needs. Yet, as recent research highlights, the path to integrating peace within the nexus is fraught with challenges that demand systemic and cultural shifts in how aid is conceived, financed, and delivered. Here, we share findings and reflections based on our recent research on this topic.

Why Peace Matters in the Triple Nexus

Since the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the triple nexus has gained prominence as a response to the limitations of traditional humanitarian and development frameworks. Previous models often faltered in areas affected by social conflict, where progress in relief or development efforts was frequently undermined by violence or instability. Incorporating peace into the nexus is seen as essential for ensuring long-term sustainability. But what does “peace” mean in this context? How should it interact with humanitarian neutrality or development strategies?

These questions are not merely theoretical. For communities facing chronic crises, peace is not just the absence of conflict, but a foundation for resilient societies. The triple nexus, in principle, seeks to align short-term humanitarian goals, mid-term development objectives, and long-term peacebuilding efforts in a cohesive strategy. However, this ambitious alignment requires navigating deep-seated challenges in policy, practice, and funding.

The Core Challenges

The inclusion of peace in the triple nexus introduces three primary challenges:

  1. Humanitarian Neutrality at Risk:
    Traditional humanitarian principles, particularly neutrality and impartiality, face tension when peace initiatives are added. Peace inherently involves political processes —peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and peacemaking— that may align with certain factions or state actors. This alignment can jeopardize the perception of neutrality essential for humanitarian access and effectiveness. For practitioners on the ground, balancing these competing imperatives is often a tightrope walk.
  2. Mismatched Timescales:
    Humanitarian efforts are typically immediate and short-term, addressing urgent needs such as food, shelter, and medical care. Development projects, meanwhile, focus on longer-term goals like education and economic growth. Adding peace to the mix further complicates this timeline, as peacebuilding can take decades to yield tangible results. Projects operating under the triple nexus must find ways to harmonize these differing timelines without compromising the urgency of humanitarian action or the depth of peacebuilding.
  3. Funding Modalities and Flexibility:
    Donor funding structures often remain rigid, tailored to specific sectors or short-term projects. Yet the triple nexus demands flexibility to shift resources dynamically between humanitarian, development, and peace needs based on evolving circumstances. Whether responding to a sudden outbreak of violence or a natural disaster, aid systems must adapt, requiring donors to rethink financial strategies. Equally, measuring success across the nexus is challenging; traditional metrics may not capture the interconnected outcomes of integrated approaches.

Lessons and Opportunities

Despite these challenges, the triple nexus also offers significant opportunities to improve aid effectiveness. In Kenya, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, where projects examined in the study were implemented, the nexus approach revealed several key insights:

  • Collaborative Programming: When peacebuilding, humanitarian, and development actors coordinate effectively, their combined efforts can address overlapping needs more comprehensively. For instance, creating livelihood programs in post-conflict areas can simultaneously stabilize communities and provide the foundation for lasting peace.
  • Adaptable Systems: Building adaptable frameworks that allow for the seamless transition of funds and resources across nexus components is critical. Innovative funding models and locally-driven partnerships emerged as promising practices, although their adoption remains inconsistent.
  • Local Engagement: Empowering local actors to lead in defining and implementing peace within the triple nexus is essential. National and local priorities must guide international interventions to ensure relevance and sustainability.

The Road Ahead

The triple nexus is not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor is it without weaknesses. Its applicability varies depending on the context, with protracted conflicts demanding a greater emphasis on all three components. Furthermore, achieving success requires a shift in the international aid system toward more principled, flexible, and community-centred approaches.

As the research underscores, there remains widespread confusion over what peace means within the nexus and how it should manifest in practice. Donors, policymakers, and practitioners must collaborate to clarify these concepts and set realistic expectations. Additionally, the nexus must prioritize collective outcomes over individual mandates, breaking down silos that hinder progress.

Ultimately, the triple nexus challenges us to think beyond immediate needs, envisioning a world where humanitarian relief, sustainable development, and enduring peace are not separate endeavours, but interconnected facets of a unified approach. It is a bold and complex vision, but one that contributes to transforming how we respond to crises and build more peaceful societies.

Keywords: humanitarian, development, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, peace and conflict, donors

Can United Nations Peace Missions Help Forcibly Displaced People?

By
Stefano Costalli
-
0
Indian peacekeepers on duty, protecting aid workers in DRC, photo by Julien Harneis via Wikipedia.

Every year armed conflicts force millions of people to flee their homes. Displacement due to conflicts often persists for extended periods, as violence may endure for decades, making this phenomenon a major security and humanitarian challenge. 

