The illusion of marking the 2025 International Day of Peace in a world deeply characterized by fragmentations, geopolitical rivalry, cross border insurgencies, internal strife and rising displacement, is paradoxical, writes GBENGA SALAU.

Since February 24, 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, there have been scores of missile strikes all over the world. Over the years, global conflicts have slowly spread with possibility for peace shrunk.

Since the start of armed conflict in the Gaza Strip, October 7, 2023, as part of the unresolved Israeli–Palestinian and Gaza–Israel conflicts dating back to the 20th century, over 64,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, almost half of them women and children, and more than 164,000 injured.

Other global conflicts and crises include the wars and violence in Syria, Sudan, as well as severe humanitarian crises in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Myanmar, and Haiti.

Around the world, lives are being ripped apart, childhoods extinguished, and basic human dignity discarded, amid the cruelty and degradations of war.

In the past two decades, the number of formal peace and security institutions at global and regional levels has expanded significantly. The United Nations, the African Union (AU), and Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) and other regional bodies have each strengthened their conflict prevention, mediation, early warning, and peacekeeping architectures.

However, despite the proliferation of peace promoting instruments by these bodies; crises that include state-based armed conflicts, non-state violence, humanitarian disasters, and displacement, are rising.

As the world celebrates the International Day of Peace on September 21, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has said it is critical for everyone to take concrete action to mobilise for peace.

With the theme, Act Now for a Peaceful World, the UN scribe calls for peace in threatened regions. He said, “from peacekeepers on the front lines of conflict, to community members, to students in classrooms around the world, everyone has a role to play. We must speak up against violence, hate, discrimination, and inequality; practice respect; and embrace the diversity of our world.”

The International Day of Peace was established in 1981 by the United Nations General Assembly. Two decades later, in 2001, the General Assembly unanimously voted to designate the Day as a period of non-violence and cease-fire.

At the 2005 World Summit, UN Member States established the Peacebuilding Commission to help countries recover and rebuild after conflict. To support this effort, the United Nations also created the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund, backed by voluntary contributions from member states.

Then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan called this a turning point in efforts to guide nations from war to peace and to close gaps in the UN’s peacebuilding work.

According to the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), there were 59 state-based conflicts in 2023, which is the highest number since 1946, with 28 of them in Africa alone, nearly double the count from a decade earlier.

This contradiction between institutional proliferation and escalating crises presents a puzzle: why is conflict rising even as the tools for prevention multiply?

In principle, formal peace infrastructures, running from UN mediation efforts and Peacebuilding Commissions to the AU’s Peace and Security Council and ECOWAS’ mechanisms for early warning and intervention, are designed to stop conflict before it spirals.

They are meant to provide structure, coordination, and legitimacy to peace efforts. But in practice, the multiplying safety nets have not prevented the growth in frequency, complexity, and severity of crises.

Communities still live with persistent violence, displacement, and instability. Global indicators tell an alarming story: conflict deaths are rising sharply, global peacefulness has declined year after year, and the economic and social costs of instability are spiraling.

The question is not merely whether peace infrastructures exist, but how and why they are failing to prevent or contain the crises they were meant to avert.

Commenting on the contradiction, the Executive Director of Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Ibrahim Musa, noted that in spite of efforts at global, regional and national levels to ensure peaceful coexistence, to ensure stability around the globe, the world continues to witness and experience violent escalation of crises.

“The United Nations is expected to intervene in some of these international conflicts, but sadly because of the structural deficiency, because of the ineffective structure, because of the manipulative structure that the United Nations operates, it is difficult to ensure that the United Nations speaks with one voice, with a view to ensure that peace, justice are actually attained, especially when there is an economic interest of the power brokers or the countries with the veto powers.

“So, the United Nations operates sadly with this imbalance of countries that are superior to the others. We recall that we have five permanent members in the Security Council and whatever happens, if they don’t support it, it’s as good as just being ignored. You have the US, you have the UK, you have France, you have Russia and China. They all have veto powers, and therefore, anyone can block any intervention or resolution, even in the case of a mass atrocity or clear threat to peace.

“So, countries have in the past blocked resolutions to deal with issues of insecurity in other parts of the world because of their veto powers,” Musa observed.

A pointer to the escalating crisis amid increased peace promoting instruments by UN and regional bodies is the 2025 Global Peace Index (GPI), released by the Institute for Economics & Peace that the global peacefulness has deteriorated every year since 2014, with 100 countries deteriorating over the last decade.

It added that there are currently 59 active state-based conflicts, the most since the end of WWII. Specifically, it stated that in 2024, out of 163 countries: 97 recorded deterioration in peacefulness; 65 recorded improvements; 1 no change.

The Institute of Economic and Peace also revealed that the global economic impact of violence reached $19.97 trillion in 2024, equivalent to 11.6 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with military expenditure alone accounting for $2.7 trillion.

