Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

That this House takes note of the impact of mediation and conflict prevention globally, and the role of the United Kingdom in peacebuilding.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I note several entries in the register of interests in relation to work I have done recently for the World Bank, the CHD and Conciliation Resources, my position as a ministerial adviser on soft power and my attendance at more than a couple of conferences on mediation and conflict prevention over the past year.

I thank all noble Lords who have volunteered to speak in this debate. I am very grateful for their participation and particularly for the Minister stepping up to address this important topic in his closing response. I am also grateful for this opportunity to address the escalation in violent conflict that we have seen across the globe in recent years and to speak a little about the hope that exists in the efforts that are escalating to prevent violent conflict and what we here in the UK can do to contribute.

Across the globe today we face the highest number of states involved in violent conflict that the world has seen since 1946. A recent report, Peace Works, by 11 international NGOs based here in the UK, showed that the cost to the world of this conflict is about 10% of global GDP—approximately £16 trillion. Nearly 120 million people across the world are displaced today, approximately half of them children. Over 200 million people face humanitarian need as a result of the impact of conflict. Tens of thousands of children are impacted directly by violent conflict every year. Sexual violence is increasing as a weapon of war after many years when it was enthusiastically tackled. Just under a quarter of a million people, combatants and civilians, were killed in 2025 as a result of violent conflict. In the UK we face the impact of that. We see increased division, distrust, the impact of displacement in different parts of the world and disruption, most of all to our energy supplies.

Unfortunately, over the last decade the UK has stepped back rather than stepping up into this challenge. We used to lead the world in global thinking, global action on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Between 2005 and 2015, successive Governments took the action that was required at home and abroad, and in the multilateral organisations, to make a real difference to combating global conflict, bringing about peaceful resolution and supporting those trying to implement peace agreements. But there has been no refreshing or updating of the conflict prevention strategy of the United Kingdom since the 2016 building stability overseas strategy. Over that decade, we have reduced our capacity for working in the multilateral organisations and, perhaps more importantly, on the ground in local peacebuilding initiatives. Our spend on conflict prevention reduced from £296 million in 2017 to £118 million in 2023; the figures for the next three years have not yet been published.

It was noted, in an independent report this time last year to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Resolution 1325 at the United Nations on women, peace and security, that there was an increasing gap between policy and rhetoric—all very positive, not just about women, peace and security but about peacebuilding and conflict prevention generally—and action and delivery by the UK. Globally, we face enormous challenges, not just because of the scale of the conflict but because a United Nations that was designed for approximately 50 member states in 1946 is increasingly unfit for purpose for nearly 200 states in 2026.

There is good news amid all this misery and violence. We have countries around the world stepping into the area of conflict prevention and mediation. Turkey, for example, joined with Finland in 2010 to establish the Group of Friends of Mediation at the United Nations. It also co-chairs the friends of mediation in the OIC and in the OSCE. Over these last 16 years it has been involved in helping to resolve disputes between Ethiopia and Somalia and in supporting the peace process in the Philippines. Of course, closer to home it has also regularly engaged with a number of conflicts in its own neighbourhood.

In Japan, just this year the new Prime Minister established the international peace mediation unit in its foreign service to take a “more proactive role” in peacefully settling disputes in other places. That is particularly significant in south-east Asia, given some of the challenges that we are seeing.

Qatar has become both a location and a voice for mediation and conflict prevention since 2004. It has been involved in several ceasefires, the return of hostages, the establishment of peace agreements and support for them afterwards, not least recently in Gaza but also in the DRC and on an issue close to my heart—helping to secure the return of some of the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia, many thousands of whom still lie behind Russian lines. The UK established a partnership with Qatar just 12 months ago to take forward this work on mediation and conflict prevention. I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on the progress of that partnership and the actions that have been or could yet be taken.

There is a common thread running through this international action, which is supplemented by the historic and important work of the Scandinavian states, the Swiss, more recently the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and others. That thread is that every mediation, every sincere effort at conflict prevention, has three key elements. It has to have sincere dialogue; it has to have a sustained, patient and consistent approach to the mediation itself; and increasingly it has to have regional ownership. In the neighbourhood, people understand the historical, cultural and identity issues that will drive many of these conflicts, and which local leaders could bring about an end to the conflict and sustain the peace.

