On March 23rd 2020, UN Secretary General António Guterres appealed for a global ceasefire to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This call was initially met with optimism as armed groups in Cameroon, CAR, Colombia, Libya, Myanmar, the Philippines, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen temporarily laid down their arms to facilitate responses to COVID-19.(1) However, in the following months the global crisis has had distinct and significant impacts in conflict-affected countries, for example by widening conflict-related inequalities and overwhelming already weak healthcare systems, which risk exacerbating, and in many cases have already exacerbated, conflict dynamics.
Emerging trends, ranging from militarised health responses to looming economic crises, catalysed by the pandemic and corresponding policy responses in conflict-affected contexts have complicated efforts to secure and build peace. Furthermore, international travel restrictions and shifting domestic agendas of international guarantors have led several peace processes to stall. This clearly highlights limitations in contemporary peace processes, given that their progress and direction depends on the whims of international actors. The COVID-19 pandemic shows us that the building and maintaining of peace should always be, first and foremost, situated locally, resting on localised peace processes and local actors. This is because it is local peacebuilders with established networks who are responsive to the needs of their communities and who are uniquely equipped to coordinate and strengthen responses to the pandemic.
The COVID-19 crisis and changing conflict dynamics
The pandemic itself risks exacerbating conflict-related inequalities and further burdening vulnerable groups within conflict-affected countries. Countries experiencing or emerging from conflict are worst-placed to respond to the pressures COVID-19 places on their already weak healthcare systems and infrastructure. In Yemen, for example, the pandemic has further destabilised a healthcare system which had in effect collapsed after 5 years of civil war.(2)
However vulnerability to the pandemic is not uniformly experienced, and is linked to pre-existing inequalities, often rooted in conflict-related identities which translate into how people can access healthcare and social security to survive. Such inequalities risk leaving marginalised populations more vulnerable to COVID-19 while also entrenching conflict-related identities and fueling grievances - ultimately undermining prospects for peace. In East Jerusalem, Israeli authorities obstructed Palestinian community-led initiatives aimed at tackling the pandemic, and have been accused by Palestinian officials of overlooking the Arab population of East Jerusalem in their pandemic response.(3)
Moreover, governance which excludes marginalised populations from state power and resources, and widespread mistrust in governments are likely to undermine the effectiveness of public health directives, further widening inequalities. During the Ebola crisis, for example, the rapid spread of the disease was linked to deep-rooted mistrust of governments, health workers, and security forces.(4) A study examining the effects of the Ebola epidemic found that outbreaks of violence against authorities increased in areas with low levels of trust towards the state, pointing towards the relationship between health crises and drivers of conflict.(5)
Indirectly, government orders issued in response to the pandemic, such as lockdowns, curfews, bans on public gatherings, and border closures, risk worsening the drivers and underlying dynamics of conflict. These repressive public health measures risk fueling instability and widening social gaps in fragile societies where inequality and precarity are already endemic.(6)
The COVID-19 crisis has offered governments the opportunity to double-down on authoritarian tendencies and carry out grave human rights violations under the guise of their pandemic response – notable in militarised health responses.(7) For example, in the Philippines, President Duterte ordered a “highly militarised response” to the pandemic which, by the end of April, had led to the arrest of 120,000 people, prompting government critics to fear that Duterte was using the coronavirus response as a pretext to declare martial law.(8)
The pandemic has also enabled governments to consolidate power and tighten political contestation, as lockdowns allow for the restriction of political activities. Undoubtedly the looming global recession will hit conflict-affected countries particularly hard with already weak institutions and governance. Food insecurity and income losses generated by policy responses have already sparked civil unrest in Honduras and South Africa.(9)
The risk of worsening conflict dynamics coupled with the public health crisis raises serious questions about the prospects for peace in conflict-affected countries and its sustainability in those emerging from violent conflict.
Precarious peace processes
The COVID-19 pandemic and associated government responses have also had the effect of disrupting ongoing peace processes. Peace processes in conflict-affected countries are usually supported by the international community, and are designed to involve multiple stakeholders both outside and inside the country affected by violent conflict. Peacebuilding initiatives are often described as locally-led, but are in effect guided by international NGOs, consultants, and donor agencies.(10) Restrictions on movement across borders and public gatherings, as seen in the response to COVID-19, risk interrupting and undermining peacebuilding activities.