A Professor of History at the University of Ibadan, Tayo Adeshina, noted that there is now a greater tendency to pursue national interests rather than collective security.

The US support for Israel has rubbished the effectiveness of the Mission in Lebanon, for instance. That mission has become severely emasculated. Keeping back financial support has also deprived the missions of more support.

“There is the perpetuation of hierarchy in world affairs. The western powers have used the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to cheat Africa and this has destroyed the confidence of several countries to support such initiatives. Libya was destroyed because of that. See where
Libya, Syria and Iraq are now.”

Similarly, Musa maintained that until the United Nations is actually structured to ensure a balance of representation, at least at geo-continental level, it will be extremely difficult for the United Nations to ensure peace and stability when the need arises.

“We have seen a situation whereby even in the mix of civil war, genocide and crackdown of peaceful protesters, or even in the case of a provocation and an unfair attack on one country, the UN is completely unable to act without the consent of the Security Council approval. And if any member of the Security Council is interested in ensuring that there is instability in that country, they will simply apply their veto powers. So, the UN is not balanced.

“Second, because of the fact that the UN is not having adequate funding, so they cannot operate in isolation. Even the peace mission that they will send is confronted with so many challenges. Sometimes, you have shortage of the troops because the UN depends on the country to contribute to the troops. So, if you have shortage of capable, well-trained soldiers, they may not be able to deploy anything, And if you do not also have the required funding, it will also be extremely difficult for them to operate. So, the big countries can decide not to provide the required resources to the UN, Security Council, and that would jeopardise any intervention the UN will do.

“There are also other challenges that have to do with the fact that the UN itself is full of bureaucracy. If you don’t deal with the bureaucratic inefficiency, a lot of timely intervention will not happen. And we have seen how that has also resulted into jeopardising and threatening human rights. Another issue is the inconsistency within the application of international law.

“A lot of times people actually object or condemn the UN for taking or for doing double standards. In some cases, when it comes to countries that the so-called superpowers have interest, they will simply ignore any resolution. Or they will not impose those resolutions. Several resolutions have been put forward to some countries, but this has actually been ignored. And that really continues to put the credibility of the UN at stake. Because once it is not a Western country that has these veto powers, you will not see any move from the United Nations to take decisive action against any conflict or any trouble that is going on.”

On the role geopolitical power dynamics, ideological contestation, and counter peace actors play in eroding peace structures, a public analyst, John Okafor, stated that geopolitical power dynamics, ideological contestation, and counter peace actors play powerful roles in eroding peace structures through contesting legitimacy, shaping narratives, imposing strategic interests, and undermining inclusion and justice.

To preserve effective conflict prevention, he insisted strategies must adapt to this new reality characterised by multipolarity and legitimacy fragmentation.

“That means more local legitimacy, greater flexibility, engagement with emerging powers and regional actors, guarding norms without rigid imposition, and innovating practice with attention to narrative, inclusion, and adaptive governance.

“As the international order becomes more multipolar, with rising powers challenging the dominance of the liberal international order (LIO), there’s pushing back on what counts as legitimate peace architecture. Some states emphasise sovereignty, non interference, or state security over liberal norms (for instance human rights, civil society participation). This can weaken institutions (UN, multilateral treaties) or constrain their effectiveness,” Okafor stated.

Worthy to mention is that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the number of people forcibly displaced by violence and persecution around the world rose to more than 123 million by the end of 2024 — an increase of around 2 million from the previous year. Globally, about 1 in every 67 people has been forcibly displaced by the end of 2024.

According to UNHCR there are about 42.7 million refugees, 73.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), 8.4 million asylum seekers and about 4.4 million stateless people globally. UNHCR also disclosed that the number of forcibly displaced people globally has nearly doubled over the past decade.

Equally, a forecast by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) suggested that there could be an additional 6.7 million people forcibly displaced globally over 2025 2026, driven largely by worsening conflicts.

Adesina stated that UN peacekeeping missions have floundered on the face of lack of coordination and coherence among the world powers. Okafor noted that powers often support peace processes or peacekeepers when it aligns with their strategic interests, when not, they may withhold support, veto actions, or shift focus to transactional peacemaking rather than comprehensive conflict resolution. “This undermines consistency, credibility, and the ability of peace structures to address root causes,” he observed.

Okafor also said that not all actors share the same understanding of peace, justice, governance. “Some push for liberal democratic models; others for more authoritarian, nationalist, or traditional/traditional religious state forms. When peace architectures assume a liberal template, actors with different ideological commitments may resist, or try to reshape peace processes to reflect their own vision. This creates friction and sometimes subversion of peace norms.

