On 23 March, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made an unprecedented call for an “immediate global ceasefire” to facilitate humanitarian access to the most vulnerable populations in order to stop the spread of the novel Coronavirus.
This was the first global call for a ceasefire in 75 years of United Nations history.
The response was swift and wide-ranging – parties to the conflict in 12 countries had already declared some form of ceasefire. Some 70 countries supported the call, as did eminent personalities such as the Pope and nearly 200 organizations.
Around the world, this simultaneous series of commitments to suspend hostilities with a common goal is entirely new. From Colombia to the Sudan, from the Philippines to Yemen, a coronavirus ceasefire promises a cessation of hostilities that will allow all parties to focus their efforts on combating the virus, as well as to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by the coronavirus in conflict areas.
However, the motivations behind those agreements vary.
Those are the big questions: Can these types of ceasefires be effective? And will they help resolve previously intractable conflicts?
International peacekeepers have a network of representatives in conflict-affected states, and the UN Standby Team of Mediators has experience in strengthening and developing ceasefires. In principle, the international community is well equipped to support the delicate process of strengthening coronavirus ceasefires, even if their task at the moment is complicated by the need to work remotely.
The call by the Secretary-General, according to many analysts, has created some useful momentum. In the weeks and months ahead, it will become clearer whether any of those new armistices can achieve their specific humanitarian goal and perhaps even take a preliminary step towards peace.