RESPACE Events Website Graphic (3)

Escalating Conflict in DR Congo – Extractivism and Regional Intervention

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

Escalating Conflict in DR Congo – Extractivism and Regional Intervention

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is witnessing a dangerous flare up of violence that threatens to spiral into a broader regional war. In the mineral-rich eastern DRC, the rebel group M23 (a Tutsi-led militia) has resumed a major offensive. By early 2025, M23 had seized significant territory in North Kivu, in Goma, the provincial capital, and in Bukavu, the second largest city. There is mounting evidence that Rwanda has been covertly backing the M23 rebellion with troops and weapons. Analysts and UN investigators report that Rwanda sent between 3,000 and 4,000 soldiers into eastern DRC to support M23 operations, despite official denials from Kigali. Uganda is also deeply entangled. Ostensibly, Uganda has forces in DRC to fight other militants but UN experts say Ugandan troops have also aided M23 at times. The Congolese government is struggling to contain the rebellion and enlisted the neighbouring Burundi military, with thousands of Burundian troops crossing into the DRC to help Kinshasa fight M23. This influx of multiple foreign armies evokes the darkest days of the late 1990s African World War that took place on Congolese soil.

The humanitarian toll is staggering since the renewed fighting. At least 7,000 people have been killed in DRC (just since January, according to government estimates) and more than 600,000 civilians have been displaced from their homes. Many have fled repeated massacres and atrocities.

The main drivers of conflict are ethnic tensions and competition over the vast mineral wealth in DRC. Eastern Congo has huge reserves of coltan, cobalt, copper, gold and lithium – critical resources for global technology and green energy industries. These high stakes attract meddling by neighbouring states and even global powers (via proxies), all vying for influence over the minerals trade. Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms are faltering. A decades-old UN peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO) is present but overstretched and under attack by local protests. Diplomatic agreements such as a Nairobi peace roadmap have repeatedly been violated. So far, sanctions and regional summits have not stopped the combat. The DRC conflict is thus at a perilous juncture, with intensified extractivism and regional rivalries pushing it toward a wider war.

In April 2025, Qatar brokered a tentative truce between Kinshasa and the M23-linked Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), marking the first joint commitment to cease hostilities. However, the agreement unfolds amidst a fragile political landscape in Kinshasa, where President Félix Tshisekedi’s standing is increasingly challenged, and opposition forces leverage the rebellion to gain political ground. On 25 April 2025, under U.S. mediation, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a declaration of principles in Washington, committing to discuss a draft peace agreement on 2 May. Previously, President Tshisekedi had already been seeking to leverage DRC’s vast mineral resources, offering substantial access to its minerals to the United States in return for security assistance. US President Donald Trump appointed businessman Massad Boulos as special envoy to oversee this separate multibillion-dollar minerals-for-support negotiation. Critics caution that this approach may not stabilise eastern DRC, as the US will likely prioritise its economic interests over the kind of deal that could provide sustainable peace and economic opportunities for the Congolese people.

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

The situation in DRC closely mirrors elements of the Walls scenario – a world of intensifying conflicts and predatory power plays. In Walls, resource extraction from resource-rich countries intensifies and powerful states extend their spheres of influence via force. Rwandan interference in DRC, presumably for economic and strategic gain (access to minerals, regional dominance), exemplifies this dynamic. We also see the multipolar and fragmented world of Walls: multiple states (Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and DRC itself) engaging in a proxy war, with the international community largely unable to coordinate a response. The failure of global governance tools – UN peacekeepers and sanctions – to resolve the crisis is also very Walls-like (global institutions are sidelined). Towers scenario themes are present in a twisted form. Towers envisions rising regional blocs and indeed we see regional involvement in DRC. Instead of cooperative problem-solving, however, it is competitive intervention.

The East African Community and African Union have tried to address the DRC conflict but their efforts are undermined by conflicting interests among member states. In a positive Towers interpretation, African-led solutions are to be expected. Instead, there is African-led escalation, which is a deviation. The plight of local communities and the impotence of civil society in this conflict zone underscore how far reality is from a Bridges world. There is little space for grassroots peace initiatives when villages are being attacked and activists are in danger. In a Bridges scenario, it is possible to imagine that international solidarity movements or local community networks would spotlight suffering in DRC and push for corporate accountability for conflict minerals. In practice, those voices struggle to be heard amidst the chaos. Finally, a Maze contrast: Maze would involve robust UN/AU mediation and perhaps creative governance arrangements for resource sharing – none of which we see succeeding at present. Instead of reforms to manage the resource curse, we see exploitation fuelling war. In particular, the U.S.-brokered declaration of principles between Congo and Rwanda highlights the involvement of external powers in seeking to stabilise the region. While this engagement could potentially lead to increased investment and development, it historically raises concerns about the prioritisation of foreign strategic interests over sustainable peace and local governance. The DRC conflict as of 2025 aligns with the worst aspects of Walls (violent competition over resources, regional and global power meddling) and represents a failure to realise the cooperative visions of Maze, Bridges, or even the constructive side of Towers.

