Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s suddenly gotten very quiet. Thank you. Comfort, it’s great to have you here. It’s great to see everybody here. It’s nice to see some familiar faces. I was saying to our friend, guest, frequent collaborator, Dr Comfort Ero, who is President of Crisis Group, one of the leading, if not the leading, NGO focussed specifically on conflict, war, crisis, I was saying how it’s really hard in January to come back, and you see people and you just want to say, “Happy New Year,” and, you know, and unfortunately, that’s not the kind of event, and it’s certainly not the kind of report that you’ve produced.
You’ve produced this, you said, since 2012. It’s a very important contribution. It focuses our minds on many of the things that many of us, many of you in this room and online, think about on a very regular basis and – but it does that nice thing of taking us below the radar to things, conflicts where people are losing their lives, that shouldn’t be below the radar. But we know that, for very, you know, bad reasons, I guess good reasons, they sometimes are, there’s a lot of global attention on Ukraine, on Gaza, on the United States and China. But you have ten, those three are obviously part of your ten, but you have ten, so there are seven that get far too little attention and so, it’s an incredibly important report.
I just want to say a couple of things about it before we talk about this. Headlines, just so that you’re aware, and you probably are aware. We spend a lot more time at Chatham House, I think, talking about the fact that democracy and global freedoms have been in decline for 17 years, it’s – sort of, the Freedom House is one of the measures, and so, we think a lot about that. But we perhaps say it less than you do in your organisation that war in on the rise. It’s been on the rise since 2012, after a decline in the 1990s. Those two things go together, but the number-one factor that is correlated with human rights abuses, a form of freedom, is ongoing violent conflict, war. So, you know, they’re not entirely aligned, but there is a very strong correlation, so it should be obvious, but it’s not necessarily what we always think about.
A couple more datapoints. I was looking up some other related reports. PRIO, which is another one of the big conflict – sources of statistics on conflict, it noted that “In 2023, more civilians were killed due to airstrikes, bombs and artillery than any other year in the prior decade.” In 2022, there were more state-based battle deaths than any year since 1984.” The number was around 204,000. And something that you say in your report, which is not a very optimistic report, but perhaps we all do need a really clear dose of realism, you said, “The prospects for the year ahead, this is – I have – you know, [subheading – 05:09], “The prospects for the year ahead,” quote, it – “Today is mostly about stopping the worst. The best that we can hope for is muddling through.”
And why is this? In part, you say that “Mediation and diplomacy aren’t the real problem. Geopolitics are the problem, the tension between the West and” – on the one hand, “Russia and China,” on the other hand. That conflict, when it is being solved, isn’t being solved, as it so often was, not always, you know, to the highest standard, but it’s not being solved through negotiated settlements and mediation. It’s being solved because one side wins. Even those things that are named peace settlements are, basically, a recognition of power triumphant. So, it is a grim report, Comfort, but thank you for once again launching it here at Chatham House so that we can have the conversation with you.
So, before we get into perhaps talking about some of the conflicts, and maybe we should start with at least one of them that you are deeply expert on that’s below the radar, Sudan, we’ll come to that, could you say how you choose these ten? ‘Cause you know there are many, and I’ve just taken you through some of the, you know, the datapoints on deaths, but there are many just, you know, wars, violent conflicts, international and civil, and you have to choose ten to focus on. How do you – what is your metric? How do you choose the ten?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, thank you, thank you, once again, for – to Chatham House for launching the “Ten Conflicts to Watch.” We never publicly talk about the “Ten Conflicts” until we’ve launched it at Chatham House. So, that’s – it’s a testimony to the relationship that we’ve built with you and also, it’s really great to see many people in the audience and some friends.
How do we choose it? I mean, you know, if you gave our Analysts, you know, a blank sheet of paper, they would come up with a lot – a long list, as well. So, I mean, there’s no science behind it. It’s an art, but it’s also – the reality that we face is that we struggle each year to boil it down to ten, and it’s never easy. I mean, there are – there is a criteria, it’s our criteria and it varies. It’s not a list of ten deadly conflicts, it’s not a predictive list, so that, you know, nobody’s going to score us at the end of the year. It’s about what we believe are the things that you should watch, for various reasons. It could be for the, sort of, the human toll, the humanitarian consequences, the humanitarian fallout from a crisis. It could also be because that’s what we are, an early warning, signalling keep an eye on this, either because there’s a lot of opportunity for peace-making, despite what our overview says, or that we see a reversal in the situation or we see a stalemate. It could also be that we do see issues around, you know, the violations, egregious violations that you talk about.
So, it’s really, in the end, about what our Analysts, whether from Latin America to Asia, to Africa, tell us are – “These are the things that we fundamentally believe.” But it is – I really want to underline it, it’s about things that we see that we think you should watch, they’re worth watching, so the things that we flag the international actors should watch.
Although it says “Ten Conflicts to Watch,” you know, we do – we – in the last few years, we’ve also done, to, sort of appease people like you, Leslie, to come up with things that we hope for. And some of the countries actually in the “Ten Conflicts,” we put some of them in there because we hope that there’s an opportunity or because we see an opportunity for movement. A good one, oftentimes, that we’ve often put on there was Haiti, for example, because we – and we see hope in relation to the fact that Kenya, in the midst of, you know, the threat against peacekeeping, you know, Kenya stood up and said, “We will,” you know, “help in Haiti and we’ll deploy an international force there.”
So, it is a list about, you know, things to keep an eye on, things to watch, because we fundamentally believe there may be progress, there may be backsliding and, because you said it yourself, because the geopolitics, the international arena, the international system, multilateralism itself, is going to harder or is not working and, for this reason, this conflict becomes more difficult, as well.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
There is a strong theme running throughout the paper of, you know, the failure of leadership, and you do – once you get into the cases, you can see that the failure of leadership also operates at the local level, at the national level. But there is a lot of attribution to, you say the West, but obviously, there’s a lot said about the US. I actually quote, you say about the US “is more nuanced that when we frequently hear.”