For instance, a huge emergency that is almost going unnoticed on mainstream media is the civil war in Sudan. Since deadly armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF)  broke out on 15 April 2023, over 3.1 million people have fled Sudan seeking safety in neighboring countries, and 8.6 million people are internally displaced. 

Can United Nations (UN) peace missions help forcibly displaced people? I tried to respond to this question in a recent study, carried out with my colleagues Jessica Di Salvatore and Andrea Ruggeri. The idea was exploring whether UN peacekeeping missions help reduce forced displacement during and after civil wars—a global crisis that affects millions of people every year. Forced displacement, which includes refugees fleeing across borders and internally displaced persons (IDPs) seeking safety within their own countries, is often caused by violent conflicts, human rights abuses, and economic instability. While the UN has long been involved in peacekeeping, its impact on displacement has rarely been studied in detail, and anecdotal evidence is often contrasting and ambiguous. 

For instance, In January 2022, Mr. El-Ghassim Wane, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for MINUSMA, claimed that the absence of the UN operation would lead to a worse humanitarian situation in Mali. He said that, despite these challenges, the situation “would have been far worse” without the engagement of the international community, including the deployment of the UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSMA) in 2013. On the other hand, there are examples of newspapers stressing the perceived failure of the UN in the Democratic Republic of Congo, quoting refugee advocates who say that the UN “disarmed more than a thousand rebels . . . but failed to prevent the displacement of nearly a million people, 1,400 civilian deaths and 7,500 rapes.” 

Thus, we decided to take a first global look at the issue, investigating how the size of UN missions, their specific tasks, and the way they are deployed shape population movements.

One of the key findings is that large UN missions play a significant role in reducing the movement of IDPs. By stabilizing conflict zones and restoring local security, these missions make it safer for people to stay in their communities or return home after fleeing. However, the same cannot be said for refugees. In fact, peacekeeping missions may sometimes lead to an increase in refugee outflows. This happens because, as UN missions improve security and infrastructure, they make it easier for people to leave their countries in search of better opportunities or more permanent safety abroad. This unintended consequence highlights the complex and sometimes contradictory effects of peacekeeping efforts.

Available evidence on the relationship between peace missions and displacement also highlights the importance of mission mandates. UN operations that specifically address displacement—such as helping IDPs return to their homes—are more successful at reducing internal displacement and facilitating returns than missions with more general goals. However, these specialized mandates have a more limited impact on refugee movements, as the factors driving people to cross borders, like fear of persecution or lack of trust in local authorities, are harder to address even with robust peacekeeping.

Overall, our research emphasizes that peacekeeping missions need to be thoughtfully designed to tackle the challenges of forced displacement, but the good news is that it is possible to do it. Larger missions with focused mandates clearly make a difference for IDPs, but they don’t fully address the unique difficulties of managing refugee flows. To truly make an impact, peacekeeping strategies must consider the specific reasons people flee their homes, whether they stay within their country or seek refuge abroad. By tailoring their efforts to these distinct needs, the UN can better support displaced populations and help create conditions for lasting peace. Although the UN has not created any new peacekeeping missions in the past decade, well-designed missions could be a valuable tool to help hundreds of thousands of internal and external refugees.

Keywords: United Nations, UN, peacekeeping, peace missions, conflict, refugees, conflict resolutions, internally displaced persons, refugee rights

This Week in Peace #70: February 14

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Flag in front of blue sky, photo via Storyblocks.

This week, concerns rise of Israel-Gaza ceasefire deal collapsing. DRC church leaders call for peace and dialogue with rebels. Trump announces peace talks on Ukraine to start “immediately.”

Concerns Rise of Israel-Gaza Ceasefire Deal Collapsing

Concerns are rising about Israel and Gaza’s ceasefire deal collapsing. This news comes a month into the ceasefire, with Hamas having released 16 out of 33 hostages from Gaza, and Israel having released 656 Palestinians out of a list of 2,000. 

On February 10, Hamas said it would delay plans for a further hostage release set for February 15 “until further notice,” after accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire. Military spokesman for Hamas’s Al Qassam Brigades Abu Obeida accused Israel of, “delaying the return of the displaced to the northern Gaza Strip, targeting them with shelling and gunfire in various areas of the strip, and not allowing relief supplies of all kinds to enter as agreed upon.”

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 11 said that if Hamas does not release the hostages on Saturday as planned, the ceasefire would end. 

