A “peace mission” of seven African leaders has visited Ukraine and Russia and held meetings with Presidents Zelensky and Putin. Neither side really wants the visit. Ukraine is in the midst of its counter-offensive and would rather make battlefield gains and continue to garner western diplomatic and military support. While Russia welcomes anything that muddies the diplomatic waters, ultimately I suspect Russia wishes that everyone would leave it alone so that it can further bully and dismember Ukraine.
As well as being welcomed through somewhat gritted teeth by Presidents Zelensky and Putin, the African leaders have little leverage. Nor have they much to offer by way of material incentives; they are not going to promise a post-war Marshall Plan. They are not particularly united in that they have varying stances on Russian invasion. Some of the leaders come from countries with dreadful human rights records. The latest Human Rights Watch report on Egypt, for example, is excoriating:
Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government has been experiencing one of its worst human rights crises in many decades … Tens of thousands of government critics, including journalists, peaceful activists, and human rights defenders, remain imprisoned on abusive “terrorism” charges, many in lengthy pretrial detention.
So why is this peace mission important? Its main importance does not relate to Ukraine. Instead, the peace mission has a wider significance for how we think about peace. It can be seen as part of a process of decentring dominant western notions of peace and creating space for more plural notions of peace (or at least practices and ideas that use the term ‘peace’). In the post-Cold War period, western notions of peace have dominated international and institutionalised approaches to peace. This liberal internationalism has been heavily critiqued over the years and has had its share of successes, failures and frustrations. The key point is that the intellectual, material and technocratic motive force behind these dominant approaches to peace have been western. They have used a language of liberalism, and in some cases western military force, to promote (and in some cases impose) a version of peace. The African peace mission is part of a process of upending the western dominance that has mandated what ‘peace’ should and should not look like.
In many ways, western states have abandoned the playing field. US, UK and European enthusiasm for peace processes, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding has waned. Missions to “civilise” Iraq and Afghanistan have failed. Populist leaning publics have little interest in overseas missions that seem to bring home few material benefits. There has been a very significant retreat from the language of peace, democracy and human rights by the US, UK and European Union. Instead the emphasis has been on stabilisation and the erection of hard borders to prevent threats reaching the metropole. The fact that the African leaders’ trip is termed a ‘peace mission’ seems significant. It is a statement that western states and institutions do not own peace and that other versions of ‘peace’ are available.
These versions of peace may differ markedly from what western politicians, policymakers and publics may view as peace. For example, many in the West are appalled at how the Chinese Communist Party has quelled democracy activists in Hong Kong. Many citizens in Hong Kong, however, welcome this as ‘peace’ – or a freedom from instability – despite the repression involved. The key point is that we need to get used to an extended period in which the very nature of peace is under debate. This will be challenging for those used to peace being associated with ideas and practices that are based in Euro-Atlanticist discourse and practices. Put simply, some of the versions of “peace” that are being discussed will seem very removed from established understandings of peace.
It is interesting that both Ukraine and Russia have agreed to host the African leaders and treated them with respect. On a cynical level it could be that Moscow and Kiev wish to spin the trip in a way that suits their own narratives, and are on the market for allies. Or, possibly, there is a recognition that non-western states are serious international players, that alternative voices should be heard, and that we must not always look to Washington, New York or Brussels for initiatives. The fact that Western diplomats talk of “victory” rather than “peace” leaves territory open to others to talk about peace – whether or not that peace is viable or even deserving of the term peace.
The peace mission represents something of a turning of the tables. Most obviously, rather than a European delegation going to the site of an African conflict, we have the reverse. But there is something more fundamental going on. US and European political elites have long expected African leaders to follow their lead and share their analysis of world events. A number of African states have remained unconvinced by western analyses of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A few have supported Russia and more have been neutral. This is significant and signals a wider shift in the international order; the emergence of a pluriversal international system in which the post-WWII and post-Cold War “orders” are in flux. Those “orders” never really worked for many African states so it is unsurprising if some of them see this as a time to speak out. There is nothing terribly radical in the 10 point peace plan they have promoted. It seems like old-school diplomacy rather than something that draws on African lessons on the colonial experience and post-independence journeys. But it does signal that we are in an era of flux when it comes to who speaks for and about peace.
(I am grateful to Kodili Chukwama and Oliver P Richmond for their comments on an earlier draft of this blog)