Dr Comfort Ero
And what you said in your view.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But maybe we can start with Sudan, ‘cause it would be good to get some of your insights on some of the conflicts and Sudan is something that you’ve written about, and foreign policy as well, as you, yourself, you’ve certainly worked on it. You work – you’ve written about it in this report. And again, like Nagorno-Karabakh, like Sudan, there – it’s just difficult to get the bandwidth from the international community.
So, to go to your – one of your core claims in this report, that it – the – a big facilitating factor or the vacuum of international leadership, that it’s a geopolitical problem rather than a problem, necessarily, of diplomacy or mediation, how does that playout in your analysis of the conflict in Sudan? Is this about a failure of, you know, the global powers, or is it geopolitics at a local level? Is it fail – it’s obviously a failure of mediation and diplomacy to be successful, but how do you approach that conflict in the report?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, it’s all those things that you’ve mentioned. You know, when you have to start mediating the Mediators, then you know you have a crisis, as well. And so, it’s been a very messy diplomatic effort to try and get the two belligerents, the Rapid-Support Paramilitary Force, who were supposed to be the coup-proofer, against the previous President, and then you’ve got the Sudanese Armed Forces, as well. So, I mean, both belligerents in this crisis see this as an existential threat to them. It is a matter of survival, but the reasons for which they went to war about the future, you know, particularly of the Rapid-Support Force, whether it will integrate itself into the military, those facts, the fundamentals haven’t changed and how we begin to address those issues, I think, is the conundrum.
Now, it’s not – I mean, I’d like to nuance this notion that, you know, diplomacy is not working at all. There is – in certain conflicts, it’s non-existent. In certain conflicts, we see no scope, no room for peace-making. There have been efforts in Sudan. The problem is that they’re competing interest. The problem is that each different actor has a different notion of how they see Sudan, what Sudan they want and their own definition of stability, as well. You’ve got enablers on one side, who have a very different view, and enablers who are providing weaponry, who are providing material, who are giving life to both sides. You’ve got other actors, wider international actors, who traditionally played a leading role, the United States, particularly, who’s either been very squeamish, very worried about the outcome, or doesn’t have the bandwidth or the capacity to play a role.
And then you’ve got the region itself which competes within itself, so that’s the mini geopolitics, competes with itself, has a different view of what stability looks like, you know, the traditional allies that you would rely on, Ethiopia and Kenya, are competing for what they want. But we saw something happen significantly towards the end of last year, when the regional body, IGAD, after, you know, failed efforts at Jeddah with the US and Saudi Arabia wasn’t really getting us to the necessary next step. We saw the region step in, and there were conversations there about a cessation of hostilities, both Hemedti and Burhan made some commitment, unconditional movement to hostilities.
How do we hold them to the fire? How do we get them to the table? You’ve got to make sure that all the key actors in this process, not just the fighters, but those who are enablers, those who are great powers, those who have traditionally played a role in Sudan and who are vital to making sure the glue sticks, making sure they’re all in the room to do the hard work of diplomacy. And that, I think, is the real challenge. It’s getting everybody on the same page to stand there and work with the region, because it’s not as though it’s all lost. But, you know, you threw a number of facts, Leslie. 12 million people have been killed in Sudan, 19 million children are out of school in Sudan, eight million have been displaced and we are on the eve of hunger and famine, as well. So, it’s pretty grim and if that doesn’t give you a sense of urgency, then I don’t know what we’re doing here, but that is the reality.
There is scope. We’ve seen opportunities for diplomacy, we’ve championed it when we’ve thought it was going somewhere and we’ve cautioned when they – when it’s going in the wrong direction. And it’s going in the wrong direction, which is why it headlines our “Ten Conflicts” and which is why, soon after the “Ten Conflicts,” we dedicated a special statement to what is at stake, not just for Sudan, but for the wider region.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Let me ask quickly the audience a question. How many of you have been, you know, relative to the amount of time you’ve spent thinking about conflict, how many of you have been following Sudan?
Dr Comfort Ero
Oh, well, there’s your answer.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Which is not – look, it’s not a critique of our audience…
Dr Comfort Ero
No, no.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…it’s a reality, and so…
Dr Comfort Ero
It’s a reality, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…let me ask you a bandwidth question, ‘cause, you know, we all saw the interview where Joe Biden said, and I think it was, you know, really with respect to Ukraine and Gaza, not Sudan, but he said, “We’re the United States of America, of course we can do all of this.” Do you think that the bandwidth question is a political question? Do you see it as a resource question? Do you think it’s always been that the world isn’t paying enough attention to Africa? I guess, my question is, do you think it’s a real issue or do you think that it’s a – you know, certain things, because of their position, because of where they sit geopolitically, do you think it’s a real issue or do you think it’s just, you know, endemic?
Dr Comfort Ero
No, no, I mean it’s not – I don’t think it’s because there’s no – you know, that Africa doesn’t matter, ‘cause it does, you know. I want to avoid that usual scramble for Africans, but it’s there, it’s a significant player and a number of the actors, they know it, as well. But you spoke about bandwidth, you talked about the capacity. I think we’ve missed an opportunity when Blinken was in the region. That was a moment, also, for him and the US and Saudi Arabia to, sort of, rethink their own approach to Saudi – to Sudan. They were both in lockstep at the very beginning, you know, bringing the various parties to Jeddah, but there’s a sense in which Washington became wary of the Jeddah process and then started looking elsewhere.
