2025 was a year in which the world reaffirmed a fundamental truth: conflicts are not confined to individual national borders. Currently, wars in the region are pushing migration across continents, disrupting food and energy markets, straining humanitarian systems, and reshaping global alliances. If the battlefield is local, the shockwaves spread globally.
In this environment, two small states, Norway and Qatar, have made mediation a core instrument of their security policies, rather than a benevolent tool. For both of us, diplomacy is not a matter of public ceremonies and symbolic gestures. In a world where unresolved conflicts inevitably recur through alternative channels, diplomacy is a strategic responsibility. Stability is achieved through access, credibility, and the ability to keep adversaries engaged in political dialogue even when trust breaks down.
There is an old saying that “there is a revolution in time” and as the world steers towards 2026, there is an urgent need for truly transformative and different thinking at scale. For too long, the international system has normalized chaos. Peace must be normalized by 2026. Mediation is no longer just a moral option, but a strategic option. This is the only means of conflict resolution that can truly stop escalation before it truly disrupts the world.
For Norway and Qatar, 2025 has provided harsh but valuable lessons about what effective mediation actually requires. It is not an outright diplomatic victory, but a disciplined and often invisible effort to prevent crisis from hitting the entire region.
4 Examples of Effective Mediation
Few conflicts have shocked the world’s conscience as much as the Gaza war. Although the two-state solution is still an unfinished mediation project, many issues have been resolved through diplomatic channels, and both countries are at the very center of the effort.
While hostilities escalated and tensions rose, confiscated taxes were released, prisoners were freed, hostages were returned to their loved ones, and humanitarian access improved. Our experience shows that humanitarian relief efforts and political lines cannot be separated or hindered. One cannot survive without the other. Unless diplomacy and humanitarianism move forward together, neither can succeed.
Our continued commitment to Sudan is not just about reducing violence and improving humanitarian access. It also reaffirms that there is no reliable alternative to a political process that protects unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty and stability. Indeed, a sustainable path forward must reflect the aspirations of the Sudanese people, protect them from foreign interference, and protect state institutions from collapse.
Our work in the Great Lakes and Sahel regions has reinforced the simple but often ignored reality that regional peace requires local responsibility. Stability cannot be outsourced. As the UN Security Council has emphasized, no mediation initiative is viable without ownership and full involvement of all parties involved.
In Colombia, we have reunited to help end more than two decades of armed conflict involving one of Colombia’s most powerful armed groups, El Ejercito Gaitanista de Colombia (EEGC). On the fringes of last year’s Doha Forum, we witnessed the signing of new commitments between the Colombian government and the EEGC. This is another major step towards lasting peace and stability in Colombia and the wider region.
These experiences vary depending on the context, but when combined they give the same answer. In other words, mediation is crisis insurance. Prevent local disasters from becoming global disasters.
If 2025 revealed the limits of military power, 2026 will reveal whether the world is willing to invest in peace before being forced to provide funding instead of reconstruction funds. This will test whether political dialogue can serve as a first line of defense, rather than a last resort.
From crisis management to crisis prevention
Five shifts are essential to moving from crisis management to crisis prevention.
First, we must invest in mediation early, not after a collapse. For all of us, the cost of preventive diplomacy is only a fraction of the price to be paid after a war has already broken out.
Second, our efforts must always be guided by international law. Truly durable solutions that can withstand the test of time can only be achieved in accordance with international legitimacy, achieved through compliance with the law.
Third, humanitarian access is non-negotiable. Civilians cannot be used as levers for political or military logic. Refusal of aid deepens discontent, prolongs conflict and destroys any remaining trust.
Fourth, all ceasefires must incorporate validation from day one. Even the most carefully crafted agreements remain vulnerable without oversight and accountability.
Mr Fiss, the mediation process and those leading it must be protected. In an era of disinformation, polarization, and targeted attacks, protecting intermediaries is no longer an option. It is essential to the credibility and continuity of any peace effort.
These are not idealistic demands. These are operational requirements for regional and global stability.
Resolutions for 2026
Norway and Qatar are not the same model. However, our approach is based on common principles. If the world were to make one resolution for 2026, it should be this. It is to seek peace before chaos seeks us.
Alternatives are already visible. The humanitarian system is reaching breaking point. The political system is becoming unstable. Millions of young people have inherited a conflict they did not start and do not understand, and yet are expected to endure. In such a world, security becomes reactive, prohibitively expensive, and ultimately unsustainable.
Mediation is not something you do when all else fails. It prevents all other failures. This is why the Security Council reaffirmed its commitment to mediation as a means of achieving peaceful resolution of conflicts.
In 2026, the value of peace will no longer be an ideal or a statement, but will be measured by the stability, security and economic security it provides to societies, including areas far beyond a single conflict zone.
The choice is between a world that learns from 2025 or 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 the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