Discussion Questions

  • For DRC and Regional Policymakers: What diplomatic or political initiatives could de-escalate the conflict? Can regional organisations such as the African Union or East African Community be more effective peace brokers? For example, through an empowered envoy or peace conference that includes DRC, Rwanda, Uganda and local community representatives. What confidence-building measures (such as jointly monitoring border areas or verifiably withdrawing foreign troops) could be a starting point? Given the trust deficit, is there a role for neutral mediators from outside the region to facilitate a settlement? For example, the UN or other African states with no stake in Congo.
  • For International Governance and Donors: How should the international community respond to blatant cross-border interference in DRC? Are stronger sanctions on Rwanda or others (travel bans, asset freezes on leaders or on companies illicitly trading minerals) feasible? Are they likely to change behaviour? Should the UN Security Council consider expanding the mandate or resources of its peacekeepers? Or is a different approach needed (such as an African-led stabilisation force with better legitimacy)? For donor countries funding humanitarian aid in DRC: How can they ensure that aid reaches civilians in need without indirectly enabling armed groups? For instance, aid convoys being taxed by rebels.
  • For the Private Sector (Tech and Mining Companies): The minerals driving this conflict end up in smartphones, electric car batteries and other products worldwide. What responsibility do multinational companies have to ensure their sourcing of cobalt, coltan, etc., is not funding conflict? Could they enforce stricter supply chain audits or support initiatives such as certified conflict-free minerals from DRC? Moreover, could companies invest in local development (schools, health, alternative livelihoods) in mining regions to alleviate grievances? If companies simply boycott DRC minerals, that could hurt the livelihoods of local miners. What is the ethical way for businesses to respond in a manner that reduces violence?
  • For Civil Society and Activists: Despite the dangerous environment, there are Congolese civil society groups and international NGOs working for peace – from church networks to human rights organisations. How can their efforts be bolstered? For example, can regional civil society (in DRC, Rwanda and Uganda) collaborate to demand a ceasefire or dispel the hate narratives that fuel war? Can global activists campaign for DRC similarly to how they’ve done for other crises? For example, a consumer awareness campaign about blood minerals akin to past blood diamonds campaigns. Also, how can media and activists bring more international attention to what is sometimes called a ‘forgotten conflict’, so that it becomes politically harder for neighbouring governments to continue a secret war?
  • For Local Communities: Caught in a geopolitical storm, local communities in eastern Congo have often resorted to their own coping strategies. What role can traditional leaders, women’s groups or youth initiatives play in mitigating conflict at the local level? For instance, are there examples of communities negotiating localised truces with armed factions to protect civilians or arranging safe zones? How can we support those grassroots peacebuilders? For example, through community reconciliation programmes, trauma healing or livelihood support that reduces incentives for young people to join armed groups. Importantly, how can local voices (farmers, displaced people, elders) be included in high-level peace talks so that any deal addresses on-the-ground realities and injustices that drive recruitment into militias?
  • For Global Powers (reflection): Although not overt, global powers such as China, the United States and European states have stakes in the DRC outcome. China has large mining investments. Western countries talk of democracy and human rights, while also investing in the mining sector. What are the long-term implications if this conflict continues or worsens? Could it destabilise the wider Central African region – affect stability in Rwanda or Uganda? Might external powers become more directly involved, as occurred in Cold War-era Congo conflicts? Stakeholders should consider if a hands-off approach now could lead to a larger crisis later. And thus whether proactive diplomatic investment now is in the interest of everyone to prevent another regional war.
  • For All Stakeholders (Towards Alternative Infrastructures for Collaboration): Given the clear inadequacies of traditional conflict resolution approaches (such as peacekeeping operations, sanctions and diplomatic summits) to sustainably resolve the cyclical violence in DRC, what kind of alternative collaborative spaces or infrastructures could be envisioned to address the deep-rooted drivers of conflict (extractivism, ethnic polarisation, regional competition)? How can diverse actors – including local communities, regional organisations, global civil society and private-sector stakeholders – begin immediately to co-create these alternative platforms or mechanisms? Specifically, starting now, what practical steps can each of these actors take to help move away from reactionary crisis responses and toward sustainable, inclusive and transformative peace infrastructures in the medium and long term?
Blogpost banner #2

Blogpost: Reimagining Resourcing and Solidarity in Times of Change: A Community Gathering

Reimagining Resourcing and Solidarity in Times of Change: Key Takeaways from Community Gathering

April 2025

Download the blogpost here.

In a recent virtual gathering titled Reimagining Resourcing and Solidarity in Times of Change, Patrick Steiner-Hirth shared a profound insight: “[A]ll of us here in this room have been wanting to dismantle the aid and peacebuilding system for a very, very long time. The issue is we did not want it to happen like this, and certainly not at the cost of those who are suffering now.”. This reflection set the stage for a critical discussion on the shifting funding landscape facing civil society organisations (CSOs) today.

The event brought together over 40 activists, organisers, and thought leaders from around the globe to explore how civil society can evolve beyond crisis-response into building resilient ecosystems founded on mutual support, sustainable resourcing, and collective strength. With challenges mounting—ranging from cuts in international aid, particularly the US funding stop, to growing political polarisation and violent conflicts—the gathering sought to answer a pressing question: How can we transform this moment of disruption into fertile ground for change?

The gathering was guided by three speakers: Befekadu Hailu, a writer, activist, and co-founder of the Centre for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD) in Ethiopia; Happy Olal, a community organiser and social justice activist from Kenya; and Patrick Steiner-Hirth, a Senior Programme Manager at the Peace Team of the Robert Bosch Stiftung. They each shared their diverse perspectives on the future of funding and solidarity, several themes stood out:

New Ways of Collaborating
The gathering underscored that civil society is currently experiencing significant disruption. The prioritisation of security needs over peacebuilding and humanitarian priorities is becoming increasingly evident. Abrupt funding cuts to essential organisations have had a devastating impact on their ability to serve communities. In light of this chaos, it’s imperative to abandon the nostalgia for “how things were” and instead embrace the new normal. As we navigate this landscape, we must commit to shifting power dynamics, becoming true allies, and advocating for those without access. Exploring innovative ways of collaboration and resource-sharing—whether material, intellectual, or communal—is essential to continue our vital work and strengthen our connections across regions.

Solidarity in Action
A key theme that emerged was the importance of standing in solidarity. Collective action must transcend traditional support systems. For CSOs, this means not only supporting one another but also engaging local communities for mutual assistance. Funders, on the other hand, need to rethink their approaches, fostering equitable, trans-local systems of support that avoid creating dependency. Philanthropy can leverage its unique position—unencumbered by political funding cycles—to invest in informal groups, early-stage initiatives, and marginalised actors.

Independence Funding
Another key take-away from Befekadu Hailu was the concept of independence funding. A reliance on external financial resources can lead to crippling dependencies that limit CSOs' choices and adaptability. Future funding strategies should prioritise organisational sustainability alongside core missions. Independence funding is not merely unrestricted grants, but rather targeted support designed to help local CSOs achieve autonomy while executing essential projects. The relationship between international and local organisations should be built on partnership, with local entities actively crafting sustainability plans to reduce dependence on external funding.

Enhancing Political and Civic Education
A resilient civil society also means strengthening political and civic education in empowering communities to recognise their collective power and shape their own futures. This is not just about providing resources, but about equipping people with the tools to advocate for their rights and hold institutions accountable. We must cultivate organisations and structures deeply rooted in community power. That means shifting away from top-down models and creating the space for empowered citizens to drive change. This requires prioritising community-led initiatives, fostering political education to unlock global potential and support, and ensuring citizen involvement at every level, including at decisions that are made at the global level. There is a wealth of experience among civil society. We must mobilise this learning and diverse experiences into trans-local engagement, building solidarity and shared visions across borders to address global challenges collectively.

Harnessing Collective Strength and Wisdom
Frontline activists remind us of the tremendous collective strength and wisdom within civil society. Their long-standing commitment to human rights, social justice, and community empowerment—often at significant personal risk—cannot be easily undone by funding cuts or political shifts—an insight and experience shared by Happy Olal from his work with the Social Justice Centre Movement. Across the globe, from Pakistan to Kenya, communities are rising with clarity and conviction, challenging systemic injustices and demanding accountability. Their resilience demonstrates that true change is rooted in solidarity, education, and lived experiences, not mere financial handouts.

Building a Resilient Future
As we navigate a landscape where funding is disappearing and global standards are under threat, we must recognise and support the individuals—not just the programmes—who uphold justice. Their collective wisdom, forged through struggle, is a vital foundation that needs protection and cultivation. History shows that transformative change emerges from self-organised civil society, drawing resources from diverse and unexpected sources. Today, as we face interconnected crises—from climate change to human rights violations to economic exploitation—we must learn from this legacy. Moving forward, we must shift from concern to concrete action, prioritising grassroots movements, reimagining philanthropic practices to focus on community needs, and fostering translocal collaboration to build a more equitable and resilient future driven by autonomous civil actors and their collective action.

