The Changing Nature of International Mediation
| Author | José Pascal da Rocha |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12683 |
The Changing Nature of International
Mediation
Jos
e Pascal da Rocha
Columbia University
Abstract
As warfare mutates from intrastate to infrastate, it was Clausewitz himself who created his own paradigmatic exit: war is a cha-
meleon. The changing nature and trajectories of war have also changed the way that international mediators have deployed
and used their skillsets. From liberation movements who fought for a new sociopolitical agenda to fragmented rebel forma-
tions and individuals who fight for self-interests and preservation, mediators have to adapt to the new realities. The real actors
are invisible or fluid in shape and structure, and interventions tend to be mired by a lack of appropriate response mecha-
nisms. Along with a dissipation of Western values and culture, and the rise of proto-states and secessionist movements, the
brewing sandstorms of new wars over a new world power dispensation pose a tremendous challenge for mediators. The arti-
cle will reinforce mediation theory and applied practice through a review of past experiences and a call to supplement state
level instruments of mediation with local level cultural dialogue capacities (highlighting early warning and early responses)
and the creation of safe spaces through integrated and complementarity approaches to interventions.
Principles
Violent extremism, neglected groups and regions, natural
resources, and elections remain the primary triggers of con-
flict. 2016 is the starting point, where mediation and pre-
vention were required for complex conflicts to become
amenable to multidimensional peace efforts (Haysom, 2005;
Vennesson, 1998). For example, of the 8 AU/REC-led Peace
Support Operations that took place in Africa in 2016, 83%
were considered to be effective or partly effective (Tana
Forum, 2018). A mix of instruments produced effective
peace support operations. The purpose of this article will be
devoted to these recent transformations of peacemak-
ing shaking up the traditional prerogatives of international
diplomacy and leading to a mediator 3.0.
Mediation is a conflict management tool used across
many areas of social, economic, and political life. In the
international arena, it is a process of assisted negotiations,
where parties seek to settle their (at times violent) conflict
through an agreement with new rules as to how to solve
the initial problem and how to engage in better decision-
making processes (Assefa, 1987; Princen, 1992; Zartman and
Touval, 1985). Whereas negotiation involves a bargaining
approach between two parties seeking a solution to a dis-
pute, the use of mediation signals (1) a breakdown in com-
munication and trust between the parties, (2) the
introduction of an outside or third party to the negotiation
dynamics, and (3) the transformation of destructive conflict
to a constructive resolution of the problem. Mediation as a
process of conflict management where disputants seek or
accept help from one or more third parties to settle their
conflict or resolve their differences without resorting to
physical force or invoking the authority to impose an out-
come (Bercovitch and DeRouen, 2005; Sisk, 2009).
The nature of the conflict, whether political or not, is
ambivalent. Conflict is defined as a social situation where
two more or more parties pursue factual or perceived
incompatible goals. It can be analyzed as a drama, a pathol-
ogy announcing disorder, the sign of the chaos of a system
or an institution. On the other hand, it can be considered as
the vector of the construction of a collective identity, of the
clarification of social rules, as the means of testing the cohe-
sion of a group, as the ferment of political and social
change (Galtung, 1980). The political conflicts which interest
us are those in which the opponents (states, social move-
ments, parties) do not respect the rules of the democratic
fight, using for example armed struggle and illegitimate
physical violence. Conflict, thus, is the starting point for any
mediation activity.
Mediation pre and post 9/11: A changing and
fluid re-conceptualization
Conflicts go through life cycles and break down into phases,
some more conducive to mediation than others. The media-
tor needs to address the drivers, dynamics and motivations
of each actor that lead to violent or nonviolent struggle
(Richmond, 2001). Thus, to have chances of success, media-
tion should intervene at the right moment. Mediation efforts
that come soon after the dispute breaks out would have the
best chance of success, as well as those that come after a
long time. If the conflict is not resolved quickly, efforts in
the interim period are unlikely to be effective. A conflict is
ripe to be resolved when a mutually hurting stalemate
occurs, when each of the protagonists realizes that he can-
not in any case solve the problem by himself and that the
costs of conflict are no longer tolerable (Zartman, 2000).
Ripeness can result from internal political changes within
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12683 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue Supplement 2 . June 2019 101
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial