Is Mine Action the key to building confidence in the peace mediation process?
We sat down with Dr. Christina Stenner during the last Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention and had the opportunity to hear her thoughts on mine action and peace mediation.
Here are some highlights from our interview where she brings up the importance of actions that benefit affected populations and how organisations like GICHD provide their technical expertise.
How can Mine Action (MA) benefit peace mediation processes?
This specific field of expertise has not yet been sufficiently brought into peace mediation processes in the OSCE area. I am personally convinced that both the mediation and MA communities would mutually benefit from working more closely together. Conflict has a very high impact on the population.
This is why peace processes cannot be conducted only on a high level; a more immediate impact is needed for affected populations. MA is a decisive step to build confidence in conflict-affected regions and it immediately benefits the population, thus also significantly strengthening track 2 and 3 diplomacy. Therefore, it is really useful for mediators to include MA in peace processes.
“Conflict has a very high impact on the population.”
At what stage of mediation processes should MA be included?
In the case of preliminary ceasefires, which only open space for further political negotiations, addressing contamination by mines and explosive remnants of war has an immediate dividend as a confidence building measure.
The population sees that there is willingness to stop fighting and enter into talks. Negotiation requires trust; you cannot sit at the table and mediate peace while the killing continues.
But trust is built gradually, and this is where MA can play an important role as an initial yet crucial means to build confidence in the process, because mine action entails the engagement of both sides with or without a neutral third party. But we need to be careful about when to address MA questions in such processes, and it really depends on the nature of the conflict.
“Negotiation requires trust; you cannot sit at the table and mediate peace while the killing continues.”
In the case of a protracted conflict, for example, we have to be cautious. In tying MA to peace agreements, which may take years or sometimes decades to be agreed, there is a risk of delaying and, therefore, hampering its humanitarian benefit.
Also, such as in the case of the crisis in and around Ukraine, MA can be in particular endangered by unpredictable military manoeuvres on the ground. Without a lasting ceasefire, verifiable disengagement of heavy weapons, or mutually agreed (and desired) mine action, peace talks can hardly be successful for conflict resolution.
On the other hand, including MA in peace agreements can help institutionalise and legitimise MA efforts, which would have been difficult to reach otherwise. A positive example is the Dayton Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina where MA was included as a key element and remains eligible today.
Whether, when, and how to address MA in ceasefire or peace negotiations requires professional and careful process design.
How can knowledge about mines and other explosive remnants of war specifically benefit the peace mediation community?
Sharing our knowledge is mutually beneficial. We, for instance, have a methodological expertise in mediation, but we only have limited technical expertise in demining, such as that which the OSCE undertakes at the Tajik border to Afghanistan, or Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Humanitarian or military experts do provide such technical expertise in certain fields such as MA.
The integration of the sides is irreplaceable and can only be complemented by international expertise. However, the mediation community needs both international and local expertise and involvement and needs to foster mutual exchange.
“GICHD research on the topic is very valuable in this context.”
Personally, I think it is an excellent publication, [Mine Action and Peace Mediation], which identifies a gap in the literature.
It covers aspects of neutrality and right timing very well and lays the ground for future enhanced collaboration. These kinds of publications and discussions help to raise awareness on your expertise amongst the mediation community.
How could the OSCE specifically benefit from increased knowledge about MA?
In the time I have worked in the domain of international organisations and peace mediation, I have seen that we get the most out of our respective expertise if we think more carefully about divisions of labour: who is best in doing what.
The OSCE, for example, has a strong leverage especially with track 1/high-level mediation processes. So, sometimes we need other organisations to complement our efforts to achieve the joint objective of peace and security.
The GICHD, as experts in MA, should brief our executive structures, feeding their knowledge through the Mediation Support Team into mediation processes.
With our support, we can help raise awareness about these specific questions amongst key mediators in the process, & make it one of the tools in a mediator’s tool box.
So, it is really in our interest to bring your expertise to mediation. This would open door to anchoring MA into ceasefire and peace agreements, which would subsequently facilitate operations.