This development comes as Jordan’s King Abdullah on February 11 rejected US President Donald Trump’s statements calling for the US to control Gaza, and to resettle Palestinians to other countries. 

It remains to be seen whether the fragile ceasefire will prevail.

DRC Church Leaders Call for Peace and Dialogue With Rebels

Church leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are calling for peace and dialogue following the takeover of Goma by M23 rebels. On February 12, two of DRC’s largest church organizations met with M23 leader Corneille Nangaa in Goma. These organizations were the National Episcopal Conference of Congo (CENCO) and the Church of Christ in Congo (ECC).

Bishop Donatien Nshole, secretary-general of CENCO, said after the meeting that the meeting was, “…an opportunity to … seek an end to the war as soon as possible, because we remain convinced that the solution to this crisis is not military,” as quoted in Associated Press.

Goma residents had mixed reactions to the meeting, with some expressing hope, and others saying the meeting was inadequate.

The Archbishop of Kinasha has also spoken out, saying that “Everyone must agree to sit around the same table and resolve their differences through dialogue, following the African tradition of discussion.”

This development comes after several heads of state and government gathered for an extraordinary joint regional summit between the heads of state of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on February 8. The leaders of the two sub-regional organizations called for “an immediate ceasefire and an end to the fighting.” To read Peace News Network (PNN)’s full report on the summit, click here. 

Meanwhile, DRC President Félix Tshisekedi still rejects direct peace talks with M23. Following the Goma takeover on January 27, Tshisekedi, criticized the international community’s “silence and inaction.” Tshisekedi’s party, the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS), has stood against the church leaders’ peace efforts, saying the leaders should have waited for an official stance from Tshisekedi.

Trump Announces Peace Talks on Ukraine to Start “Immediately”

US President Donald Trump announced this week that peace talks on Ukraine would start “immediately.” Trump made the announcement after holding phone calls with Russian President Vladimir and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump said he had had  a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with Vladimir Putin on February 12, and Zelensky later said that he spoke to Trump about a “lasting, reliable peace.”

Trump later said that he would “probably” meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia to “see if we can get something done.” Trump said that he chose Saudi Arabia as a meeting place due to he and Putin’s relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Saudi Arabia did not immediately comment about this, New York Times reported.

However, Zelensky has warned that no peace deal will be accepted by Ukraine without its involvement. Zelensky added that “Europeans needed to be at the negotiating table too,” and that his priority is “security guarantees,” which he does not see without US support.

Keywords: Peace, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, DRC, Congo, DR Congo, Ukraine, Russia, conflict, conflict resolution

Summit in Tanzania: Towards a return to peace in DRC?

By
Akilimali Saleh Chomachoma
-
0
Young people from the town of Goma on top of a police container attending the AFC meeting in the town of Goma on Thursday 06 February 2025. Photo by Fidèle Kitsa, used with permission.

It’s not every day that this happens. Several heads of state and government gathered for an extraordinary joint regional summit between the heads of state of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on February 8, 2025, to discuss the conflict in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Since the M23 rebel group captured the city of Goma on January 27, nearly 3,000 people have been killed.

Although the outcome is still pending, the leaders of the two sub-regional organizations are already calling for “an immediate ceasefire and an end to the fighting.” What can we expect from peace? 

The summit is a very rare occurrence, because on the question of the DRC, these two communities don’t often collaborate.

“Dar es Salaam seems different from the other diplomatic steps taken by the two parties involved in the war in North and South Kivu [M23 and the Congolese army], with this request for an immediate ceasefire,” says Lucien Sebuke, a journalist based in Goma. Lucien is a journalist specializing in political issues and presents the political column on Goma University radio.

Corneille Naanga, President of the Alliance du fleuve Congo / M23 in a meeting held on Thursday 06 February 2025 in the town of Goma. Photo by Fidèle Kitsa, used with permission.

For several months, the city of Goma has been cut off from the rest of the country by road. The M23’s first decision to ban maritime traffic in the early hours after the capture of Goma closed the only road in and out of Goma. The joint summit then called for the reopening of the Goma-Sake-Bukavu, Goma-Kibumba-Rumangabo-Kalengera-Rutshuru-Bunagana, and Goma-Kiwanja-Rwindi-Kanyabayonga-Lubero road axis. 

Also concerned is the resumption of river navigation on Lake Kivu between Goma and Bukavu. “Let’s see how this is really going to work. These roads are important for human traffic and the transport of food products. But who’s going to secure them? It’s a vast region, and as far as North Kivu is concerned, a large part of these routes is under M23 control,” points out Sebuke.