RESPACE Events Website Graphic (1)

Nationalism Surges in Europe – EU Self-Reliance Being Tested

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

Nationalism Surges in Europe – EU Self-Reliance Being Tested

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist forces are on the rise, reshaping the political landscape as of early 2025. In a year that saw numerous elections, far-right parties made significant gains. Notably, in the September 2024 general election in Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) – running on anti-immigration, anti-EU messages – won the largest share of votes and tried to position its leader, Herbert Kickl, as the head of government. The political landscape has evolved, however. Despite the initial FPÖ lead, a coalition government was formed in March 2025 by the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the liberal NEOS party, effectively excluding the FPÖ from power. Similarly, the February 2025 federal election in Germany resulted in a significant shift in the political landscape. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) achieved its best-ever result, securing 20.8% and becoming the second-largest party in the German parliament. The conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, which also ran on an anti-immigration message, emerged victorious with 28.5% of the vote.

The results of the June 2024 European Parliament elections further underscore these nationalist trends, with significant gains for right-wing populist and EU-sceptic parties. The newly formed nationalist alliance, Patriots for Europe, saw a notable surge, securing an additional 35 seats compared to the previous cycle. Parties such as the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany solidified their influence, reflecting an electorate increasingly critical of EU centralisation and migration policies. European discourse has shifted: EU countries are adopting tighter migration policies, from fencing external borders to fast-tracking deportations. There is also growing reluctance in some quarters to extend generosity – even towards fellow Europeans, such as war refugees from Ukraine. Right-wing leaders often question collective EU decisions. For example, they criticise sanctions on Russia and the cost of supporting Ukraine, arguing for a more nation-first approach.

Alongside these political shifts, the EU is striving for more self-reliance in an uncertain world. The impetus for this is twofold: 1) Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions urged Europe to ensure autonomy in critical sectors (such as medical supplies, semiconductors, energy); and 2) The transatlantic crisis in confidence has Europeans worried that the United States, especially when led by President Donald Trump or a similar future leader, may not reliably defend European interests. Indeed, with Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, EU discussions on achieving strategic autonomy have intensified. In March 2025, the EU unveiled plans for a massive €800 billion defence and security investment to strengthen European military capabilities and technological edge. Initiatives such as joint EU defence procurement, developing a European rapid deployment force and reducing dependency on US defence equipment have gained political momentum.

European leaders frame this as taking responsibility for their own security – describing challenges such as the Russian war on Ukraine as an existential challenge requiring Europe to stand on its own feet. This push for unity on external threats is complicated, however, by the internal divisions caused by nationalism. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, for example, frequently vetoes or opts out of EU consensus on issues from Russia to migration. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni walks a fine line between her nationalist base and the need to cooperate at EU level. The big question for Europe is whether it can remain cohesive in the face of these forces. Will the EU strengthen as a regional tower of stability or will its nationalist walls lead to fragmentation?

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

The current European trajectory shows a tension between Walls and Towers scenario dynamics. The rise of anti-establishment nationalist parties aligns with the 2024 Walls scenario description: national populism and anti-establishment sentiments are shifting political discussion toward right-wing positions. We see this in how public debates on migration and sovereignty have become more hard line. Such parties also often exhibit democratic backsliding tendencies (for example, undermining judiciary or media independence, as previously seen in Poland or Hungary), which is very Walls – a slide toward authoritarian governance. This inward focus and scepticism of global cooperation (some even advocate leaving the EU or defunding international aid, as seen in campaign rhetoric) could weaken the role of Europe in multilateral peace efforts, a core concern of Walls scenario.

 

In contrast, EU pursuit of strategic autonomy reflects a key element of the Towers scenario: regional blocs fortifying themselves. In Towers, regions band together to fill the void of waning leadership, in this case US leadership. EU moves to boost defence spending and coordinate more closely can be seen as Europe taking charge of its destiny. This could possibly lead to a stronger EU able to act as a peace and security provider in its own neighbourhood; for instance, more EU-led peace missions or diplomatic initiatives. There is a catch, however. True Towers success requires unity in the bloc but Walls-style nationalism threatens that unity. Thus, it seems as if we have a Towers scenario on the outside and a Walls scenario on the inside: Europe versus external dependence and Europe versus itself, respectively. The Maze scenario – with emphasis on reformist multilateralism – could partially describe EU efforts to maintain a rules-based order (the EU still champions values such as climate agreements, WTO rules, etc.) but Maze also assumes powerful states supporting multilateralism. If many EU members turn inward or Eurosceptic, EU abilities to be a multilateral leader diminish. For example, the more nationalist European Parliament after 2024 elections may stall EU climate or development policies.

 

A Bridges angle might note that despite governmental shifts, Europe has a vibrant civil society that often pushes back. In some cases, we see pro-EU citizens rally against far-right narratives such as the large pro-EU demonstrations in Poland in 2023 before the election there. Bridges encourages alliances of civic actors across borders to uphold democratic values. We do see transnational activism in Europe (for LGBTQ+ rights, environmental causes, etc.) trying to counter the far-right trend. Europe is, then, at a crossroads. One path reinforces Walls (fragmentation and nationalist us-first policies), another builds a democratic Tower (a cohesive regional power for good) and a third consolidates a fortress (a Tower uniting in anti-democratic and anti-immigration forces). At present, Europe is experiencing all three scenarios. How it balances these will not only significantly influence internal EU realities but also the prospects for global peace and collaboration.