But also, I think there’s something specific about US bureaucracy, the White – what the White House thinks and what the State Department thinks, specifically in Sudan. Now, traditionally, and this is why I don’t subscribe to the notion that Africa doesn’t matter, the US has always deployed the highest level Envoy on Sudan on the Horn of Africa. This is probably the first time in the history of Sudan that we haven’t seen this, kind of, dedicated Diplomat doing the shuttle diplomacy, cajoling all the actors in the way that we have traditionally seen in the past. You remember the Save Darfur, you remember that the high-level, you know, concentration of minds in the Security Council. You’ll remember that people were making claims of genocide and there were real concerns about the human rights violations and atrocities, and it was America that was the driving force of a lot of that, whether it was the Diplomats or civil society or others.
That’s what’s missing today, at least for the Americans. You know, you’ve got the White House and the White House doesn’t want to get caught up in a tussle with the State Department in terms of how it wants to, you know, playout its own actions in Sudan. Europe itself is missing in action, feeling that its nose was put out of joint because it wasn’t involved in the initial talks that led to Jeddah. And the region itself, the African Union said it wanted to play a role. It came up with this idea of a core group of people. We said, “International actors, back them, support them, let the region lead,” and the region didn’t pick up the baton, the AU didn’t pick up the baton.
So, you can see it’s a cacophony of different actors, and I wouldn’t put the blame on one particular actor, but the US was always pivotal, which is why I start at the US and end with the US as a key driver of things going forward.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you. Let me ask you the question about – we’re going to talk – the audience is going ask you – I am going to bring us to Ukraine and to Gaza, but let me ask you the question about middle powers, ‘cause it’s another really interesting part of the report. And one of the things you say is, you know, one of the trends, one of the things to watch is the role of non-Western, I believe you say, non-Western middle powers in playing a role in conflict management, mediation. I’m not sure that – how you conceptualise that and what term you apply, but can you say more about that and that as a trend, what is its consequence? Is it a – is it – have we seen real impacts and, if so, you know, where do you locate those?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, I mean, it’s so interesting, because it’s not as though they’ve just arrived, these countries that we talk about, and most people, when you ask them about middle powers, I mean I don’t know who’d come in your list, Leslie, but for us, the ones that we mentioned in the paper, and it’s not exhaustive, Brazil, for example, I mean, they’re – they tend to be, you know, powerful in their regions, you know, the countries that I would want, sort of – would put under that label or the – or various people have put in under that label. So, Brazil, an important player in its own region, a number of us – a number of people were, you know, were happy to see that Lula, who believes in internationalism, international corporation, came back onto the international scene. South Africa, as well, and I’ll – you know, I can come back and talk about South Africa. You know, Turkey, as well, an important player. The Gulf countries, India, I know you have a – strong views, there, Leslie.
And so, these are some of the countries that are judged to be middle powers, and, you know, they – you know, we’ve gone from they’re rising, they’re playing assertive roles, you know. Before we talked about emerging powers, these countries have emerged, they’ve been relevant for quite some time, particularly in their region. Sometimes, it didn’t have consequence, but today it has consequence because of the way in which you described the opening of our piece, because the major powers themselves are either themselves complicit, compromised, I think a number of people have, sort of, woken up to certain realities about the contradictions or double standards, if you wish. Although, quite frankly, and if you’re going to be in the business of international politics and you’re looking for consistency, then you’re wasting time. So, when people talk about double standards, take a deep breath, I mean, there’s nothing consistent about, you know, a lot of diplomacy and people pick and choose, especially when national interest is driving you.
But they’ve played an interesting role. I actually don’t – I think there’s a – both a positive story to tell about middle powers, there’s also a worrying story. I think it’s complicated multilateralism, but it’s also made it very interesting as well, it’s made it transactional, but it also means that, you know, there are more people who have a, you know, a claim and a stake in a crisis. There are more people who are instrumental and who are vital to certain outcomes.
I think it’s very hard to conceive, for example, of a solution to the Sahel without thinking about, you know, Europe, without thinking – despite what is happening in the Sahel and without thinking about West Africa and ECOWAS in that. And same – similarly, it’s hard to think about a solution towards Myanmar, which we mention in the “Ten Conflicts,” without thinking about China’s role, but without thinking about the ASEAN countries. And these countries are vital in an increasingly multipolar world, where it’s not just the US and China or Russia, but there are other, you know, actors that are key to resolving a crisis, as well. And, you know, it just makes it more democratic, regardless of what we think about the various actors, as well.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It certainly gives, you know, a sense of more options. They aren’t always good options or equally complicated…
Dr Comfort Ero
Not always good options, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…and political but there are more options, which is sometimes a less stable world.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I wanted to say something about your sidenote which is it’s – it is a long sidebar for most of the world, the, you know, the inconsistency point. And it – I think it becomes a problem when it becomes paired with the hypocrisy critique, right?
Dr Comfort Ero
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s not so much – if – usually, it’s the US, there are plenty of states that are inconsistent, but we tend to talk about the US. If there was, you know, a statement that said, “We are going to be inconsistent, we are going to” – and then you have your list, but the time when people seem to get very upset is when they hear, you know, one thing said, it’s the hypocrisy, and another thing done. “We believe in democracy, human rights, da-da-da,” and then selective…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And so, it’s that – and it is interesting, ‘cause, you know, you, sort of, wonder, should there be a rule, you know? Should states – should the United States actually be explicit in its intentions? And to a certain extent, it is about its priorities, but it doesn’t make a rule about whether it will not push the values agenda, and I think that’s what creates a lot of the blowback.
Dr Comfort Ero
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But I once sat in an audience at SOAS and it was during the Global War on Terror, and it was a conversation on inter-Americanism, and somebody in the audience said, “Actually, we liked it when America did hypocrisy. What we really don’t like is when they’re just, kind of, going “torture’s okay.”