Luanda and Nairobi have been stalling for almost 3 years

The joint summit has proposed merging the two peace processes currently underway in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): the Luanda process, led by Angolan President Joao Lourenço, and the Nairobi process, led by former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta.
The rivalry between the two communities is one of the causes of the failure of Luanda and Nairobi, according to Daddy Saleh, university professor and political essayist. 

“Up until now, the SADC has supported Kinshasa (the DRC) in its refusal to negotiate, and is helping the government militarily with its forces to recover the territories. Moreover, it has held Rwanda responsible in its communiqués. The EAC, on the other hand, does not support Kinshasa’s approach, but Kigali’s, which states that Rwanda is not involved and that the situation in the DRC is an internal political crisis to be managed through dialogue. This is really what is blocking the merger,” he says.

“Each community trusted its own process and mediator. Nairobi is in the logic of a dialogue with the national armed groups, including the M23, before being excluded after the resumption of hostilities. But Luanda is in the logic of a dialogue between the DRC and Rwanda, especially the conciliation of points of view between Félix Tshisekedi of the DRC and Paul Kagame of Rwanda” adds Saleh.

By merging the two processes, the Dar es Salaam summit faces a major challenge in reconciling these two extremes. The roles of Joao Lorenzo and Uhuru Kenyatta also need to be clarified, and above all the willingness of the two regional communities to make constructive concessions to resolve the problem. “Félix Tshisekedi and Paul Kagame need to show their good will, and SADC and EAC need to tell these heads of state,” says a diplomatic source.

There is hope for peace

“The joint summit asked the heads of the defense forces of the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to meet within five days and provide technical guidance on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and cessation of hostilities,” said a spokesman at the end of the summit.

An ICRC vehicle carrying bodies to the ITIG  cemetery in the town of Goma. Photo by Fidèle Kitsa, used with permission.

Sebuke felt that the massacre in Goma should call on all parties to ensure that nothing like it happens again. “We hope that the human and material damage caused by the attack on Goma will enable the two belligerents to take future decisions that will have less of a negative impact on civilian populations,” he said, adding, “everything must be done to preserve human life, it’s abnormal. Hope for peace will also lie in sanctions against the perpetrators of crimes against civilians in particular. We were very pleased to see that the International Criminal Court wants to investigate these crimes.”

For his part, Professor Daddy Saleh believes that there is hope for peace in the region, particularly with the positions taken to secure Goma, but now is not the time for rhetoric but for action.

A team of ICRC volunteers organizing a funeral for those killed in the Goma attack. At least 3,000 people died during the fighting, according to the United Nations. Photo by Fidèle Kitsa, used with permission.

“The securing of Goma is good news, because Goma needs to be protected, with its millions of inhabitants and internally displaced people. It’s more than urgent because Goma is deprived of almost everything. The more time passes without action, the more problems there will be. This is the major resolution”, he says.

A team of ICRC volunteers organizing a funeral for those killed in the Goma attack. At least 3,000 people died during the fighting, according to the United Nations.

Keywords: DR Congo, DRC, Congo, Conflict, Goma, Kivu, M23, Congolese, Conflict Resolution, peace, summit, Tanzania, Dar Es Salaam

Will Cuts in Development Aid Hurt Peace Around the World? Peace at Risk as Aid and Development Budgets Fall

By
Peace News Staff
-
0
USAID's work in Colombia, a country whose former president praised the organization for its projects there. Photo via USAid Facebook page. Uploaded September 11, 2024.

Experts warn that aid cuts by developed countries risk intensifying global instability and conflict.

It is not a good time for international aid and development. Germany’s most recent budget set out plans to dramatically slash aid and development spending, with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development suffering a budget cut of over $1 billion and humanitarian aid being halved. France slashed a similar amount from its aid budget in its third foreign aid cut in two years. Finland also decreased its official development assistance, following $1 billion cuts by The Netherlands and $282 million cut in Switzerland’s foreign aid. More broadly, the European Union’s member states agreed to a $2.1 billion cut in the bloc’s development budget.

This has only been compounded by the new Trump administration’s freeze on almost all foreign aid. The president has also pushed to dissolve the US Agency for International Development (USAID), with efforts underway to fold the independent humanitarian agency into the State Department. On February 4, the administration prepared for the withdrawal of all overseas USAID personnel, and that very evening agency staff received an email announcing that almost the entirety of them would be put on administrative leave. Later reporting indicated that only 611 USAID staff out of a total of over 13,000 would remain in their positions, although this plan was blocked by the courts on February 7.