Discussion Questions

  • For EU Policymakers (Balancing Unity and Nationalism): How can the EU maintain a united external front while accommodating or countering internal nationalist pressures? For instance, as the EU invests in common defence – an idea that even sceptics such as Orbán cautiously support in principle – how do leaders ensure that countries do not either free ride or veto progress? What institutional safeguards might help strengthen the EU project and protect its values despite nationalist governments undermining them in some member states? For example, qualified majority voting on foreign policy or stricter rule-of-law conditions for EU funds to dissuade democratic backsliding.
  • For European Civil Society and Pro-Democracy Groups: With xenophobic and ultra-nationalist rhetoric becoming mainstream in some places, what strategies can civil society use to defend core European values of democracy, human rights and inclusion? How can they better address the legitimate grievances that populists exploit (such as rural economic neglect or fears around immigration) without ceding ground to hateful or false narratives? Are there successful examples of community dialogues or public campaigns that have shifted attitudes and could be replicated across borders? Moreover, can civic actors across Europe coordinate to build a firewall to protect democratic norms? For example, jointly supporting independent media under attack or mobilising observers to guard electoral integrity where rule of law is shaky? Such cross-country solidarity (a Bridges trait) may be key in resisting an authoritarian slide in Europe.
  • For the Private Sector and Economy: European businesses generally prefer stability and common rules (which the EU provides) but they also adapt to nationalist policies (such as local content rules or restrictions on foreign labour). How are industries responding to the rising nationalist climate? If Europe pursues strategic autonomy in tech and defence, that could mean large-scale opportunities for European firms. What role should companies play in this? For example, public–private partnerships to develop European alternatives to US technology. Conversely, if nationalist governments impose protectionist measures that fragment the single market or target some international investments, how will businesses react? Will they lobby harder for EU integration as essential for their profits or take another path? The private sector can also help bridge divides by investing in regions left behind, which are fuelling populism trends. Could corporate investment in poorer EU regions or in integrating migrants into the workforce help undercut nationalist us–them narratives? What are the opportunities and risks of the latter?
  • For Transatlantic Relations: From a US perspective and NATO context: How can a Europe that is simultaneously more self-sufficient yet more internally divided be effectively handled or navigated? US policymakers might welcome Europe taking on more burden (as some US administrations have urged) but if key European states drift towards pro-Russia, pro-China or illiberal stances, this might complicate transatlantic cooperation. What dialogue or other mechanisms could keep the transatlantic alliance strong even if personalities such as Trump and various EU populists strain it? For example, should NATO evolve to accommodate a more autonomous Europe – maybe an EU pillar in NATO? And how can moderate European leaders work with more nationalist ones? Are there bargaining chips, such as offering those governments concessions on issues they care about, in exchange for closer alignment on big security questions?
  • For Global Peace Initiatives: Europe has historically been a champion of multilateral peace and development efforts. Collectively, the EU is the largest aid donor in the world and has been active in mediating conflicts; for example, in the Balkans and parts of Africa. If Europe turns inward due to nationalist politics or if it is preoccupied with its defence autonomy, what is the impact on global peacebuilding? Should UN agencies and international NGOs be preparing for a scenario in which European funding or engagement wanes? If this does happen, how might they diversify support? Perhaps by courting more engagement from rising powers such as India or regional organisations elsewhere. On the flip side, if Europe succeeds in bolstering itself as a cohesive regional power (Tower), could it take on more peace and security responsibilities? For instance, as a stronger EU role in conflict mediation in its own neighbourhood (Ukraine, Middle East) or in global issues (the climate–security nexus). Stakeholders should discuss whether a more independent Europe will step up as a partner in global governance (Maze/Towers synergy) or step back (Walls). How can that trajectory be positively influenced?
  • For Local Communities in Europe: How do these high-level trends manifest at the local level and what can be done there? For towns in Italy and Greece that have seen large migrant arrivals: How can local officials and civil society manage integration in a way that addresses local resident concerns and treats migrants humanely, defusing tensions that nationalists exploit? For economically left-behind regions (former East Germany, rural France): What community-led development or dialogue processes can help people feel heard and hopeful, so they are less susceptible to far-right radicalisation? In other words, what is the community peacebuilding approach in European societies? Can this consist of building bridges between the sides of the us–them narrative, whether the ‘them’ are immigrants, minorities or just people with opposing political views? The mid-term future of Europe may well be decided not only in parliaments but in town halls and village squares, where winning back trust and fostering a sense of common purpose can inoculate against the politics of fear and division.
RESPACE Events Website Graphic (3)

US–Russia Talks Sideline Ukraine – Transatlantic Tensions

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

US–Russia Talks Sideline Ukraine – Transatlantic Tensions

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

Amidst ongoing war in Ukraine, a dramatic diplomatic shift occurred. In February 2025, Washington and Moscow opened direct peace negotiations – pointedly without Ukraine at the table. A high-level meeting in Riyadh brought US and Russian officials together to discuss ending the conflict, representing a sharp break from the prior US stance of coordinating with allies and insisting on Ukrainian consent. During these talks, Russia hardened its terms, President Trump signalled willingness to make concessions and Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, called it unrealistic for Kyiv to regain all lost territory. After the meeting, Trump expressed confidence a deal was possible, even boasting on his social media platform, ‘I have the power to end this war’, while brushing aside Ukraine exclusion by saying Kyiv ‘should have entered talks much earlier’.

European leaders and Ukraine reacted with alarm. Ukrainian officials vehemently rejected any outcome decided over their heads, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted that there must be no decision without Ukraine in any peace settlement. EU members felt sidelined and betrayed. A transatlantic rift suddenly emerged, as the Trump administration appeared to prioritise a quick deal with Putin over the wishes of its European partners and Ukraine itself. NATO unity appears somewhat strained by this unilateral US approach and European governments have begun openly discussing how to ensure their security interests are protected. In parallel with these political negotiations, the Trump administration has also shown interest in the substantial mineral resources in Ukraine, revealing an economic dimension to its diplomatic approach. In late February 2025, a contentious White House meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky highlighted US intentions to secure long-term access to critical Ukrainian minerals and hydrocarbons through a proposed reconstruction investment fund. This fund, which would leverage Ukrainian resource revenues to support reconstruction efforts, raises concerns due to its lack of explicit security guarantees or commitments on continued military aid. Zelensky’s hesitation over the terms of the deal and Trump’s transactional approach further strained US–Ukrainian relations, underscoring fears in Kyiv and among its European allies that US economic interests might overshadow Ukrainian and European security needs in upcoming ceasefire talks.

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

The dynamics of these US –Russia negotiations evoke the Walls scenario in full force. Rather than a cooperative values-based resolution, we see power-based superpower bargaining – exactly what a Walls world entails: states using international forums for zero-sum deals and dividing up their spheres of influence. Sidelining a smaller sovereign nation (Ukraine) in deciding its fate is a hallmark of power politics that Walls anticipates. It also resonates with a fragmenting world order: the United States and Russia carving up an issue between themselves, while simultaneously undermining the multilateral system and the trust of long-term allies. The European backlash – insisting on no negotiations without Ukraine – can be read in two ways. On one hand, it is a reassertion of principles more akin to a Maze scenario (which values inclusive rule-based multilateralism). On the other, the European move to stake out its own role could foreshadow a Towers scenario dynamic: Europe seeking greater autonomy in security decisions because the transatlantic alliance is in crisis. Indeed, many in Europe (politicians and citizens alike) feel compelled to bolster EU defence and diplomatic capacities given a United States that is both unpredictable and inclined to go its own way. This development contrasts sharply with Bridges scenario ideals, in which civil society and moral pressure shape peace processes. Here, Ukrainian civil society and global public opinion have been largely ignored as deals were floated without them. Instead of bottom–up peace, this is top–down realpolitik. Overall, this event aligns with Walls (great power deal making, unilateralism) and has elements of Towers (regional actors reacting to great-power dominance), while challenging and even actively undermining the cooperative ethos of Maze and Bridges.