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Can you go back to the old world and get rid of those torture memos and just say, “No, actually, it’s not okay,” and if you’re going to do it, do it below the rad” – I mean, it was quite an interesting conversation, but the sidebar.
Let’s come to, very quickly, a couple of things before we open it up to the audience, ‘cause I know that you’ll have a lot of things to say. But I, kind of, wanted to draw our attention to where you take your analysis of the future on the two conflicts that do dominate the global conversation, for very important reasons, Ukraine and Gaza. And it’s interesting that even a lot of people who focused on Ukraine have felt like Ukraine is not getting the attention that it needs because of Israel and Hamas and atrocities and killings in Gaza now. So, in Ukraine, you seem to be sceptical on any idea of negotiations, advocating, or at least saying that the idea of backchannel communications is good, and beyond that, what is your – where do your colleagues and yourself see the future?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, I’m glad you picked up on the, sort of, the backchanneling, and it’s interesting because I think in the last – even before the end of the – as we came to the close of last year, the headline in The New York Times and elsewhere suggested that Putin would entertain some kind of negotiation, and it’s not as though that’s a new idea. I think that becomes very difficult for Zelenskyy, it’s almost, sort of, political suicide how he messages that and communicates that back home.
I – you know, a year ago, the – a year on since I did the “Ten Conflicts to Watch,” Ukraine was on the top of our list, I think, last year, but it’s a very different reading today. You know, Ukraine has, sort of, become a political football now in Washington. I think there are real concerns about locking in the aid that’s necessary. You said something interesting in your piece in foreign affairs, Leslie, about the role of Europe.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I have to say foreign policy for…
Dr Comfort Ero
Sorry, foreign policy, sorry, yeah, yeah, Foreign Policy, and that’s important…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
You were saying, yeah?
Dr Comfort Ero
…in foreign policy, where you noted that Europe, too, has to step up, as well. That especially – well, we don’t know what the outcome is going to be in the US, but the message has already been given to Europe about, “What I would do if I became President,” Trump, for example. And, you know, you put a lot of, sort of, burden on Europe as well, and I think that’s important. I think we’re talking at the moment where there are real question marks also about Europe’s own capabilities to ensure, beyond the rhetoric, that it can get the ammunition, that it can get the weapon to Ukraine, as well.
There is that concern also and Zelenskyy’s own disappointment when he went to Washington, he wasn’t hearing what he wanted to hear. He realised that he was – that the environment had fundamentally changed, both within Congress and even within Washington. Biden’s own language from, “We’re here with you all the way,” to, you know, to, I can’t remember the nuance, like, “Possible support for you.” And it raised a number of alarms, both for him, but also in Europe and it’s – I think it’s the first time in the conflict that we’ve seen a little strain, or more of apparent strain between Ukraine and its allies.
And meanwhile, on the other side, you see the Kremlin sitting tight, looking rather confident. I think, also the Gaza/Israel has added to that sense of which, “We’re fine, the West is under strain,” a lot of bandwidth issues for the West. Putin has been very astute, very good at pivoting the economy to a wartime economy, consolidated after Wagner, as well, and he’s waiting, and – to also see and trying to assess whether Trump will come into power. And meanwhile, it’s a very bleak winter for Ukraine and the sense in which Russia’s attacks will target, you know, the various cities and do more harm to Ukraine.
So, the picture is not good this time round for Ukraine and it was Ukraine’s own Minister of Defence who talked about the stalemate, as well. So, even the Ukraine is beginning to see. But nonetheless, look, this is a country that remains resilient, has a very clear sense of what the outcome ought to be and anything that, you know, that encroaches further on its own territorial integrity, I think, is what would be a hard, sort of, pill for Ukraine. So, those negotiations, the key issues, key fundamentals, still remain the same about the integrity of Ukraine going forward.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Do you, as an organisation, Cris – I mean, the report is heavily analytical, it’s heavy empirical and analytical and it, kind of, assesses, you know, the direction of travel and it’s, sort of, light touch, but it’s there on perhap – I don’t know if advocacy is the right word, I guess my question is…
Dr Comfort Ero
Sure, hmmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…do you consider – do you take this and do you – you know, do you take it to European Governments and the United States and advocate for a particular path forward and if so, what is it that you advocate for on Ukraine?
Dr Comfort Ero
Well, I mean, for – I think on the – well, on Ukraine or any of the conflicts, I mean, when we have our headline about the crisis of peace-making, there’s another headline that is not necessarily in there. But as I, sort of, sit back, Leslie, and try to, sort of – when I was thinking about, sort of, the key messages that I would walk away with as I reflect upon what this year could look like, I mean, for me, this is a year of waiting dangerously. Everybody is waiting for when the next war is going to be. What are you going to do about it? I mean we’ve got 50 or so elections. We know the ones that are going to be dangerous and everybody’s waiting. When is the next – when’s the foot going to – the shoe going to drop on the other foot?
But what about the hard work of doing diplomacy, of dialogue, of prevention of – and this is, in a sense, it’s warning you, it’s also shedding the light on things to keep an eye on. It’s also telling you what the opportunities are, but rather than, sort of, a year of living dangerously on the edge, when’s the next black – sort of, black swan, it’s also saying, “There are possibilities here for you to work on.” Whether it’s an idea of, you know, getting back to the truce in Gaza, thinking through what an interim arrangement could look like for Gaza, thinking through what governance could look like in Gaza. Thinking through how you begin to get – even if it’s backchannels, begin to think through about a negotiated settlement for Ukraine that keeps the inter – the territorial integrity of Ukraine. How do you do – how do you get the belligerents with Burhan and Hemedti to the table to commit to what they – they uttered the words themselves around “unconditional.”