Foreign policy and development experts have warned that the U.S.’ retreat from foreign aid in particular will have dramatic negative effects on peoples’ lives and peace across the world. Former President of Colombia Manuel Santos, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his successful peace negotiations to put an end to decades of war with the FARC militia, told The Guardian, “I have seen the massive benefit these programmes funded by USAid have generated for people across the country. To cut it, suddenly, is going to have a terrible humanitarian effect.”

Michael Schiffer, who served as assistant administrator of the USAID Bureau for Asia under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the policy changes in Washington could erode U.S. national security and risk instability around the world, potentially influencing extremism and deepening migration crises.

The Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP), a nonpartisan network of organizations working around the world to end violent conflict, has spent the administration’s first few weeks organizing a response to the aid freeze, as several of its member organizations had their US government funding put on hold or had funding requests declined. In an email sent to members on January 24, the organization said that it recognized that “this is a stressful moment for implementing members.”

On January 29, AfP and other organizations compiled draft talking points on the strategic value of peacebuilding programs. The draft, which Peace News has access to, lists ways in which the freeze has interrupted peacebuilding programming that promoted stability and prosperity around the world, and advanced U.S. national security, political, and economic interests amidst “strategic geopolitical power competition.” 

The talking points added that “while reform is the prerogative of any incoming Administration,” the “chaotic nature of the freeze and potential efforts to dissolve USAID is creating far more harm than good.”

The AfP said that projects to document war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Sudan had stopped, undermining justice and accountability, and that efforts to consult with and train women leaders to help end the country’s civil war had been suspended. Furthermore, the organization also said that the freeze paused a program aimed at helping Venezuelan migrants stay in neighboring South American countries by providing them with work training and housing.

The talking points also said that beyond the humanitarian and peacebuilding consequences of the administration’s policies, there was a risk that US leadership could be undermined, leaving a power vacuum for powers like China and Iran, who “actively try to undermine the U.S.”

On February 5, the AfP released a statement calling the administration’s foreign assistance freeze “a wrecking ball approach that takes away our ability to prevent war and reduce violence.” The statement warned of the potential spread of deadly illnesses, especially in war zones, and of growing violent extremism in the Sahel as conflict prevention assistance is cut down.

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown remarked on how the dismantlement of USAID will contribute to the global aid crisis, saying, “The tragedy for the planet is that US aid cuts come on top of diminishing aid budgets among the world’s richest economies, from Germany to the UK. International aid agencies are now so underfunded that in 2024, for the second consecutive year, the UN covered less than half of its humanitarian funding goal of nearly $50bn – at a time when increasing conflicts and natural disasters necessitate more relief donor grants than ever.”

Peace News’ coverage has confirmed the important role that development and aid play in peacebuilding. In Yemen, humanitarian NGOs have taken on the responsibility of bridging the divide between the rival parties in the country’s civil war. NGOs have acted as intermediaries between the warring factions, and even helped negotiate a deal to provide water services in a city where control was split between rival authorities. This article’s author, Dr. Moosa Elaya, an Associate Professor in International Development and Conflict Studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies in Qatar, noted that NGOs’ ability to undertake such bridging roles depended on “flexible and sustained funding from international donors.”

In a United States Institute of Peace event covered by Peace News, Gloria Steela, a former Acting Administrator for USAID, highlighted the ties between development issues, like food security and the climate crisis, and conflict. “We know today that 40 percent of global land has been degraded, making arable land more scarce and bringing about land conflicts, and this accounts for the long-term civil war in Nigeria, for example, and in many other places,” said Steele.

Dr. Andrea Warnecke, an Assistant Professor at the Institute for History and International Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands, warned that humanitarian and development organizations may not always be the ideal peacebuilders. Their core goals of impartiality and neutrality can clash with the overtly political elements of peacebuilding, and the need to maintain working relations with host governments may hinder their capacity to engage in truly transformative peacebuilding interventions. 

Still, there is a consensus that foreign development aid has an important role to play within broader peacebuilding efforts, and that dramatic cuts in aid across the world during a time of widespread conflict risk undermining global peace. As Brown added in his Guardian op-ed, “We all gain if USAid can mitigate the spread of infectious diseases, prevent malnutrition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan, halt the upsurge of [the Islamic State] in Syria and support a fair, humanitarian reconstruction of Gaza and Ukraine.”

Keywords: aid, USAid, Trump, USA, US, Germany, peace, aid, foreign aid, development, international development, refugees, conflict

1...323334...179Page 33 of 179