Dr. Neeraj A Sharma
The global order of the twenty-first century is changing dramatically, becoming more and more characterized by regional rivalries, nationalism, and fragmentation. The two main pillars of the post-World War II international system—peace diplomacy and multilateralism—are under tremendous pressure. Traditional diplomatic mechanisms are losing credibility due to a resurgence of great power competition, institutional fatigue, and divergent geopolitical interests.
These difficulties are highlighted by recent wars and peace efforts in 2025. On June 27, 2025, in Washington, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda will sign a peace agreement mediated by the United States, ending years of proxy wars in Central Africa. The deal, which includes guarantees for border security and the demobilization of rebels, demonstrates the potential and vulnerability of third-party mediation. However, it also highlights the frequent need for external parties to uphold local commitments, indicating enduring institutional flaws in regional organizations such as the African Union.
Following a terrorist attack in Kashmir in April, tensions between India and Pakistan in South Asia sharply increased, leading to missile and air exchanges. In May, a ceasefire was negotiated. Because both nations dispute the legitimacy and framing of the negotiations, trust is still fragile despite the truce. The limitations of bilateralism and the controversial function of third-party diplomacy in highly politicized disputes are supposed, in this episode.
In the meantime, talks in Oman and Rome from April to June 2025 marked the beginning of a new phase in the long-running nuclear conflict between the United States and Iran. Despite initial progress, the pressure from Israeli-led military strikes and ongoing missile testing caused the talks to collapse. The failure showed how kinetic action can swiftly overtake diplomatic dialogue, particularly when domestic politics and regional allies take precedence over negotiated solutions.
By establishing the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) in Hong Kong in May 2025, China aims to change the multilateral scene. This initiative, which was created as a substitute for Western-dominated organizations such as the International Court of Justice, represents a global trend toward alternative mediation platforms. Beyond China’s direct sphere of influence, however, concerns about its legitimacy and neutrality still exist.
On the other hand, the Khujand Treaty, which Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan signed in March 2025, provides a unique illustration of effective regional diplomacy. Along with demilitarization and cooperative water management procedures, the deal settles long-standing border disputes. It shows that even in a multipolar world, focused, localized diplomacy based on shared regional interest can be effective.
On the other hand, Sudan’s ongoing civil war presents a cautionary tale. Regional mediators like IGAD have been sidelined, and Sudan has now filed a genocide case against the UAE at the International Court of Justice over alleged support for RSF militias in Darfur. This legal escalation reflects both the breakdown of diplomacy and the weaponization of international law in conflicts where multilateral trust is absent.
When taken as a whole, these cases highlight three common themes: contested legitimacy, weakened institutions, and the expanding role of non-Western mediation. Today’s peace diplomacy is frequently reactive, hampered by mistrust, and susceptible to disruption from digital disinformation and hard power. Multilateralism is now a competitive arena where regional actors and global powers test their influence rather than a single, cohesive endeavor.
The international community must make investments in enabling regional organizations, reforming multilateral institutions, and adopting inclusive negotiation frameworks in order to regain effective diplomacy. In addition to formal treaties, peace building in a divided world requires enduring trust, legally binding standards, and the political will to act cooperatively despite conflicting interests.