So, to answer your question, yes, because Crisis Group exists to come up with political solutions. That was a mandate for my own predecessors who told us that “Your job is to find the political will.” So, it is an advocacy tool. We go into the room and make that case for why we think that this is the direction in which you should take to help shift the dial, to help think through how you get through, you know, the horror that is in Myanmar, for example. How do you now think through – I mean, I’m talking to you, Leslie, on the eve of one of the most critical elections of this – the 50 or so that are taking place in Taiwan. There’s a delegation that is going to go out, at least, announced by Biden, that’s going to go out soon after the elections. What does that mean? What is the message that you’re carrying to Beijing to lower the temperature? What are you saying? What is the message that you’re going to carry to Taiwan? Is it also going to also be that we’re going to take a more measured approach? You talked about a reset in San Francisco, you talked about military-to-military corporations, but how are we going to guarantee that to avoid any miscalculations? So, yeah, it’s advocacy and, yes, it’s about finding solutions to all those issues.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
That’s – it’s important and I will say, before we open it up now, that, you know, it’s a tricky balance when you talk about Hamas-Israel, Israel-Palestine, Gaza. You say that the violence is likely to continue and will more likely be the death, that’s not quite the word you used, but the end of any political movement towards a two-state solution than the reverse, and…
Dr Comfort Ero
But we do say that there’s a way out, and I think that really has to be the most important thing that everybody takes away. In every one of the conflicts that we outline, there is a way out. There is an opportunity that are – there’s a scope for movement, even if it’s tiny. The point is to seize, you know, the door is always there, the point is to seize and to work for it. Sometimes we’re ahead of a curve, Leslie, in terms of thinking on these issues, and sometimes the timing doesn’t work for the various actors, but the point is that there is – that every single one of these cases, as grim as a situation is, it would be a remiss for Crisis Group not to offer you a way out. And every single one of the cases in here, offers you some scope, offers some opportunities, despite the headline of a crisis of peace-making and a year of just waiting dangerously for the other shoe to drop. We offer you a way out from that. Yeah, we will – yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And I did see – and it is, it’s really – it’s worth reading, ‘cause it – and I think that – I guess in Gaza it’s extended ceasefire…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…short-term.
Dr Comfort Ero
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And then there’s a question mark about governance.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, hmmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But let’s come – and we have a lot of very thoughtful, knowledgeable people in the audience. I’m going to start with you. Please say your name and any affiliation you’d like to share, apart from Chatham House.
Terri Paddock
Should I wait for a microphone or just shout out?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah, there’s a microphone coming, just here in the front and then, we’ll come over here. So, one and one.
Terri Paddock
Hi, I’m – is that on? I’m Terry Paddock, Chatham House member. Forgive me, this is such a basic question, ‘cause I haven’t seen the report yet. You’ve referenced several of the conflicts, but could you just list the ten and how much has – have they changed since 2023?
Dr Comfort Ero
Do you want to – are you going to list it?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
No, you have to list them. You did the report.
Dr Comfort Ero
I mean, would you want me to list them? I was looking at it as it’s like a school exam.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Overall, it’s a good one.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, it’s a good one, right? It’s always a good exam, as well. So, Gaza, yeah, so it – Gaza-Israel, Israel-Gaza, the wider region, that is the Middle East.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, that’s two.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, that’s two. Sudan, Ethiopia.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Dr Comfort Ero
Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Myanmar. What else haven’t…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Did you say Ukraine?
Dr Comfort Ero
So, I said Ukraine, yeah, I said Ukraine.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, the rest…
Dr Comfort Ero
So, I said Haiti.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…you’ll see online.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s available online.
Dr Comfort Ero
It’s online.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’m going to be friendly, but if this was…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…my postgraduate class, I’d be less friendly.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
There was a question right here, yeah, there you go, hand up.
Dr Comfort Ero
So, you asked if it changed…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Sorry.
Dr Comfort Ero
You asked a question. So, it’s quite funny ‘cause I was looking back at 2012, and two…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
When you started?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, and Myanmar is on there and Israel-Iran is on there. And the last few years, Haiti has been on there deliberately, ‘cause I think we’re just worried about gangsterism, criminality. But then, you know, this opportunity that Kenya has decided, in solidarity with the region, to step in and say that it’s willing to help think through a resolution for Haiti with the support of international actors.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
US-China is also there.
Dr Comfort Ero
US-China, thank you.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It feels like a slightly, you know…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, not…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
The gentleman here.
Domenic Carratu
Yeah, Domenic Carratu, individual member of Chatham House. As Leslie kicked off, it’s not a very cheery way to start the New Year, it’s very salutary. So, I think a great discussion so far. To keep it, sort of, fairly short, obviously a year of elections and there is all this conflict or whatever, and again, as you just said, the situation is getting worse. So, a two-or-three-part question. Taking just the UK and the US election, do you think defence or security is going to be a big electoral item? I can’t see it being on the agenda, even, in the UK. I’m not sure in the UK.
Secondly, you mentioned about the fact that US has stepped back a bit, or whatever. We seem to have moved away from the immediate post-war order. Is the Security Council still fit for purpose in 2023?
Dr Comfort Ero
That’s a whole other session.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Before you get onto that, I’m going to add, ‘cause there’s an online question from William Higgins, who also asks the question about the UN, “What role should the UN be playing in this absence of peace-making, building diplomacy? Is the UN, and especially is the Secretary General, still seen as a legitimate conduit for peace-making and diplomacy?” So, two similar…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, hmmm hmm.
Domenic Carratu
The third and last part, then I will shut up, I promise.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Oh.
Domenic Carratu
I work in environmental markets and climate change is clearly the big issue. Is it by comparison? I don’t see it gets a look in.