In South Sudan, after six years of civil war, the peace process has reached a critical yet delicate stage. In the wake of COVID-19 and restrictions on public gatherings, important peace programs and dialogues were cancelled, meaning that community-led reconciliation efforts have been unable to continue.(11) Similarly, travel restrictions have limited the capacity of international missions to support the building of peace. Ongoing diplomatic pressure has been a crucial element of the national peace processes, however, with the pandemic taking hold worldwide, donors are de-prioritising peace efforts as the focus of international guarantors has shifted to their own domestic challenges.(12) In South Sudan, for example, the Rome ceasefire signed in January effectively broke down in late April with the resurgence of inter-communal fighting and cattle-raiding.(13)
It is evident that strategies to respond to the pandemic must display conflict-sensitivity in their design and implementation. But beyond this, the fragility of several current peace processes resulting from shrinking international involvement and investment demonstrates the need for a transformation in how peace processes are currently conceived. The pandemic highlights how they have become internationalised to such an extent that their progress and direction is contingent upon the involvement of international actors, which itself is contingent upon domestic agendas - be it involvement for counter-terrorism or economic liberalisation purposes, or de-prioritising involvement to focus on combating COVID-19. However, more responsibility must be given to national and local actors in the design and implementation of peacebuilding processes, and investments must be made in local opportunities for peace to ensure its sustainability.
Local actors are key
Local peacebuilding actors, who intimately understand the conflict dynamics at play in their communities, are well-placed to effectively address the most pressing peacebuilding demands. This has been particularly pronounced during the pandemic when international peacebuilders are unable to reach these communities and local actors are the primary peacebuilders in communities.
Open and sustained dialogue is fundamental to the success of conflict management, peace, and reconciliation processes. During the COVID-19 crisis, it is local actors embedded in communities who are able to sustain peace processes and maintain relationships with diverse groups, including those who have become more vulnerable or who have been further marginalised as a result of the crisis, such as refugee and IDP populations.(14)
In the face of the pandemic, the international peacebuilding community has the opportunity to re-examine how it works and invest in local channels to build peace that are routinely overlooked. Rather than attempt to broker complex peace agreements remotely, now is the time to invest in local peace infrastructure. Similarly, women, especially young women and girls, should be at the forefront of efforts to sustain the building of peace. Involving women and girls in peacebuilding efforts helps to ensure that attention is given to redressing gender inequalities and addressing gender-specific insecurities. Placing women at the forefront of peacebuilding helps to ensure that women’s roles are not relegated to those deemed ‘traditionally’ acceptable and enables a recognition of the new roles women assume during conflict - as economic actors, combatants, or community activists. Ultimately, peacebuilding efforts cannot be considered locally ‘owned’ if half the population is not actively included.
When confronting COVID-19, local peacebuilders are uniquely equipped to stop the spread of the pandemic and coordinate preventative responses, owing to their established networks, knowledge of community relations, and position as trusted and respected members of the community. Governments or de facto governments in conflict-affected states where violence is pervasive may not possess the level of public trust required to deliver an effective public health response.(15) Therefore, even well-intentioned and well-resourced public health interventions can inadvertently fan the flames of division if they are not adequately sensitive to conflict dynamics.
Experience from the 2014 Ebola outbreak demonstrates that containing an epidemic is challenging when citizens are mistrustful of their government or international actors due to past experiences of state-sponsored violence or colonialism.(16) During the Ebola crisis, it was local peacebuilders who provided communities with basic information about the symptoms of the disease and how people could protect themselves.(17) In communities with limited health infrastructure, local peacebuilders who have long been responsive to the needs of their communities should be recruited by national and international actors as purveyors of public health messages.(18) Furthermore, young peacebuilders, skilled with technology and with creative ideas of how to overcome the challenges of lockdown, should also be at the forefront of efforts to tackle the virus and build peace.(19)
Conclusion
While the Covid-19 pandemic risks worsening conflicts and undermining ongoing efforts to secure and build peace, it also presents an opportunity for the international community to move beyond rhetoric to support the design and implementation of peacebuilding processes that are truly owned by those directly impacted by conflict in communities.(20) Empowering local peacebuilders will not only sustain peace processes during the pandemic and beyond, but will also strengthen responses to COVID-19.
Lorna Wightman
Lorna has been working for a child rights charity whilst reading for her MA in Conflict, Security & Development at King’s College London. She has also been an active volunteer for education, refugee, health, and disability organisations in the past. She is interested in gender and conflict, peace and conflict resolution, and human rights.
Follow her on Twitter: @Lornawightman
References
(12) ibid.
Comments