Discussion Questions

  • For Ukrainian and European Stakeholders (Activists, Civil Society): How can Ukrainian civil society and European peace activists ensure that any peace deal truly serves long-term peace and justice for Ukrainians? What avenues do they have to voice concerns on the international stage if the United States and Russia negotiate without Ukraine? For example, lobbying European governments to hold a firm line or using global media to highlight Ukrainian perspectives. More broadly, how can citizens in NATO countries influence their leaders to either support Ukrainian conditions or push for a just peace, depending on their views, in the face of great-power dealings?
  • For Western Donors and Policymakers: If Washington and Moscow move toward a deal, how should European policymakers react? Should they engage in the talks to insert European and Ukrainian conditions (acting as a counter-balance in negotiations)? Or should they focus on strengthening EU security autonomously in case a US–Russia détente undermines NATO unity? For which contingencies should donors plan? For example, scaling up economic aid to Ukraine if the United States reduces support as part of a deal or, conversely, preparing massive reconstruction funds if a peace is reached. And for Ukrainian officials: Is it wiser to reject any talks that exclude them or to quietly prepare a diplomatic strategy to avoid being isolated?
  • For Russian Stakeholders (Government Officials, Business Leaders and Public Opinion Shapers): How should Russia leverage this direct negotiation with the United States to achieve a settlement that is domestically acceptable, economically beneficial and strategically secure? Given potential domestic pressures – such as public fatigue with economic hardship, demands from influential business leaders for normalised international trade and concern among security elites about NATO expansion – what considerations should shape the Russian negotiating strategy? How can Russian policymakers and opinion leaders communicate the outcome of these negotiations to Russian society in a way that addresses domestic concerns, manages public expectations and maintains internal stability, especially if concessions become necessary?
  • For the Private Sector: Prolonged conflict versus an imposed peace: How does each possibility impact businesses and investors? If a rapid US–Russia alignment leads to sanctions easing, how might Western companies and financial institutions navigate re-entry into the Russian market amidst European objections? Conversely, if Europe resists a bad deal and the war drags on, what role can the private sector play in sustaining the Ukrainian economy or in enforcing sanctions on Russia? Are there ways businesses could support peace without appearing to chase profit? For instance, funding humanitarian projects or job creation in war-torn Ukrainian regions to stabilise them.
  • For Local Communities in Ukraine and Russia: How are those most affected – Ukrainian families and communities near the front, as well as ordinary Russians – reacting to the prospect of a negotiated settlement? In Ukraine, do people prefer fighting on for full sovereignty or grudgingly accept a compromise to stop the bloodshed? How can local community needs (security, justice for victims, return of displaced persons) be addressed in any peace process? In Russia, could local discontent (mothers of soldiers, economic hardships) create pressure for peace from below? Would those voices even be heard in an authoritarian system? In essence: How can any high-level peace deal incorporate the voices of those who have endured the war and not simply serve the will of powerful leaders?
  • Beyond Great-Power Deals – New Peace Structures: The fact that a conflict in Europe is being managed above the heads of the directly affected country and continent raises questions about the adequacy of current international systems. What alternative structures or processes could be imagined to handle such conflicts more inclusively and fairly? For instance, is it possible to envision a revitalised role for the UN or the OSCE, a new pan-European security conference (building on the Helsinki model), or even novel coalitions of middle powers and civil society leading peace initiatives? How could global collaboration for peace be respaced – moving beyond a cold-war style great-power bargain toward more equitable and sustainable arrangements that give all stakeholders a voice, including smaller states and non-state actors.
6

Gaza War and Regional Turmoil in West Asia

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

Gaza War and Regional Turmoil in West Asia

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

The Gaza war (often called a genocide) escalated into a broader regional crisis, sparking a full-scale clash involving Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah. By late 2024, Israel had expanded military operations beyond Gaza to make severe strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon. This expanded conflict prompted dire warnings based on humanitarian concerns and fears of an Iran–Israel confrontation. At the same time, Syria underwent seismic changes. A lightning rebel offensive led to the fall of the Assad government in December 2024, with President Assad fleeing to Russia for asylum. The collapse of the Assad regime has reshaped alliances as various factions vie for influence in post-Assad Syria.

Amid this turmoil, US policy took an unconventional turn under President Trump. In early 2025, Trump publicly floated a controversial plan to relocate the population of Gaza and rebuild Gaza as a Middle East Riviera. On his social media platform, he suggested moving Gazans to “a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land” elsewhere, eyeing locations such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Puntland and Somaliland as possible destinations. Regional leaders reacted with outrage. Palestinians decried the plan as ethnic cleansing. Key Arab allies such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia unequivocally rejected any forced transfer of Gazans. Trump’s gambit strained the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, and while negotiations are stalled, attacks have resumed in Gaza and Beirut and Israel has issued a new forced displacement order for residents in several areas in northern Gaza. Though he claims credit for brokering a truce, Trump’s rhetoric has grown belligerent, threatening to resume full force military action. Under Trump, the rhetoric of his government has shifted almost daily, vacillating between pledges to stabilise Gaza and threats to remove all the residents of Gaza.

At the same time, Middle Eastern diplomacy has seen an unprecedented twist. Long-time rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran forged a cautious engagement, moving beyond their China-brokered détente of 2023. In late 2024, Riyadh and Tehran conducted joint naval exercises in the Sea of Oman, with some indications of future drills in the Red Sea. In mid-March 2025, Iran, Russia and China also conducted joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman. The new Saudi–Iranian cooperation, including joint military drills and backchannel talks, signals shifting regional alliances. The two powers exchanged diplomatic visits, hinting at a broader front that could counterbalance US influence. This warming of ties – unimaginable only a few years prior – casts uncertainty on regional alignments. For example, Saudi Arabia put normalisation with Israel on hold, tying it to progress on Palestinian statehood including Gaza, even as it built new bridges with Iran. All these developments underscore a West Asia in flux: regional turmoil driven by war, regime change in Syria, great-power rivalry and the search for alternative frameworks for peace and stability beyond traditional US leadership.

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

These developments echo a Walls scenario of heightened militarism and zero-sum nationalism. The expanded Gaza war and Syrian implosion reflect a world where states resort to force and international norms crumble – much as Walls futures in which wars escalate and authoritarian leaders seize opportunities. Trump’s unilateral plan for Gaza also exemplifies Walls dynamics in bypassing multilateral diplomacy in favour of imposed solutions. In contrast, a Maze future prioritises collective peace efforts. Imagine the UN or regional bodies taking charge of the reconstruction of Gaza rather than a great-power ownership scheme. Elements of a Towers scenario –regional blocs stepping up – appear as Middle Eastern powers assert regional agency. The Saudi–Iran rapprochement shows regional actors crafting their own security arrangements, independent of Western diktats. Civil society voices, a cornerstone of Bridges scenarios, are muted in this turmoil, though not absent. In post-Assad Syria, thousands of women have protested to demand rights from the new rulers, a courageous grassroots push that channels Bridges energy. Overall, however, West Asia is tilting toward a Walls-like state of fragmentation and conflict, with only small glimmers of Towers (regional cooperation) or Bridges (local activism) offering hope against the prevailing chaos.