I have seen this for myself, working with the FCDO, with a number of NGOs, with the Philippine Government and with the former Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Bangsamoro region of the Philippines. Centuries of division between the Catholic and Muslim populations of the Philippines and decades of armed conflicts in Muslim Mindanao led to a quarter of a million people dying between 1968 and the early part of the 21st century. But in 2014 the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, supported by the United Kingdom and the international community but led locally and chaired by the first-ever woman to sign a peace agreement anywhere in the world as the chief negotiator, was signed. I have spoken about this process in your Lordships’ House before, but I am delighted to report that in September, just two months ago, the Bangsamoro region held its first elections to the democratically elected autonomous parliament that was promised in the peace agreement. Those elections have been relatively peaceful. The new chief minister will be elected by the new parliament tomorrow in Cotabato. The UK has been a partner in that process, just as we were a partner in Colombia and a driver for the peace process in Somalia. I hope that we will continue to help build peace in the Philippines and elsewhere in south-east Asia. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that too.

The UK has significant assets that we can contribute to conflict prevention and to mediation and peacebuilding across the world. We have the honour and the responsibility of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Our other networks include NATO, the Commonwealth, partnership with the European Union and our considerable diplomatic assets—still one of the best and most respected diplomatic networks in the world, despite some of the cutbacks of recent years.

Here in the UK, we have the expertise and the trust not just in government but outside government that so many people feel that they can, or at least have been able to, rely on. We must use those soft power assets that we have to be engaged more in the years to come in trying to reverse this increase in violent conflict and support those who are seeking peace.

That same report, Peace Works, that was published just last month and launched here in Parliament by the All-Party Group on Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding, had five key priorities that the UK could follow. The first—this is a statement of purpose that might seem very obvious, but it is not yet up front in the Government’s international strategy— would be to prioritise prevention, and to say that quite clearly and embody it in the work that we do on an everyday basis.

The second would be to energise coalitions. We have discussed this on many occasions. In fact, I think my last contribution in your Lordships’ House was on the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in this time of desperate conflict against the Russian invasion. But we should be energising other coalitions for peace and supporting and participating where we can. The third would be to harness the capabilities that exist here in the UK, in and outside government, and use them in the way that can be most helpful. The fourth would be, at the same time, to champion local peacebuilders, because ultimately, without local ownership of peacebuilding processes, those processes cannot be sustained. Finally, in a world where technology is increasingly changing the nature of violent conflict, we need also to spearhead technology for peace. We can use many of these new technologies to help support peace rather than just dealing with war.

In securing this debate today, I ask whether the Minister can perhaps clarify for us the current state of funding and the plans for support from the Government for conflict prevention, not just this year but in the next three years. Can the Minister say whether that funding will be maintained in this difficult financial climate or whether there is even a possibility that it might be increased? Will we commit to being a reliable, engaged, long-term partner for not just those international partner countries that we can work with on mediation, conflict prevention and peacebuilding but those trying to build peace on the ground and within countries trying to recover from conflict, to ensure that future generations have a better future? Will we, ultimately, refresh the strategy from 2016 and ensure that we use our assets for the best purposes and the maximum impact as we intervene and take our responsibilities seriously around the world?

We have that responsibility. We have a historic responsibility—a very current responsibility in our role at the United Nations—but we also have an opportunity to use the skills, talents, capabilities and passions of people here in the United Kingdom. Will we use that responsibility and opportunity to not just resist and defend from violent aggression and prepare for that properly, which I fully support, but to contribute to peacebuilding and prevent conflict in a way that will ensure that future generations can live more safely and maximise the opportunities that they deserve?