Dr Comfort Ero
You know, for the first – let me deal with that last question first. For the first time in Crisis Group’s, sort of, doing the “Ten Conflicts,” we actually put climate change down in 2020 as something to keep an eye on. I mean, if – look, if this list was longer, and it will never be longer than ten, you can imagine that an existential crisis that knows no borders, that is transnational in its nature, would feature. But we also – but we put it down on our list of hope because we came out of COP 28 unexpectedly for the announcement on loss and damage, as well, so there was something, and Crisis Group, you know, we were proud to sign the Declaration on Relief and Recovery. It’s the first time that, you know, the issue of peace and conflict-affected countries was put on the Declaration. So, we put that down as something to hope for, as well.
We will be here all day if you’re trying to get me to answer a question about the Security Council and whether it’s fit for purpose.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But all legitimacy questions, you know…
Dr Comfort Ero
And legit – I mean we did, you know – we, you know, Chatham House, we’re partners in crime with Chatham House and three other – two other…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Two other think – yeah.
Dr Comfort Ero
…institut – think-tanks in trying to think through about the future of multilateralism as well. And I actually don’t think that all is lost, because at the end of the day, despite the brittleness of the – and despite the fact that we criticise the UN, despite the fact that a lot of criticism has been made against the SG, everybody lands up there. Everybody still ends up in the chambers of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
You know, even the – that last effort at the Resolution that the US abstained on, before the end of the year, on Israel-Gaza, you know, you could see that the US itself felt that its own legitimacy needed to be assured by going through that, by going through and coming out of it, you know, even with the abstention. You know, they’re not walking away from the UN, but, yes, there – I think there’s a lot to be said about the performance of the P5 and of the SG, but it’s also the SG at this time has actually been the voice for a number of – you know, for the 20 million who have died. Who else is talking about the famine? Who else is talking about the ramifications? Who else is talking about what’s going to be left of Gaza? It is the humanitarian actors and it’s the UN, it’s Martin Griffiths, it’s all those agencies.
So, if you define the security – if you define the UN through the lens of the Security Council, the picture will always look pretty grim, but look at the agencies. I mean, at the time that you veto a resolution, who is driving the white trucks into Gaza? It’s the UN, so…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
There was even…
Dr Comfort Ero
…you know – yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
You know, there was even something to the fact that you have to veto…
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…or abstain and everybody knows you’ve done it, which is…
Dr Comfort Ero
Which has – yeah, hmmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…you know – that – I mean, imagine pure silence. Pure silence is much more dangerous, I think.
Dr Comfort Ero
You asked about the UK. I mean, from a UK perspective, look, it’s an affordability question as well. I mean, I – is there money left in the bank to even think about defence, given all the other priorities, as well?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Peter, and we have – and, please, introduce yourself.
Peter Watkins
Yeah, Peter Watkins. I’m an Associate Fellow here and I did spend far too much time in the Ministry of Defence. Could we just go back to Ukraine and something, I may have – I may be slightly misquoting you here, but I think you said something like, sort of, “trying to find a settlement which respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” I mean, I don’t want to be too bleak, but I cannot imagine the Russians giving up a single inch…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah.
Peter Watkins
…of what they’ve occupied, whether Crimea or in the Donbas.
Dr Comfort Ero
Hmmm hmm.
Peter Watkins
And looking at, you know, Russian statements in the round, I think there’s no indication really that they’ve given up their objectives from the 24th of February 24 last – 2022. So – and yes, there have been hints about backchannels and all the rest of it, but how can we be sure, and how can you be sure, that it’s not just frankly disinformation?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah.
Peter Watkins
It seems to be working if you look at what the Italian Defence Minster said yesterday.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah.
Peter Watkins
So, just, you know, partly with respect to Ukraine, but more broadly, how does your organisation make sure that you don’t inadvertently and for the best reasons, or your own reasons, sort of, amplify what is actually, you know, quite mischievous misinformation by some of the parties involved in these conflicts?
Dr Comfort Ero
Oh, I completely agree with you, and it – and in the chapter on Ukraine, we’re pretty clear, and also, from – since the invasion, we’ve been pretty clear that whatever negotiations take place, what is not up for grabs is Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Now, how you get to negotiated settlement, keeping those two things intact becomes very difficult and I think we’re in for a projact – protracted stalemate. And as I said, underlined, I think it would be – you know, Zelenskyy himself knows it. He can’t take that message to a society that hasn’t given up the fight, that insists on reclaiming those territories and has said to Europe, and to the US, “With or without you, we are going to continue fighting.” So, I mean, we’re pretty clear in the statement that, you know, any kind of settlement must keep that – those objectives intact, as well.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Armida, and please introduce yourself, and then, right here in the back, right afterwards and then, the student right at the very back.
Armida van Rij
Thanks very much, Comfort. I’m Armida van Rij. I’m a Senior Research Fellow for Europe here at Chatham House. You mentioned Europe, and I just wanted to ask you about that. It’s very clear to me that, certainly from a visibility point of view, Europe has become increasingly less relevant as an actor in conflict mediation, conflict management, conflict prevention. The response to Ukraine initially was very strong, very united, but that’s been fraying to put it mildly. The response to Israel-Hamas War has been very weak, to put it mildly again. The fact that both European Commission President von der Leyen and Josep Borrell, the High Rep, had to both go the Middle East to show that the EU doesn’t have power as its own actor.
So, I guess I want to ask you what’s hampering Europe? And by that I mean both the EU and individual European states, what’s hampering their ability to be more effective mediators when it comes to any kind of conflict, not just Israel-Hamas or Ukraine?