Discussion Questions

  • For Activists and Civil Society: With wars and crackdowns sweeping the region, how can peace activists and human rights defenders maintain their work? What strategies can local NGOs or networks use to protect civilians and advocate for ceasefires amid heavy militarisation? For example, secret humanitarian corridors, digital campaigns, diaspora advocacy. How can civic groups in West Asia cooperate across conflict lines (Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian activists together) to demand de-escalation and protection of human rights?
  • For Donors and Policymakers: How should international agencies and donors respond to the humanitarian fallout in Gaza and Syria? Should they prioritise funding local relief and peacebuilding initiatives on the ground, even if governments are hostile? Or should they focus on high-level diplomacy to end the fighting? What policies can regional and global institutions (UN, Arab League, etc.) adopt both to address the refugee crises stemming from Gaza and Syria and to prevent forced population transfers? How can policymakers support the fledgling Saudi–Iran détente to reduce regional tensions rather than letting new proxy conflicts emerge?
  • For the Private Sector: Given the instability, what role (if any) can businesses play in rebuilding war-torn communities and economies in Gaza or Syria? Can regional investors or companies be incentivised to invest in reconstruction and job creation in a way that promotes peace? For example, supporting joint Israeli-Palestinian industrial zones or rebuilding Syrian infrastructure with conflict-sensitive approaches. Conversely, how should companies manage the ethical risks? For instance, reconstruction contracts in Gaza that might entrench displacement if they proceed under Trump’s plan.
  • For Local Communities: Facing violence and upheaval, how are local communities coping and organising? In Gaza, Syria and Lebanon, what community-led initiatives could help people survive and stay united (such as local ceasefire committees, makeshift schools or mutual aid for displaced families)? How can communities preserve social cohesion and resist hate narratives when external powers fuel sectarian divides? And how might they engage with new regional realities? For example, could Syrian communities leverage the Saudi–Iran rapprochement to press for peace in their areas?
5

Dismantling of the Rules-Based World Order

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

Dismantling of the Rules-Based World Order

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

In the past months, a series of actions by major powers has accelerated the unravelling of the post-WWII international system. In Washington, the returning Trump administration moved to withdraw from multilateral bodies and agreements. In February 2025, President Trump cut off US engagement with the UN Human Rights Council and halted funding to the UN Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA), echoing steps from his first term. Trump has openly disparaged the UN as not well run and threatened to slash US contributions, despite US treaty obligations as the top UN funder. The retreat of Washington from institutions and norms – including reported plans to pull out of international legal frameworks and disregard adverse rulings – sends a signal that might makes right.

Other global actors are likewise chipping away at the rules-based order. Russia continues its war in Ukraine in defiance of UN General Assembly resolutions and an International Court of Justice injunction, using its Security Council veto to block enforcement. In late 2024, Moscow and Beijing deepened their strategic alignment, holding joint military drills and coordinating positions in international forums to counter the West. For its part, China has promoted alternative institutions and leadership of the Global South. At the BRICS summits in 2023 and 2024, Beijing and Moscow repeatedly backed the expansion of BRICS, bringing in new members such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Indonesia by 2025, hoping to reshape global governance away from Western dominance. The G77 (a bloc of 134 developing nations) and allies have pushed for UN reform. In September 2024, world leaders did endorse the Pact for the Future at a special UN summit, pledging to make global institutions more effective and inclusive. Yet these commitments ring hollow as great-power rivalry and unilateralism intensify.

Multilateral institutions are paralysed or fragmenting. The UN Security Council is deadlocked by veto showdowns on multiple key global issues: Russia, China and the United States have all wielded vetoes to shield themselves or their allies. Russia on Ukraine. China on issues such as Myanmar. The United States on Israeli actions in Gaza. The impotence of multilateral institutions was glaring during the Gaza war in late 2024. Despite accusations of war crimes, the Security Council could not act, leading observers to ask whether the UN has outlived its usefulness.

Other pillars of the world order are under strain as well. The World Trade Organization dispute system remains crippled. Some international arms control treaties have unravelled. Norms around human rights and democracy are eroding as authoritarian powers champion sovereignty over universal principles. In this void, ad hoc and regional alternatives have sprung up. Coalitions of the willing (contact groups or groups of friends) try to manage conflicts outside the UN framework. Regional organisations – the African Union, ASEAN, the Arab League, etc. – attempt to mediate crises on their turf, albeit with mixed success and often hampered by their own internal splits. Civil society networks and city alliances (for example, global climate action networks of municipalities) strive to uphold cooperation and norms from the bottom up. But without broad power backing, these efforts struggle to fill the gap left by a fractured world order. The net result is a drift toward a more unmediated anarchic international landscape, raising profound questions about the future of peace and global collaboration.

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

The realities of today starkly mirror the Walls scenario. In the RESPACE scenarios, Walls depicts a world of nationalist power plays, weakened institutions and rising conflict – exactly what we see as countries flout global rules. The retreat of the United States from the UN Human Rights Council and other UN agencies exemplifies the inward my-country-first mindset driving this shift. Similarly, the assertive moves of Russia and China to carve out spheres of influence – from Ukraine to the South China Sea – reflect a Walls-like landscape in which might trumps right and multilateral bodies are sidelined. We are effectively living through the downside of Walls: a multipolar free-for-all in which each bloc pursues its own interests, and international law is dishonoured in the breach. UN’s inability to stop wars in Ukraine or Gaza despite horrific civilian tolls underscores how, in a Walls world, even gross violations of the UN Charter go unpunished. This fragmentation and drift toward every nation for itself is eroding the cooperative norms upon which peace and human rights have often depended.

In contrast, the current trajectory is the inverse of a Maze scenario. Maze envisions states reinvesting in multilateral cooperation and reforming global institutions to meet modern challenges. We did see a glimpse of Maze in the Pact for the Future – a pledge by all UN members to strengthen a rules-based, inclusive order. Those lofty promises have not translated into action, however. Instead of reinforcing the maze of international institutions to solve problems, key players are abandoning or attacking them. For example, Maze implies empowering the UN and international courts to address conflicts, whereas in reality the major global powers are actively undermining these bodies – from the United States shrugging off UN human rights mechanisms to Russia ignoring International Criminal Court warrants. The contrast highlights a missed opportunity. If world leaders implemented the cooperative spirit of Maze, the crises we face – wars, pandemics, climate change – could be tackled collectively. Instead, dismantling the rules-based system is making global problem-solving ever more elusive.

Elements of a Towers scenario are also emerging but in a distorted form. Towers imagines a future in which regional blocs and powers take on greater responsibility for peace and development, potentially filling gaps left by a waning UN. We do see rising regionalism: the BRICS+ expansion and other Global South alliances can be viewed as new towers of influence. Likewise, organisations such as the African Union and ASEAN have tried to mediate conflicts in their regions when global diplomacy falters. In a positive Towers sense, one might hope these regional efforts will cooperate to uphold international norms. What is unfolding, however, is more competitive than cooperative – quasi-blocs forming East and West, and even regional groupings becoming arenas for rivalry. For instance, the idea of the Global South uniting to reform global governance has promise (for example, calls for more UN Security Council seats for Africa and new development banks) but this risks splitting the world into separate camps if it is framed as South versus North. The Towers scenario’s hopeful vision of complementary regional problem-solving is only partly visible. More often, there are patchwork responses or power vacuums. A clear example is peacekeeping. If the UN cannot act in a conflict setting, ideally regional coalitions step in (as Towers predicts) but in places such as the Middle East or Eastern Europe, no effective regional peace mechanism has emerged, leaving conflicts to fester. In short, although some towers are rising, without coordination they may further fragment the international landscape rather than stabilise it.