There has been a bit of debate over the last 18 months within and outside the Government, and perhaps even elsewhere in the world too, about the competition between hard and soft power. Many countries, not least the UK, among the developed democracies of the world, have had to step up, rightly, and improve their hard power capabilities. However, I submit to your Lordships’ House that that cannot be at the expense of soft power. We need to not make this a choice between hard and soft power; we need to use smart power. It will be smart power that will not just allow us to prevent and deter violent conflict against ourselves or our allies but allow us to make a difference around the world and ensure that people are able to live in peace. With that hopefully positive potential outcome to all this, I move the Motion standing in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for such a fascinating, interesting and thought-provoking series of speeches in a debate that I am sure will live on in the minds of those of us who have been here to listen for days, weeks and perhaps even months to come. My thanks go in particular to my noble friend the Minister for his wide-ranging response. There is much there for us to think about, but also for us to welcome. It would be impossible to comment on even a range of the points that have been made, but I will briefly comment on two.

The first is in relation to the United Nations. Many noble Lords mentioned the importance of the United Nations, and many others reflected on the frustration about the ability of the United Nations to do its job in 2026. Given the Government’s commitment to decentralisation, devolution and the understanding that not everything can be done centrally, perhaps one of the questions we need to address over the next 20 years towards the centenary of the United Nations is whether everything centralised in New York is the right format for an organisation that has grown from 50-odd states in 1946 to nearly 200 today. Perhaps those regional organisations that I have referred to regularly in debates such as this—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which has an important role in the Middle East these days, and so many others—provide forums through which we can deal with many of these issues much more successfully.

Finally, I want to comment on the issue of patience and persistence and sticking with the difficult business of peacebuilding. When I first became involved in the Philippines in 2014, there was much enthusiasm about the peace agreement. Nine months later, the Philippine National Police, at the instigation probably of the United States of America, went looking for a couple of Malaysian terrorists in the area that was controlled by the erstwhile Moro rebels. They were not warned in advance. They thought they were under attack. They attacked the police officers who had gone into the area, and killed 41 police officers. There were calls in Manila at the time to scrap the peace agreement, to tear it up, to go back to square one, and to go in and kill everybody who was associated with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front rather than stick with the peace agreement.

I was in Manila at the time and I was asked to do a series of interviews. I recalled the Omagh bombing in 1998, the worst bombing during the whole of the conflict in Northern Ireland, six months after the Good Friday agreement, and the calls on Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern to cancel the agreement because of that bombing and their determination not to do so at that time. My calculation in 2015 was that every single child leaving school in Northern Ireland that year aged 16 had lived their entire life in peace as a result of that decision not to cancel the peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say that my colleagues in the Philippines stuck with it through three Presidents and even a change of local leadership from the liberation front, and tomorrow they will elect their first ever chief minister in an autonomous parliament that, I hope, will give them peace for many decades to come. Persistence, sticking with it, going through the bad times as well as the good times, dealing with your opponents and having an inclusive process are essential, and I am very glad that our debate reflected that today.

Motion agreed

Ukraine

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend made the point that this Statement might well have been taken in conjunction with the Statement that the Prime Minister made earlier today in the other place. The changes to defence spending will not be just more of the same; there will be a particular focus on the things that he discussed. The strategic defence review is about to complete as well. The noble Lord’s point is well made and is something that the Government are carefully considering.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I first raise the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. In our discussions with our European allies, I hope that we press them to press the United States to make sure that the children who have been stolen by Russia, and remain behind Russian lines in this conflict, are part of any future agreement to bring the conflict to an end.

I was very proud of the Prime Minister and the UK last week, when he took a firm stand in support of Ukraine in the face of the global turmoil in politics, not just in diplomacy. I was proud again today when he announced an increase in defence spending, but I will not feel proud when I next meet somebody who lost their medicines or whose school closed because of the decisions that the Cabinet made this morning. I am particularly concerned that we did not first go after the Russian assets in London that could have helped finance some of that gap. What actions are the Government taking to go after Russian assets that we have already either seized or sanctioned? What specific action are we taking to release the money from the sale of Chelsea Football Club that could fund humanitarian programmes in Ukraine and beyond?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working very hard on the Chelsea Football Club issue. It is quite difficult legally, but my noble friend is right to remind us about it and we are working on it at pace. I hear what he says about development spending and I would expect him to say nothing else. This is not a decision that anyone has taken lightly or glibly; it is a decision that had to be taken, because we needed to act quickly in this situation. We must go after Russian assets as well, but we needed to take this decision today to make sure that we have the investment in defence to provide the stability and security that we all need.