Three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, international discussions continue to swirl around the conflict's impact on global relations. The anniversary of the invasion was marked with significant dialogue at notable forums like the Munich Security Conference, where U.S. Vice President JD Vance's remarks sparked widespread controversy.
During his speech, Vance aimed to outline U.S. strategy for peace, but instead, he lectured European leaders about perceived failures on their part. Many found his criticisms, which downplayed the importance of Russia and China as threats, to be ill-informed and dismissive. German defense Minister Boris Pistorius called Vance’s comments totally unacceptable.
Initially, discussions of peace seemed hopeful as experts reflected on earlier talks about justice and security. Hiba Qasis of the Geneva-based Principles for Peace emphasized, “Peace is beyond the absence of violence. It’s really about access to justice, economic opportunities, security, and pluralism.” But as the anniversary discussions progressed, the consensus on achieving peace has grown uncertain. Analysts questioned if the current leadership on either side could reach any agreement.
Professor Jussi Hanhimäki of the Graduate Institute, offering insights on the dynamics of the conflict, stated, “With this cast of characters, it’s not going to happen. They’re committed to victory, whatever victory is.” Despite hopes for meaningful dialogue, Vance's divisive approach signaled growing tensions among stakeholders trying to navigate the conflict.
Another focal point of recent discussions was the UN Human Rights Council's session, which commenced amid notable absences, including the United States. Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Council, citing allegations of bias, particularly against Israel. The withdrawal raises pressing concerns over the multilateralism the body was built to uphold.
Vincent Chetail, professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, lamented the U.S. decision, saying, "It is deeply regrettable...that the world’s leading power, which helped shape the international order based on human rights, is leaving this body." His sentiments highlight potential ramifications for the future of human rights discussions on global platforms.
Switzerland assumed the presidency of the Council for the first time, leading discussions surrounded by the rebalancing of global power. Jürg Lauber, head of the Swiss delegation, noted, “The Council remains the most important body for intergovernmental exchanges on human rights issues,” stressing the role multilateral discussions hold even as challenges arise.
Further complicity is introduced by the reduction of U.S. contributions to the UN. Last month, the Trump administration urged freezes on development aid, causing disruptions for various agencies reliant on U.S. funding. Chetail pointed out, “More than the U.S. withdrawal from the Council, it is the cuts in American funding... This could shift the balance in favor of wealthy countries like China.”
China's influence may burgeon during this period, as it may seek to fill the void left by the former superpower. The previous U.S. withdrawal from the Council between 2018 and 2021 saw China leverage its position to challenge the narrative surrounding human rights globally. The international community will be watching closely to see how Beijing maneuvers with the current shifts.
Phil Lynch, director of the International Service for Human Rights, stated, “The U.S. disengagement certainly opens up space for other states to pursue their agendas and increase their influence,” accentuating the power vacuum dynamics at play. While the opportunity may allow various states to emerge as influential actors, the uncertainty of this influence's impact on global stability remains.
The road to peace will require multifaceted dialogue, patience, and mutual respect among parties involved—a concept reiterated by Gunilla von Hall, who acknowledges the weariness felt by Ukrainians amid the exhaustive conflict. There’s no denying the importance of associational engagement to secure lasting peace; decisions cannot be made without inclusion of those primarily affected.
Reflecting on the challenges at hand, it is clear the international community must reevaluate its approach to conflict resolution and its methods for upholding human rights amid shifting powers. Promoting dialogue can facilitate pathways to collaboration and avoid unilateral actions and misunderstandings. Peace negotiations call for consensus among diverse stakeholders to prevent future grievances from overshadowing potential resolutions.