Dr Comfort Ero
That’s a hard question, yeah, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Do they listen to you? And do they listen to you when you approach them?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, I mean – and in fact, in two weeks – in two weeks’ time, we will issue the other traditional lists, ‘cause it’s a month of listicles, which is specifically to the EU and its member states, and it’s called “The EU Global Watch List,” as well. And I think this particular year will be fraught because you’ve got some big elections. Everything is up for grabs right now. You’ve also got a Europe where parts of it is veering towards the right. We saw what happened towards the end of last month, but also come February, the whole issue of aid to Ukraine and whether Viktor Orbán will stay in the tent or take a different direction. I mean the glimmer of hope was the outcome in Poland, for example, but I think there’s a number – there’s a lot of nervousness.
Domestic politics, I think is riding – is defining and shaping even what is happening in Brussels, and if there was anything that was more revealing about how divided Europe was or how – or the lack of consensus, it was on the altar of Gaza, as well, that that was – that was pretty exposed. Pretty united because it’s existential to them, on Ukraine, but then where was Europe also on Armenia and Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh? I mean, I’ve just come there –coming from there last month, Leslie, and it’s pretty fraught what the reality looks like from an Armenian perspective or from the Azerbaijan perspective of the – there’s a real border tension. And although Europe, you know, last year, decided to deploy some kind of presence there, but the question is whether Europe is in a position to help nudge Azerbaijan to play a more constructive role and to get Armenia also to continue to stay in the room on that question, as well.
So, in a number of files, I said to you already on Sudan, Europe, there’s a sense in which it is not driving or crafting or shaping the way out. Although it’s been quite – it’s tried to be supportive of the African Union, for example, but in a number of issues, you said it yourself, there’s a sense in which Europe appears weaker than it usually has in the past. And this year is going be quite crucial because of all the MEP elections, and I think there’ll be a lot of questions about the EU, going forward.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you. Just here in the back.
Dr Christine Addo
Dr Christine Addo, member of Chatham House and Contractor with the US Military. It takes money to wage war, you have to buy weapons, supplies, food. What do you see is the role of the global banking system in this – in, you know, diplomacy and dealing with conflict? They both aid and abet, but they also do sanctions. What’s your organisation’s perspective on that?
Dr Comfort Ero
I was going to ask Ian, I just noticed Ian’s in the audience, so he can answer that one. You’re saying, “No” to that. I mean, it’s interesting because the – I mean, do you mean in terms of curbing the money flow? Do you mean in terms of dealing with illicit…
Dr Christine Addo
Curbing the flow…
Dr Comfort Ero
…flow of…?
Dr Christine Addo
…or taking some responsibility in the fact that they finance encounters and wars have to be financed, and [inaudible – 50:43]. And where do you sit in all of the – [of that code cracking you see in that – 50:46]?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, I mean, that’s another – I mean, we were talking about a lot of reforms that need to take place. You know, we talk a lot at length about reform of the UN, reform of the World Bank and reform of the IMF, but it’s – and I think we said it at the last meeting we were at. It’s the is economy’s stupid, and if you don’t – if we don’t deal with the chokepoints, that you do continue to give life to certain conflicts. But it’s not – the banks don’t act – are not necessarily acting independent of some of the states. You know, I mentioned that there were enablers, for example, in the War in Sudan, and those enablers don’t need their banks to continue to fuel the war in Sudan and to give – continue to allow money to pass through or to continue to give weapons. So, it’s also about – I mean, I hear what you say, but it’s also about states, as well, and sometimes they work hand-in-glove, even though – even if they like to say otherwise.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Right at the back our Academy Fellow. Maybe if you stand up. Introduce yourself.
Temesgen Futsumbrhan Gebrehiwet
Yeah, I’m Temesgen. I’m one of the Academy Fellows affiliated with the Environment Society Programme. Thank you, Dr Comfort, for highlighting the conflict in Sudan. My question relates to specifically Hemedti’s recent diplomatic visits around Africa, specifically visits to South Africa, Uganda and Kenya, and the language used by the governments to describe Hemedti, a Paramilitary Leader, but described as, in some context, as Excellency, and the diplomatic etiquette that was used to receive this individual. How do you think that impacts the eventual political solution that might come in Sudan?
Dr Comfort Ero
So, this goes back to your point about double standards and hypocrisy, and I said I’ll come back and deal with South Africa later. I mean, it matters the status you confer on certain people. I mean, it’s true that as we speak today, that the Sudanese Armed Forces look weaker and that also explains why they are also, you know, coming more and more forward on negotiations, but the more they come forward for negotiations, you know, the more emboldened Hemedti looks. So, yes, you confer on him a title of His Excellency, you know, it raises a lot of concerns. My one hope is that the amount of energy that is put into other conflicts will also be put into – by African leaders, to resolving Sudan as well because there’s a sense in which there’s a sense of drift and as – and the atrocities are heightening up.
And so, I want to go back to, I think it was Peter, you talked about disinformation, as well. You know, if I was – if we were – if there could be an 11th conflict to watch, or trend to watch, I would put disinformation on the list as well, and not only as a, sort of, you know, fueller of conflict and polariser, as well. But I also increasingly have seen how disinformation also has become harmful to us, to peacekeepers, to Journalists, to humanitarians, actors, and to activists who are trying to pursue peace and dialogue and diplomacy.
I say this because I’ve seen what it’s doing to Crisis Group, for example. Our mandate, our methodology’s pretty clear, we talk to all sides because our job is to find a way out of a crisis. You may not like our conclusions, you may not like the solutions because we ask you to make concessions and to compromise, but we’ll talk to you. However, now we’re in a situation where we’re now being accused in the name of disin – you know, people are make – are putting out information that’s false about Crisis Group and we see it – and I see the toll on a number of good people in this room, our Analysts in the field, trying to do their work and they are – they’re increasingly trying to – you know, people are trying to cancel them or shut them down or make allegations against what they’re doing, whether it’s in the South Caucasus, whether it’s in Ethiopia. You know, and the most latest for Crisis Group is in Iran, for example, where, you know, the same staff, you know, are being accused, one level, of working in concert with Israel to get, you know, the Iranians to sign up to the Nuclear Peace Deal in 2015. The same staff are accused of being advocates for regime change with the Americans. But now, the same staff are being accused by regime – by hardliners, you know, of, sort of, you know, working with Iranian Government to influence and shape things in Washington.
