About Peter Wallensteen
Peter Wallensteen, Senior Professor Emeritus in Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, held the Dag Hammarskjöld Chair for 27 years and brings more than 50 years of experience in peace and conflict teaching and research.
He is one of the leading thinkers who started Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) that is currently the primary provider of data on organised violence and the oldest ongoing data collection project for civil war, with a history of almost 40 years.
‘The whole peace research seminar was started in the late 1960s, which was a time of extreme polarisation. The danger of nuclear war was big and important. There were major wars going on in the world, and it was really a time when the best we could hope for was some kind of deterrent, some relaxation of tension between the big powers’, said Peter Wallensteen who has worked in the field of peace and conflict research for over 50 years when reflecting on the contemporary threats to multilateralism and its impact on peacebuilding.
He lifted that neutral countries has played a big role in trying to promote this until the collapse of the Soviet Union which led to a more unipolar world and simultaneously a world more open for local initiatives.
‘We were in a period of peace from 1991 onwards, making peace, building peacekeeping operations and the United Nations was an important actor for all this and since 2014, we are in a new era’, he observed.
‘Each actor is just thinking of their own interests and not into what it would be good for the entire community.’
Moving closer to the current realities, Peter Wallensteen says that ‘perhaps with the three major powers, the United States, Russia and China, but it is also a time which is in commotion, other actors are appearing. It’s harder to pinpoint exactly what it is, but it is a time which I would describe as particularistic. Each actor is just thinking of their own interests and not into what it would be good for the entire community.’
Reflecting on the historical context, Peter Wallensteen said that the ‘period between 1991 and 2014 was one [in] which all kinds of interests were taken care of. Negotiating agreements was the key thing until 2014. Currently ‘international organisations are no longer in the centre of the action and I think that creates an unpredictability and an uncertainty in the world and we see a rise in the number of armed conflicts going on’.
Given these changing conditions we explored if Peter Wallensteen considered if there is a a real threat for nuclear re-armament?
‘Definitely, we are back to that threat again. So, since 1991 we saw quick reduction in the number of armed conflicts and nuclear warheads. And it seemed very promising that we could really arrive at a situation with a much lower level of nuclear weapons. But in the last four or five years, we have seen more projects of what is called modernisation of nuclear weapons and making them again more useful, not just there for deterrence purposes, but also thinking of them to be useful in wars, for instance. And that’s extremely frightening.’
He raises the alarm saying that the kind of nuclear weapons we’re talking about now and their delivery vehicles as they are called, their missiles, are now coming at full speed and it is much harder to defend yourself against. In that sense, [it is] an increasing danger that they will be seen as possible to use in an early phase of the of the conflict. So definitely we are at the point where there is a greater threat of more nuclear weapons and that there is a greater effect.’
As the Foundation is monitoring the work of the United Nations and supporting the Peacebuilding Commission, we wanted to know Peter Wallensteen’s thoughts of the widely reported warnings issued by Antonio Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General about the immoral use of drone technology and artificial intelligence in war making and in the war machinery.
‘I agree completely with him. I think he’s pointing to something extremely important. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have all demonstrated the efficacy of the drones from a military point of view, but in terms of insecurity, they are really increasing the dangers. There is a need to find ways to control this kind of technology. Now we should step back and think, do we really need that or are there other ways to deal with this new threat?’
Further exploring the idea of a multi-polar world we asked Peter Wallensteen his views on the UN Member States taking the middle road.
‘I think it’s a good movement with other interests are also represented in the UN and I think [it] has been good in that sense that the global South has had a strong presence in formulating the agenda setting, lifting up conflicts that otherwise would not be there. It’s a good development, if more interests are presented and discussed in the UN because that’s the way one can solve them is that they are brought to the floor and are clarified, rather than immediately starting a war and armed conflict of sorts. There is a need for an open place for discussion and the best available forum is the UN and the UN General Assembly.’
‘The creation of the International Criminal Court was a major achievement.’
Seeking some light in the flood of negative news we encouraged Peter Wallensteen to lift some positive news.
‘The creation of the International Criminal Court was a major achievement. It really sent a strong message that wars should be conducted in reasonable ways, war crimes can be prosecuted, [particularly] matters of genocide and that people can be responsible. The same with the targeted sanctions, the sanctions that targeted those individuals that were really responsible for various violations of the human rights, the war lords pursuing genocide [for example]. It was bringing home the message that it’s not the nations as such that are responsible for what happens, it’s that there are particular individuals or particular groups that are responsible. And I think that it’s a major achievement that we see it that way.
There is the responsibility of political actors, particularly if they have power. They also have much more responsibility, and that’s the message I think from the International Criminal Court.
Nearing the end of our conversation we wanted to know if Peter Wallensteen had any lessons for the next generation. ‘Definitely’ was an enthusiastic response.
‘We know very well that democracy is the most reasonable way of governance and democracy is there, thanks to civil society movements of every sort. That’s been the historical experience in Europe and I think that remains still true. So I would hope that young people today would be involved in civil society [and] and it’s work in promoting matters of peace, climate, security and human rights, because that’s the line of the future. That’s how we build a more inclusive society with more peace than we have right now’, he said.
In concluding our interview we were keen to know what the first Dag Hammarskjöld professor thought Dag Hammarksjöld would do today, living and working in this area of expertise?
‘I think he [Dag Hammarskjöld] would be very active. He would try to find a role for the UN in the war between Russia and Ukraine. He would take initiative and would definitely be involved in the Gaza conflict. As a diplomat trying to be part of the mediations and in the same way try to create a forum for discussion, the Gaza conflict in the Middle East context. And he would be active in a similar way with Ukraine, Russia, to find a new kind of forum where that would be possibility to negotiate all the elements of the Ukraine-Russia war.
Author: Simone Hagfeldt