The Hollow Claims of Global Peacekeeping

In recent months, some global leaders have made bold claims of helping diffuse tensions between India and Pakistan—two long-time rivals and nuclear-armed neighbours. The announcement, packaged with the air of international statesmanship, has sparked headlines and even whispers of eligibility for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But such declarations, when held up against the broader backdrop of global crises, reveal a deeply troubling pattern of selective diplomacy and glaring hypocrisy.

While mediation between India and Pakistan is undoubtedly significant, it cannot be celebrated in isolation—especially when the same actors have failed to bring any meaningful resolution to even more devastating and prolonged wars. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, now in its third year, continues to grind on with massive human and economic costs. Despite having both the diplomatic clout and global responsibility to act as honest brokers, many of these self-proclaimed peacemakers have instead chosen to supply arms, deepen alliances, and in some cases, profit from the conflict.

Equally disconcerting is the escalation in the Middle East, where rising tensions between Iran and Israel have brought the region to the brink. Instead of championing restraint or dialogue, powerful nations like the United States have signalled unwavering support for one side, further inflaming the crisis. This selective engagement in conflicts—where interests dictate involvement—strips the moral authority from those who seek to define themselves as champions of peace.

Peace diplomacy, to be credible, must be consistent. It cannot operate like a switch—turned on when convenient, and off when politically or economically inconvenient. Yet, this is precisely the pattern we see: quick intervention when geopolitical risk is low, and deafening silence or partisan entanglement when the stakes are higher.

What’s most alarming is the emerging narrative that a single act of mediation, however useful, qualifies a nation or leader for prestigious international recognition. Such self-congratulatory posturing is not only tone-deaf—it’s dangerous. It trivialises the long, patient, and principled work that genuine peace-building requires.

A true peacemaker does not choose sides based on strategic alliances. A true mediator does not abandon diplomacy when it challenges national interests. And most importantly, a true global leader does not claim credit for peace in one region while ignoring, or even exacerbating, war in another.

Until world powers apply the same standards of diplomacy, restraint, and negotiation across all conflicts—regardless of proximity or profit—their claims to global peacekeeping will remain hollow.