Finally, world turmoil also tests the potential of a Bridges scenario. Bridges foresees empowered grassroots networks and civil society bridging divides when states fail. In the current context, as governments step back from global commitments, bottom–up initiatives have tried to fill the void. Humanitarian NGOs, city networks, youth climate strikers and transnational activist campaigns are working across borders to address issues such as climate action, human rights and peacebuilding. Notably, when the United States pulled funding from agencies such as UNRWA, local and civil society actors scrambled to try to prevent a humanitarian collapse. This self-reliance and solidarity speak to a Bridges ethos. Communities and NGOs cooperating internationally when states will not. The digital age also enables people’s diplomacy – from global petitions to crowdfunding for disaster relief – reflecting an attempt to build bridges over walls. While these efforts are heartening, they face immense obstacles without state support. It is hard for NGOs to replace entire peacekeeping missions or for youth activists to enforce climate agreements without government buy-in. The current reality is still far from a true Bridges world. Civic space is shrinking in many countries and activists often find themselves under attack by the very nationalist forces ascendant in the Walls trend. If there is hope, it lies in these emergent networks of cities, citizens and civil society that continue to uphold cooperation and empathy across borders. They may be the scaffolding that prevents the complete collapse of international collaboration, keeping alive the idea – however faint – that a more Bridges-like global community could yet emerge from the current chaos.

Discussion Questions

  • For International Diplomats and UN Officials: Given the breakdown in great-power cooperation, what creative strategies could multilateral institutions adopt to stay relevant? For example, can the UN and regional organisations form new coalitions (including middle-power states or regional leaders) to address conflicts that the Security Council fails to resolve? How might reforms such as curbing the veto, empowering the UN General Assembly or involving civil society in decision-making help bring multilateralism back from the brink? What immediate steps can UN agencies take to maintain critical services (peacekeeping, refugee aid, climate action, protection of human rights) when key states withdraw support?
  • For Government Policymakers (Mid-Sized Powers and Global South): In a world where superpowers flout the rules, how can coalitions of small and medium-sized countries uphold international law and norms? Should they band together more tightly – for instance, expanding the influence of groups such as the G77 or regional organisations to press for fairer global rules – or would that further polarise the system? What leverage do developing and non-aligned countries have to demand reforms (such as Security Council reform or new global financial rules) that make the world order more equitable? Conversely, how can they safeguard their own interests if the trend toward a lawless might-makes-right order continues? Is there a risk of being forced to choose sides? How can they resist this to instead maintain a more neutral or even a more peaceful?
  • For Civil Society and Activists: With traditional diplomacy faltering, how can NGOs, peace activists and citizen networks defend global norms from the bottom up? What are successful examples of cross-border and translocal civil society action mitigating the absence of government leadership? For instance, city coalitions tackling climate change, international human rights campaigns or grassroots peacemaking across conflict lines. How can activists amplify these efforts without state backing? Would it help to create parallel people’s assemblies or civil society summits to hold leaders accountable to global values? Importantly, how can activists also counter the nationalist narrative that international cooperation undermines sovereignty? Are there ways to reframe global solidarity as compatible with, even beneficial to, local and national interests?
  • For Donors and Philanthropists: As governments pull back from funding global public goods, to what extent can private philanthropies, foundations or even businesses step in? Can we see the rise of a parallel UN funded by billionaire philanthropists or corporate alliances to fight pandemics, support peacebuilding or aid refugees? If so, what are the pros and cons: Can private initiatives be a stopgap for international cooperation, and how would it be possible to ensure that they coordinate with one another and remain accountable to the people they serve? Should international donors prioritise sustaining grassroots movements and institutions (free media, civic education, conflict resolution NGOs) that uphold the ideals of a rules-based order at the community level, so that whenever political winds shift there is a strong foundation upon which to rebuild? What might a Marshall Plan for multilateralism look like, led by those willing to invest in keeping collaboration alive?
  • For Educators, Journalists and the Public: How can we increase public awareness of what is at stake in the erosion of the rules-based order? Many citizens feel global treaties or UN debates are remote. So what compelling stories or evidence can educators and media use to illustrate the direct impact of those in people’s everyday lives? For example, how UN paralysis on conflicts leads to real human suffering or how withdrawing from WHO and other health accords could harm everyone in a pandemic. In an age of misinformation and nationalist rhetoric, what role should independent journalism and academia play in demystifying global governance and championing the idea that cooperation is not a naive ideal but a practical necessity? Can we learn from history – such as the failures of the League of Nations – to engage the public in a dialogue about why imperfect international institutions are still better than none? Ultimately, how can pro-peace and pro-cooperation voices win hearts and minds against rising cynicism, building a constituency that demands leaders work together rather than tear down the fragile systems keeping global peace?
4

Global Protest, Grassroots and Autonomous Civil Society

World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action

These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.

Global Protest, Grassroots and Autonomous Civil Society

April 2025

Download the article here.

Summary & Context

Over the past year, waves of popular protest and grassroots activism have surged across continents – from city squares in industrialised nations to villages and townships in the Global South. Citizen movements have become a defining feature of global politics, driven by grievances old and new. A recent study shows that in 2023 alone, major protests erupted in 83 countries, including unlikely places such as China, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq, and even in traditionally stable societies such as Denmark and Norway. This underscores that no region is immune to public anger or civic energy. The triggers vary widely. Some protests target authoritarianism and demand democracy; for example, protests and acts of dissent in Iran despite crackdowns or pro-democracy protests in Sudan and Myanmar despite facing military violence. Others explode over economic pain and inequality: Think of the cost-of-living and fuel price protests in Nigeria and Kenya in 2024, or demonstrations in Pakistan over inflation and political rights. Industrialised Western countries have seen their share of unrest, too. Huge climate marches across Europe, cost-of-living protests in the UK and France, and in the United States, incidents of labour strikes and social justice protests.

A striking contrast lies in how these movements manifest and what they achieve. The Global South often protests about existential issues. Food and fuel shortages, corruption and poor governance, resistance against foreign interference. In many Western democracies, while disruptive, protests generally occur in contexts that allow freedom of assembly and media coverage; for example, environmental activists in Germany regularly lobby and litigate for greener policies. At the same time, however, the suppression of pro-Palestine protests in several Western democracies is raising concerns about the erosion of civil liberties. For instance, in France, authorities temporarily banned pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing potential disturbances to public order (but this was later overruled by the courts). In Germany, pro-Palestinian rallies were prohibited, and spontaneous demonstrations were forcefully dispersed by police. In the United States, universities face ongoing criticism for arresting and disciplining students involved in pro-Palestine protests, leading to debates over free speech and academic freedom. In contrast, protesters in authoritarian or conflict-torn states brave far greater risks. Mozambican activists protesting electoral fraud in 2024 faced lethal force from security services resulting in at least 110 deaths. Student protesters in Bangladesh demonstrating against the reinstatement of job quotas were subjected to extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and mass arrests.

