Choosing Peace: A Recap of the 2026 Geneva Peace Forum

by Isabelle Costa

At a moment when there are many global crises and interconnected risks, the 2026 edition of the Geneva Peace Forum adopted a plea as its theme: Choose Peace. Held from 12 to 15 October, the Forum brought together diplomats, researchers, policymakers, civil society, and international organisations to explore what choosing peace means in a world marked by geopolitical fragmentation, protracted conflicts, and emerging risks. Across the panels, one message stood out: peace cannot be treated as an outcome to pursue only after violence erupts. It requires deliberate choices, sustained investment, and cooperation across sectors.

The importance of prevention was particularly evident during the panel Building Peace-Positive Finance Ecosystems, with the participation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The discussion highlighted the need to engage the private sector in peacebuilding, unlock peace-positive financing, and encourage responsible investment in fragile settings. As traditional sources of official development assistance decline, private capital may become increasingly important. Yet attracting investment to fragile contexts remains difficult, particularly when results are hard to measure. Therefore, the challenge is not simply to mobilise more funding, but to recognise the wider benefits of prevention: stronger institutions, greater trust in government, and more cohesive communities. These outcomes may be difficult to quantify, but their absence can be costly.

Another highlight was the panel Neglected Conflicts and Overlooked Opportunities for Peacemaking. The international community frequently calls for greater attention to neglected conflicts. Yet this raises a fundamental question: conflicts neglected by whom? A conflict may receive little media coverage while remaining the subject of sustained diplomatic engagement. As Dr. Katia Papagianni explained through instances of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue’s involvement in Senegal, the Philippines, and Indonesia, negotiations can sometimes benefit from a lack of intense geopolitical competition. Conversely, international attention does not necessarily produce political agreement.

The discussion of Syria during The Security Landscape in the Middle East illustrated how attention does not produce political agreement. Extensive external involvement did not translate into a shared commitment to ending the war, as competing interests complicated the search for a political resolution. Major-General Rashed Hamad Al-Naemi emphasised diplomatic de-escalation and the need to move beyond crisis management towards sustainable security arrangements. The lesson is that engagement and resolution are not synonymous. The success of international involvement should be assessed by whether it reduces violence, creates space for dialogue, and improves the security of affected populations and not simply by the visibility of diplomatic initiatives.

Discussions on the topic of climate change provided another perspective on the relationship between prevention and sustained peace. During Peacebuilding on a Warming World, panellists highlighted that climate adaptation is not conflict-neutral. Decisions about infrastructure, access to land, and the distribution of resources can reinforce existing inequalities or generate new tensions. In the Sahel, cross-border approaches to pastoralism and flexible programming can help communities adapt to environmental pressures that do not respect national boundaries. In Central Asia, climate vulnerability and drought threaten livelihoods, making cooperation between communities, civil society, and policymakers essential.

These discussions also challenged the assumption that climate investment in fragile settings produces insufficient returns. Investments in adaptation and resilience can strengthen local institutions and social cohesion, generating benefits beyond their immediate environmental objectives. However, these gains require context-sensitive programming, collaboration with local authorities, and funding arrangements that recognise the time needed to build trust. As with mediation, sustainable outcomes depend on understanding local realities rather than imposing uniform solutions.

This edition also inaugurated the Forum’s initiative, Mediation in Focus, which featured discussions on the dilemmas and practical challenges facing mediators today. In an era of geopolitical competition and growing pressure on multilateral action, mediation requires more than bringing conflicting parties to the same table. It demands political judgement, adaptability, and an understanding of the interests that shape negotiations. The initiative’s accompanying Peacemakers podcast also offers a way to extend these conversations beyond Geneva, making the experiences of practitioners accessible to wider audiences.

Ultimately, the Geneva Peace Forum’s message extends beyond the choice between conflict and peace. It asks whether governments, institutions, and societies are willing to invest in the conditions that make peace possible. Bringing neglected conflicts into the spotlight matters, but attention must translate into appropriate and sustained engagement. Financing must reach fragile settings, climate policies must account for conflict dynamics, and mediation must remain responsive to political realities and local needs.

The Geneva Peace Forum extended an invitation. Now it is time to turn it into action and move towards a world where peace is an everyday choice.