Peace Report: Are modern warlords ruling the world?

"Warlord" is a term that was commonly used in the 1990s in connection with civil wars in Liberia, Afghanistan and Somalia. During that time, it was used to describe leaders who waged war to further their own interests, with no regard for the degradation of countries. The 2026 Peace Report from four leading German peace and conflict research institutes focuses on the comeback of such stakeholders in the 21st century.

"The new warlords undermine the international order," said Conrad Schetter from the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (bicc) as he launched the report on Monday in Berlin together with three other institutes. The conflict researchers listed several names, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

He accuses them and others of essentially the same thing: "Using military violence is their preferred method of advancing their interests. In doing so, they do not care about international law." Schetter's colleague, Ursula Schröder from the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) added: "We don't want to equate anything, but we do see patterns," referring to Putin, Trump, Netanyahu and other people in power.

Violence as 'a normal instrument of politics' 

The authors of the Peace Report see the characterizing pattern as to once again employ violence as a "normal instrument of politics." In doing so, they also attempt "to curtail the political sovereignty of other countries." All in the interests of profit and expanding power. 

According to the study, this also applies to many Gulf monarchies: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. "They are involved in numerous civil wars from Libya to Somalia," conflict researcher Schetter said. For them, it is also all about advancing their geopolitical, strategic, or economic interests. 

Less development cooperation and humanitarian aid

This is why the theme of warlords is present throughout the study, even in its title. They fuel the collapse of the international order, laments Nicole Deitelhoff from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF). She is thinking primarily about the United Nations. 

To stop this trend, she expects more engagement from Germany and Europe. "We urge them that they must find partners in order to sustain a system of rules." Deitelhoff and the other experts considered financial cuts to development cooperation and humanitarian aid to be the wrong choice. Such withdrawal strengthened crisis dynamics, they said in a joint statement.   

More hunger, more sickness, more crime 

According to the Peace Report, the real-world consequences are many-sided: more food crises and famines, the spreading of potentially deadly infections such as what is currently happening with the Ebola virus. Plus: "Taking away aid goes hand in hand with a drastic increase in criminality and armed conflicts: for example, in Haiti, Democratic Republic of Congo or in South Sudan." 

Germany should reverse its cuts to development cooperation, the conflict researchers suggest. That could present a contrast to the arbitrariness of the new warlords. However, their appeal comes with a warning: "Where development cooperation merely serves to deter migration or secure sources of raw materials it loses its meaning as a peace policy."

Has Germany squandered trust? 

The four institutes recommended another development cooperation path in their report: The focus should be on inclusivity, human rights and peace building — in short: cooperative policy. "The bonus is that it strengthens trust in partnerships and in the international order." 

According to the Peace Report, Germany has largely squandered this trust. Deitelhoff considers Berlin's failed bid for a two-year term on the UN Security Council as symptomatic: "That is surely also because in recent years Germany has often dodged defending international law."

What is Friedrich Merz's stance on international law? 

She is alluding to the fact that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did not definitively describe the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by US forces as a breach of international law, as other countries did. Instead, Merz said: "The legal classification regarding the US intervention is complex."  

He also avoided an unequivocal commitment to international law following the US and Israel's attack on Iran. Now was not time to "lecture our partners and allies," the Christian Democrats (CDU) politician said. When the countries were bombing the Iranian nuclear program in 2005, Merz justified this action, saying it was "dirty work Israel is doing for all of us".

New attempt for more arms control? 

Peace researcher Deitelhoff is clear about the lesson that Germany should take from its UN Security Council vote defeat: "It is about taking it on board and thinking about how Germany can boost its own profile again."

The Peace Report contains tips for how Berlin could achieve this: In times of increasing arms races, the foundations for reliable weapons controls must be created. "They are, as confidence-building measures, essential requirements for peace building."

This article was translated from German.