Strategies to prevent, manage or resolve violent conflict can succeed only if they are grounded in clear analysis of the causes and potential trajectory of a conflict. Through research, training and analytical techniques, the U.S. Institute of Peace empowers practitioners and local communities with means to more effectively avert violent conflict.
For decades, Algeria has eschewed participation in international affairs. As a member of the non-aligned movement, the country has been described as “anti-Western,” “anti-capitalist,” and “insular.” Privately, American diplomats describe the government as one of the region’s most challenging to penetrate and understand. But over the last two years, there have been signs that Algeria is changing and starting to flex its economic and political muscles, which has accelerated in the wake of the war in Ukraine, with Algeria capitalizing on opportunities created by changes to global energy markets. Algeria has also increasingly asserted itself in the African Union and Arab League, stepped up its lobbying efforts in foreign capitals and is deepening ties with Beijing. But is Algeria ready for the responsibility that accompanies the role it is positioning to play?
There is a tension between limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and pursuing the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula. To emphasize the former — through arms control and risk-reduction measures — can seem at times like a repudiation of the latter. Conversely, a focus on disarmament — still the core of U.S. policy — can seem outright fanciful given North Korea’s stunning technological advances. In North Korea, the United States faces a nuclear-armed state whose capabilities continue to expand despite international opposition and extensive economic sanctions. Disarmament simply isn’t in the cards right now.
Nearly 12 years since the overthrow of Libya’s longtime dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, the country remains divided, providing opportunities for malign foreign interference. European and Middle Eastern governments have exploited the Libyan conflict to advance narrow self-interests — often at the expense of the Libyan people. Against this backdrop, the United Nations, via its support mission in Libya (UNSMIL), has worked to find a way to balance the interests of the Libyan people, political elites and powerful external actors to devise a political settlement and resolve the conflict.
To increase understanding of these changes and their impacts, USIP convened a working group consisting of experts from NATO countries and from NATO’s formal partner countries in the Asia-Pacific: Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, which are informally known as the Asia-Pacific Four (or AP4).
In support of the Evidence Act and as part of the U.S. national security architecture, USIP is carrying out its own learning agenda. Peacebuilding has long been viewed as too messy and complex for evidence-based approaches — but USIP’s mix of research and practice belies that assumption.
In today’s era of strategic competition between the United States and China, crises are more likely than ever in the Indo-Pacific region. Effective mechanisms are therefore needed to prevent such crises from escalating into armed conflict. To this end, USIP is examining crisis communication mechanisms and negotiations between China and its regional neighbors to identify common issues and themes across countries to provide lessons that can be learned and shared.