So, I am concerned, and if I was to have a trendline, this is the one that worries me, because I think it impacts and affects how we do our work and how we can do it credibly without being challenged around – for the good work on diplomacy and dialogue, as well.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s a huge area. It doesn’t quite fit in the same box.
Dr Comfort Ero
No, hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But it – yeah, you’re absolutely right to draw that to our attention, remind us. We have a gentleman here who’s had his hand up.
Johnny Singh
Hi, Johnny Singh. I’m a Chatham House member. We’ve talked about diplomacy, the importance of it in addressing a lot of these conflicts and also, some of the limitations for – when we’ve mentioned the US, the EU. I wonder, do you see any hope of new diplomatic actors emerging who may seek to address these – any of these conflicts? And then, also specifically on China, do you think China has either the diplomatic wherewithal or capacity or willingness to engage with these – with any of these conflicts to try and help redress them?
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, good – that’s a good question and I think goes back to your earlier question about, sort of, middle powers or new actors. I mean, it’s interesting – I mean, China, by the way, was instrumental in the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, but so was Iran – sorry, so was Iraq and Oman, and they’re often not mentioned. You know, everybody focusses on China, but they had played, sort of, a backchannel role, quietly doing the hard work of diplomacy, you know, to bring in all the key actors, as well, but China was involved in that. Does it want to play the mediation role? I don’t know. I don’t necessarily think so. It has a view. It can be a blocker of diplomacy. It can be a blocker of some of the resolutions that we see in the Security Council, but it also plays a role. Sometimes, it has a very clear, sort of, economic role that it sees, particularly in this situation, but it’s not clear to me that China wants to play or seeks out that role. Interestingly, in – just watching it, for example, in Ukraine, and the way in which it’s been very, sort of, coy or nuanced, but yet, you know, sort of, not been happy with what its seen with Putin, but not necessarily saying that it’s fully behind the Western approach.
Qatar has been a very interesting player in terms of the mediation and the negotiations around the hostage and prisoner exchange on the question of Gaza-Israel, but also, and I was quite surprised to hear the news at the end of Christmas – just before Christmas, about Qatar’s role in Venezuela, as well. So, they’re clearly building up a portfolio for themselves on – in mediation as well. And we’re seeing, you know, other actors, the Emirates – the Emiratis, too, are building, so a number of Gulf counties, Turkey, as well. It was Turkey who helped deliver the Black Sea grain deals, also.
I think the message also is pretty clear is that the old guard Western actors are no long – not necessarily reliable, there’s a bandwidth, there’s a lot – a lack of faith, a lack of trust in them. There’s the history of the double standards and hypocrisy. And I think other people are looking elsewhere, they have choices, they realise that they also – we can build alliances. And the other interesting thing about this year, certainly we saw it growing up last year, is this air – this era of clubism, “I want to be in this alliance, I want to be in that alliance, I want to shape my own alliance,” to, sort of, define what the future looks like, or to, sort of, mediate or to try and to peacemake. And I think we’re going to see more of that because, you know, the US is not necessarily the only game in town.
Having said that, I do still think that despite everything that’s said about the US, I still do see them as a relevant actor, both positive and negative. Positive in Ukraine, I think a number of question marks how – in terms of how they positioned themselves over Gaza-Israel.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
We’re, sort of, at the end of our time, and you can see there are many more questions for you, but I would encourage you to follow Dr Comfort Ero, not only on Twitter and her writings and her – and you’re going to be in conversation with Foreign Policy with Ravi. I assume that that’s open. I’m not really sure.
Dr Comfort Ero
Yeah, yeah, that’s open.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But there are many other opportunities to engage in this conversation which are really important. Before we close, I just want to ask you one question. Is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your view, that there are all these multiple actors and that they’re – you know, we’ve talked about it on and off, but are you – you know, if you could, sort of, rewind the clock or if you could go in a different direction, would you? Are you for more consolidation or do you like this diversity of options when it comes…
Dr Comfort Ero
Ah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…to the mediators and the negotiators and…?
Dr Comfort Ero
If it leads to resolution, if it creates a pathway to peace, I don’t mind. I mean, the point is, you know, what is the end goal here? And it’s just very clear to us that, you know, it’s also not a beauty contest, as well. You know, the idea that only one group of actors or one institution can go it alone and that – you talked a lot about the bandwidth and the capacity, and it’s just very clear that just the magnitude and the scale of the conflicts, the multitude of actors involved, means that we can’t rely on one actor, one institution.
But I also talked about the democratisation of the space, because it’s also very clear that the credibility and the success of something also depends on making sure that the process is inclusive. The idea that the old order from the end of the – from the Second World War can continue, to say that it’s a club of just a few and other actors are not part of that table, I think that’s gone, as well. And partly, also, because some of these institutions and some of these countries have lost credibility, but they’re still relevant, as well. So, it’s not a case for diversity, it’s just about getting the job done and making sure that we’re going in the right direction at the same time.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
There’s a lot to say there. There’s a huge amount to say. You’ve said a huge amount, I’m very impressed. It’s a great report, read it. It is grim, it is not a happy way to start the New Year, but perhaps it’s better to be realistic about the world that we live in than to portray one that we don’t live in. So, thank you, Comfort. Thanks to Crisis Group for the [applause]…
