2025 was the year the world relearned a fundamental truth: conflicts are not confined within discrete borders. A war in one region now pushes migration across continents, disrupts food and energy markets, strains humanitarian systems, and reshapes global alliances. If the battlefield is local, the shockwaves are global.
Two small states, Norway and Qatar, have in this environment made mediation not an instrument of goodwill, but a core instrument of security policy. Diplomacy is, for both of us, not a matter of public ritual or symbolic gesture: it is a strategic responsibility in a world where unresolved conflicts return inevitably through different channels. Stability is achieved by means of access, credibility, and the capacity to keep adversaries engaged in political dialogue even when trust has collapsed.
“Time has its revolutions”, as an old phrase goes, and as the world turns toward 2026 a different mindset of truly transformative scale is urgently needed. The international system has for too long normalized disruption. 2026 must normalize peace. Mediation is no longer merely the moral option: it is the strategic one. It is the only means of dispute settlement capable of truly disrupting escalation before escalation truly disrupts the world.
For Norway and Qatar, 2025 has delivered harsh but invaluable lessons in what effective mediation actually requires — not sweeping diplomatic triumphs, but the disciplined, often unseen work of keeping crises from consuming entire regions.
Four examples of effective mediation
Few conflicts have shocked the world’s conscience more than the war in Gaza. While the two-state solution is still an unfinished mediation project, many issues have been resolved through diplomatic channels, with our countries positioned at the very center of these efforts.
Even while hostilities intensified and tensions escalated, confiscated tax funds were released, prisoners freed, hostages returned to their loved ones and humanitarian access improved. Our experience tells us that humanitarian relief operations, and political tracks cannot be separated or stymied. One cannot survive without the other: unless diplomacy and humanitarianism advance together, neither can succeed.
Our ongoing engagement in the Sudan do not only seek to reduce violence and improve humanitarian access. It is also to reaffirm that there is no credible alternative to a political process that safeguards unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and stability. Surely any sustainable path forward must reflect the aspirations of the Sudanese people, protect against foreign intervention, and safeguard state institutions from collapse.
Our efforts in the Great Lakes and the Sahel have reinforced a simple but often neglected reality: regional peace requires regional responsibility. Stability cannot be outsourced. As the UN Security Council has stressed, no mediation initiative can be viable without ownership and full involvement of all relevant parties.
In Colombia, we came together once again to help bring an end to more than twenty years of armed conflict involving one of Colombia’s most powerful armed groups, the El Ejercito Gaitanista de Colombia (EEGC). At the margins of the Doha Forum last year, we witnessed the signing of new commitments between the Government of Colombia and the EEGC—another significant stride toward lasting peace and stability in Colombia and the wider region.
These experiences differ in context, but they combine to provide the same answer: mediation is crisis insurance. It prevents regional disasters from becoming global ones.
If 2025 revealed the limits of military power, 2026 will reveal whether the world is willing to invest in peace before it is forced instead to bankroll reconstruction. It will test whether political dialogue can become the first line of defence rather than some last-ditch attempt.
Moving from crisis management to crisis prevention
Five shifts are essential if we are to move from crisis management to crisis prevention.
First, we must invest in mediation early, not after the collapse. The cost of preventative diplomacy is, for all of us, a fraction of the price to be paid after war has already erupted.
Second, our efforts must be guided always by international law: truly lasting solutions, capable of standing the test of time, can be achieved only in accordance with international legitimacy achieved through adherence to the law.
Third, humanitarian access is non-negotiable. Civilians cannot be used as leverage in political or military logic. The denial of aid deepens grievances, prolongs conflict, and destroys any remaining trust.
Fourth, verification must be built into every ceasefire from day one. Even the most carefully drafted agreements will, if there is no monitoring or accountability, remain fragile.
Fith, mediation processes — and those who lead them — must be protected. In an era of disinformation, polarization and targeted attacks, safeguarding mediators is no longer optional; it is essential to the credibility and continuity of any peace effort.
These are not idealistic demands. They are operational requirements for regional and global stability.
A resolve for 2026
Norway and Qatar are not identical models. But our approaches are anchored in shared principles. If the world is to make one resolution for 2026, it should be this: seek peace before disruption seeks us.
The alternative is already visible. Humanitarian systems are reaching their breaking point. Political institutions are being destabilized. Millions of young people are inheriting conflicts they did not start and may not understand, yet will be expected to endure. In such a world, security becomes reactive, exorbitantly expensive, and ultimately unsustainable.
Mediation is not what we do when everything else has failed. It is what prevents everything else from failing. This is why the Security Council has reaffirmed its commitment to mediation as a means of achieving the peaceful settlement of disputes.
The value of peace will in 2026 no longer be measured in ideals or statements, but in the stability, the safety, and the economic security it provides to societies, including those far beyond any single conflict zone.
The choice is between a world that learns from 2025 — and a world that is content to repeat its mistakes.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect media’s editorial stance.
