Counter-peace: From isolated blockages in peace processes to systemic patterns

Abstract

In the face of the current decline or spectacular collapse of peace processes, this article investigates whether peace has become systematically blocked. It investigates whether the ineffectiveness of an ‘international peace architecture’ (IPA) can be explained by a more potent counterpeace system, which is growing in its shadow. It identifies counterpeace as proto-systemic processes that connect spoilers across all scales (local, regional, national, transnational), while exploiting structural blockages to peace and unintended consequences of peace interventions. It elaborates three distinct patterns of blockages to peace in contemporary conflicts across the globe: the stalemate, limited counterpeace, and unmitigated counterpeace. Drawing on the counterrevolution literature, this research asks: Have peace interventions become the source of their own undoing? Which factors consolidate or aggravate emerging conflict patterns? Are blockages to peace systemic enough to construct a sedimentary and layered counterpeace edifice?

The international dynamics of counter-peace

“…Hence, the combination of unresolved conflicts, domestic backsliding, alliances between authoritarian leaders and shifting geopolitical spheres of influence render stalemates both escalatory and a powder keg for wider international conflict. In this respect, the current Ukraine war is a visceral reminder of how local tensions can be manipulated by an external counter-peace force to escalate conflict through the three patterns of our typology (Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022).…”

“…Previous research has identified three prevalent counter-peace patterns (Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022): the stalemate, the limited counter-peace and the unmitigated counter-peace. Stalemates patterns of counter-peace occur in frozen conflicts in which violence has been proscribed but inter-group tensions persist unabated (Smetana and Ludvik, 2018).…”

“…This tendency may be exaggerated further in the limited and unmitigated counter-peace patterns. They tend to demarcate a fluid spectrum of violence in which conflicts might shift, often escalating from the former to the latter (Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022).…”

“…This has allowed quasi-states or revanchist forces to consolidate as ‘fierce states’ (e.g. as in Egypt after 2013, Belarus after 2019 and Burma, Chad, Mali, Sudan and Guinea since 2021) (Heydemann, 2018; Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022). Blocs within the rising multipolar order have already developed competing practices (Lewis et al, 2018) to counter the IPA.…”

“…This paper builds on previous research, which elaborated three stable patterns of internal blockages that have been obstructing peace processes across the globe (Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022) and in increasingly systematic ways. Drawing on the counter-revolutions literature, we have described these as 'counter-peace' patterns, defined as emerging from tactical and 'proto-systemic processes that connect spoilers across all scales (local, regional, national, transnational), while also exploiting structural blockages to peace and unintended consequences of peace interventions' (Pogodda, Richmond and Visoka, 2022). Similar to the concept of counter-revolution, 'counter-peace' does not necessarily manifest itself as the opposite of peace (i.e.…”