These differing conditions shape the strategies and resilience of movements. In the Global South, many protests are decentralised and fuelled by social media, as formal civil society groups are restricted. They may take creative forms – art and graffiti, or religious gatherings doubling as meetings to organise actions. While Western movements tend to benefit from established organisations (NGOs, unions) and get quicker access to global attention, they also struggle against complacency and fragmentation in societies where the sense of crisis is less acute. A notable trend is the cross-pollination of tactics. The 2019 leaderless protest methods in Hong Kong –using Telegram and laser pointers against cameras – inspired activists in Thailand. The 2020–2021 farmer protest in India not only succeeded in reversing laws but also set an example of sustained peaceful encampment with which climate activists in Europe express solidarity.
Despite differences, grassroots movements in both the Global North and Global South share common threads: frustration with elites, the demand for dignity and voice, and increasingly, a global consciousness. Climate strikes, for example, see youth from Stockholm to Kampala rally behind the same science and slogans, although their lived realities differ. As we move forward, activists are learning to navigate a world of shrinking civic space (more governments passing anti-protest laws or surveilling dissent) and digital battles (state-sponsored misinformation to discredit them or internet shutdowns during protests).

The big question is whether these disparate sparks of protest can lead to lasting change. In some cases, they clearly have. Think of the 2021 protests in Colombia that paved the way for the election of a reformist government. In others, movements face stalemates or harsh repression. In 2020, the Belarus democracy movement was crushed and many activists jailed or exiled. Nonetheless, the persistence of grassroots activism, even under dire conditions, suggests that people’s movements will remain a powerful force globally, continually adapting to their contexts.

Scenario Parallels/Contrasts​

The ubiquity of protests and civic movements strongly channels the Bridges scenario – a world of activated civil society forging connections across issues and borders. Indeed, the global protests of today exemplify how interdependence and stronger networks can shape events. For example, climate and social justice movements often coordinate internationally. Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future protests resonated on every continent, which reflects the Bridges emphasis on shared global identities and solidarity. We also see protests in the Global South increasingly leading the charge on issues such as inequality and climate justice, embodying the Bridges vision of empowered grassroots driving change from the bottom up. In contrast, the response to these movements often skews toward a Walls scenario. Many governments react with securitisation – from deploying troops and erecting literal or figurative walls against protesters, to passing laws that criminalise demonstrations. Such repression aligns with Walls futures in which states clamp down on civic space and see activism as a threat. The divergence between more permissive environments (Western democracies) and more repressive ones (authoritarian states) also mirrors the Towers scenario dynamic, whereby different regions have different civic space norms. In some regions (Europe, parts of Latin America), protest is an accepted part of political life (a legacy of democratic norms). In others (Middle East, China), protests are forced to operate undercover or face exile – almost as if they are two separate towers of civic possibility.

 

Ideally, the Maze scenario would have global institutions responding to protest demands; for example, the UN or regional organisations mediating in response to mass uprisings or governments addressing transnational protest calls via policy changes (climate accords, anti-corruption conventions). There are some hints of this. Global outrage over police violence (Black Lives Matter) pushed even the UN Human Rights Council to discuss racism in 2020. Youth climate protests pressured governments into stronger pledges at COP summits. Overall, however, protesters themselves often express frustration that the maze of international diplomacy is not delivering results fast enough. The rise of grassroots movements is a big nod to Bridges – people power transcending boundaries. Yet the pushback they face can shove things toward Walls, if repression wins, or force activists to become more nimble – as in a Maze, navigating complex systems. The focus of many current Global South movements also highlights a crucial point. Whereas Western activists often operate in relatively safe civic spaces (though not without challenges and threats), their Global South counterparts are innovating under pressure and possibly pioneering the future of protest in a world that is increasingly surveilled.

Discussion Questions

  • For Activists (Global North and Global South): How can grassroots movements in repressive environments sustain themselves and make an impact without the freedoms available in democracies? What creative tactics from the Global South can activists in the Global North learn from? For instance, the use of pseudonyms and secure apps by Sudanese protesters to evade surveillance or the community organising models from indigenous movements that have kept resistance alive for decades. Conversely, are there advantages that Global South activists see in Global North movements – such as fundraising networks or media outreach – that could be localised in their contexts? How can activists across borders support one another more concretely? For example, providing safe digital platforms, sharing legal aid resources or coordinating global days of action that protect those on the ground?
  • For Policymakers and Governance Stakeholders: The prevalence of protests signals underlying issues that governments have failed to address. What mechanisms can policymakers create to more constructively respond to grassroots grievances? Should there be more institutionalised channels for citizen input – such as participatory budgeting, national dialogues or citizen assemblies? How can governments differentiate between legitimate dissent and security threats without defaulting to repression? In democracies, what reforms (police training, accountability for misconduct, right to protest laws) are needed to rebuild trust so that protests do not become the only outlet for people to be heard? At the international level, is there a role for diplomacy in protecting the right to protest? For example, should democratic nations form a coalition that offers observation or mediation when major protest movements erupt in any country to discourage violent crackdowns?
  • For the Private Sector and Tech Platforms: Companies are increasingly drawn into protest dynamics – whether as subjects of protest (oil companies facing climate activists, sweatshop allegations sparking boycotts) or as platforms that enable mobilisation (social media, messaging apps). What responsibilities do tech companies have in protest contexts? For instance, when governments request internet shutdowns or want user data to track activists, how should companies respond in line with human rights principles? Could they do more to safeguard activists? Maybe by refusing to store data in jurisdictions prone to abuse or by amplifying credible information during protest crises to counter state propaganda. For businesses more broadly, how can they engage with the concerns raised by grassroots movements instead of seeing them as a nuisance? For example, can multinational corporations use their influence to urge governments to address the corruption and inequality that protesters highlight, recognising that stability is good for business in the long run? As part of their corporate social responsibility obligations, should companies support civic education and dialogue initiatives to help address the polarisation that often underlies waves of protest?
  • For Local Communities: Protests are often depicted as mass gatherings in capitals but they are fuelled by local community frustrations and can have lasting effects back in those communities. After the banners are rolled up, how do communities carry on the spirit of protest to achieve practical changes in daily life? In villages that participated in nationwide protests for land rights, do they form local councils to negotiate with authorities on those issues? How do communities deal with divisions if not everyone supported the protest movement? How can they heal the rifts that emerge when a segment of society opposed the protests that another segment championed? Importantly, what alternatives to protest might communities consider for the future? Some movements evolve into political parties or cooperatives. Is that a path communities are taking? For instance, protest leaders in some countries later win local office or create development associations. By reflecting on these questions, local groups can strategise how to turn moments of street protest into sustainable civic power and social change, tailored to their unique cultural and political context.