“If the peace framework is negotiated by parties with very unequal bargaining power or external backing, it may institutionalize the stronger actors’ control, legitimize the status quo, or marginalize less powerful or minority actors. Some actors who feel excluded can act as spoilers, undermining peace.”

On his part, Musa argued that it is important to reform the UN to ensure that issues around the flow of the mandate that they have is addressed.
“It is important that we call for reforms of the United Nations, especially the Security Council, Its membership needs to be addressed. Its mandate needs to be reviewed. It has to be precise and concise.

“You cannot be having double standard. And you cannot hide under the fact that you are a superior member of the United Nations Security Council and then you continue to brutally violate even the United Nations Peace Commission. This definitely has to change and has to be addressed.

“Africa is completely neglected in the Security Council. And some other continents, they are equally not having any say. I think it is in the interest of the global peace to ensure that the United Nations Peace Commission is equally restructured to ensure and be given the required mandate to act when necessary, on a timely and on a fairly basis.

“Again, it is important that our countries, especially in the third world, need to see that without peace and stability, there cannot be any economic growth. There cannot be any development. So, therefore, politicians or elite in various countries, especially in Africa, they need to stop sponsoring militia because of their misunderstanding or they are not being given what they want, if they continue to do this, there cannot be peace and we will continue to suffer brutal, violent violation of the rights of our people in various countries in Africa.

“So, the African Union and ECOWAS need to rise up to ensure that whatever that is bringing violence or conflicts in our region are addressed.” On the reforms necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the UN and regional peace commissions in conflict resolution, Adesina stated that there should be a move towards a better understanding of collective security rather than a constant move towards individual national security.

On his part, Musa noted that injustice is one of the major reasons why many times there is the escalation of violence. “We have also seen that tenure elongation is also contributing to some of the problems we are seeing. Brutal, violent violation of human rights, fundamental rights of the citizens, and denial of rights, as well as discrimination, is also one of the reasons why we see a lot of this incident happening.

“Poverty, inequality, unemployment, they are all contributory factors. Again, education. Absence of education is also one of the reasons why you see people are being recruited for violence activities.

“So, it is important that our countries in Africa pay attention to good governance, to rule of law, justice, fairness, and ensure that corruption is not tolerated and corrupt people are not tolerated. There must be genuine democratic election in our continent. There must be respectful rule of law. There must be respectful human rights.

“If we bring all this, we will be able to make the work of even the United Nations easy and simple. If we ensure that each country plays its role to ensure that there is stability both within each country and at regional level, I think we will be able to minimise the kind of violence conflict we are seeing in various countries, especially in Africa. So, for the United Nations to work, we need to fundamentally restructure the Security Council. We need to make sure that there is a regional balance. We need to ensure that the so-called five countries with the veto powers, their veto action must not undermine peace and stability in the world, and they cannot continue to have, but each country must have one vote. Otherwise, the essence of the United Nations is defeated if only five countries are the ones to determine the fate of the world.”

On the limitations of regional peace commissions in preventing and resolving conflicts, Adeshina stated that divergent interests have usually been the biggest obstacles. “See the issues between Ecomog in West Africa and C’ote d’Ivoire’s anti Ecomog stance.”

On ways do internal political dynamics within countries affect the success of peace commissions, Adeshina observed that the weakness of national economies has been a big problem. “In others it is the lack of political will by successive governments.”

For Musa, one of the reasons the world continues to experience escalation of crisis, despite the fact that there are some early warnings is simply because in many countries, leaders don’t take early warning signal serious. “They don’t act timely, they don’t also make effort to ensure that they prevent the escalation of the crisis to violence, because also the truth is that some people benefit from the violence complaints. It is a business for defence procurement.

“It is a business for the fact that once there’s a violence, there will be money that will not be accounted for to spend. So it is about corruption. It is about ensuring that they prolong this problem to violence, because every crisis comes with early warning.

And if you refuse to act on the early warning signal, then it will definitely get out of hands. And that is how some people use this opportunity to siphon money. So we need to make sure that we act on the early warning and early response quickly, as soon as possible, to ensure that we have peace, stability and free of violence,” Musa stated.

He also stated that in cultivating and ensuring peace and stability globally, in the region and at national level, policy framework and institutions that are rooted in justice and fairness is critical. “If the institutions are biased and they do not mean well to ensure genuine peace, those institutions and policies will not be implemented and they cannot really help to address the challenges that we have.

“So having the policy framework, having the institutions that are unbiased, effective, efficient, responsive and responsible on the basis of rule of law, on the basis of genuine peace and stability, I think they will be able to ensure that there is peace and stability in not only globally but also in countries.

“So we need to make sure that these policies and institutions are not meant to also discriminate, to haunt, to undermine, to be doing eye-service. We need to make sure that they function genuinely with the public support and the endorsement.”