Peace Treaties: Have They Really Achieved Peace?

 

 

Dr Inas Mohamed Ahmed

The philosophical theory of sustainable peace holds that lasting peace cannot be achieved unless it is founded on justice, respect for the rule of law and human rights, and respect for all parties’ national sovereignty. These foundations must be enshrined in any peace agreement, after which the specific provisions of the international agreement relating to each particular conflict can be added. In other words, these are the practical requirements that must be implemented to translate sustainable peace into reality on the ground.

An example is the Treaty of Paris of 1783, considered one of the earliest peace treaties of the modern era. Signed by the United States, it ended the American Revolution and led to the establishment of the United States as an independent nation. France had supported the United States in the hope that it would remain a relatively small country between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian Mountains, while Britain retained the territories north of the Ohio River and Spain controlled part of the south. However, Britain also supported the emergence of a strong United States with a robust economy, which could serve as a bulwark against French interests. As a result, the United States gained territories extending to the Mississippi River and expanded westward, becoming a powerful nation. In practice, however, it had achieved peace on the ground.

The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) was convened following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France itself participated. The Congress resulted in several agreements, the most important of which was the Treaty of Paris of 1814. These arrangements prevented many European wars. France returned to its 1792 borders and lost all the territories it had annexed during Napoleon’s rule.

The Netherlands and Belgium were united under a single kingdom, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to serve as a barrier against French expansion.

Austria recovered cities that had previously belonged to it, while the German Confederation was established, comprising 39 German-speaking states under Austrian leadership, without achieving German national unification.

Russia acquired a large part of Poland, while Britain took control of Malta, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and other colonies.

The powers also guaranteed Switzerland’s neutrality, condemned the slave trade, and secured freedom of navigation on several rivers, including the Rhine.

As a result of these developments, the European powers came to recognise that France’s future lay neither in weakening it nor in excluding it from the European system and denying it a political role. Such exclusion would only encourage France to seek to recover its influence and return to war. The solution, therefore, was to reintegrate France into the European system after it abandoned its expansionist project and its ambitions to dominate the continent.

France consequently entered an undeclared alliance with Britain and Austria to counter Russian and Prussian ambitions over Poland and Saxony and preserve the European balance of power. This process was completed in 1818 at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.

Remarkably, the Congress of Vienna was not a congress in the technical sense, as no general plenary session was ever held. Instead, the participating states negotiated informally. Nevertheless, it established a framework for European international politics.

Although the Congress of Vienna is widely praised as a pivotal event that redrew Europe’s political map and established peace and stability while preventing wars for a relatively long period, it has also been criticised for disregarding the will of peoples to determine their own destinies. This contributed to the spread of rebellions and the outbreak of revolutions in subsequent years. Moreover, its failure to account for ethnic differences and the various national identities within European states contributed to ongoing ethnic conflicts. It paved the way for the violent clashes and disputes that emerged during the nineteenth century.

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 and came into force in January 1920. France, Italy, the United States, Britain, China, Japan, and Brazil were among the countries that signed it, aiming to impose penalties on Germany, which was held responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. Germany was required to pay reparations to compensate the countries that had participated in the war for their losses. It was also compelled to surrender many of its colonies.

The Dayton Agreement brought the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina to an end in 1995, following three weeks of negotiations in the American city of Dayton. It divided Bosnia and Herzegovina into two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, comprising Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and Croats, and the Republika Srpska, comprising Serbs.

The Camp David Accords followed the 1973 war, in which the Egyptian army achieved victory over Israel, and culminated in the peace treaty signed by Egypt and Israel on 26 March 1979.

These and other treaties have had a considerable impact on ending wars and achieving peace.

Turning to Sudan, the United Nations Security Council held an open session in mid-October 2026, followed by closed consultations, to discuss developments in the ongoing war and the country’s humanitarian situation. The sessions witnessed broad international agreement on Sudan’s unity, territorial integrity and respect for its state institutions. This points to the need to distinguish between the state’s official institutions and the external logistical support networks supplying the militia with mercenaries and weapons. However, disagreements persisted over the conditions for a political settlement and the security arrangements.

Between agreement and disagreement, ending the war and achieving a just peace in Sudan requires a carefully considered plan that accounts for Sudan’s particular circumstances. Such a plan must prevent the external flow of weapons to the militia in order to bring the war to a genuine end, condemn the states supporting the militia for the crime of aggression, and bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. There can be no peace without justice.

This must go hand in hand with adopting the national vision for achieving peace and ending the war, presented by Ambassador Al-Harith Idris. This Sudanese vision is implementable on the ground and has been presented at several international forums. It therefore offers a comprehensive national plan for establishing sustainable peace in practice.

But the central question remains: Is the international community genuinely committed to supporting peace in Sudan and actually bringing the war to an end?

Sudan has stressed the need to protect its national sovereignty, ensure the militia’s withdrawal from cities and civilian facilities, and initiate an inclusive, Sudanese-led dialogue among Sudanese parties. Such a dialogue should establish the contours of the Sudanese vision while accommodating international and regional initiatives, bringing them together within a common frame of reference founded on respect for international law and national sovereignty, the prevention of all forms of foreign interference, and adherence to a policy of good neighbourliness.

At the international level, one of the most important outcomes of the Security Council session was the reaffirmation of Sudan’s unity, territorial integrity and national sovereignty. This means that attention is now turning towards the form and nature of the peace required to end the war. However, the Council did not explain how such peace should be achieved.

This is precisely where the national vision and the international community’s approach fail to converge. The national vision calls for the rebellion to be eradicated at its roots and for a just peace to be established. By contrast, the international community repeatedly makes what appears to be a desperate appeal for a truce — one that would breathe new life into a militia that has effectively reached a state of clinical death. This would lead to the war resuming once again, and the cycle would continue.

War may change or shift the balance of power and impose a new military or political reality. But war alone cannot build a just and sustainable peace unless the demands of those who have suffered are met on the ground, reconciliation is achieved, the consequences of the war are addressed, and vital state facilities and infrastructure are rebuilt.

In conclusion, Sudan is committed to achieving and safeguarding peace and to working with all parties to bring it about, provided that its national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the dignity of its people are respected.

A peace that fails to deliver these things cannot truly be called peace.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=19300