Diplomacy in a new disguise?
International Peace Mediation: seeking new opportunities for global peace
Dr. Antje Herrberg
Chief Executive Officer, MediatEUr

- This article was originally published as part of the 2018 edition of Bled Strategic Times, the official gazzette of the Bled Strategic Forum (BSF) international conference. You can access the full version of this and other BSF publications by visiting our official website.
Conflicts, so teaches us evolutionary theory as well as many philosophi- cal and spiritual traditions, can be a source for growth and development, as much as they can seem devastating and destruc- tive. The challenge for humanity is to capture this possibility and to find ways and methods to transform conflict into an opportunity for transformation andsocietal improvement. An effective way and method to address this challenge is a practice called mediation. At its core, mediation is a non-violent method of conflict resolutions in which a third party supports conflict par- ties to arrive to a solution that is acceptable to all. Mediation has been practiced in vari- ous forms and by different actors.
The practice of mediation as we know it today began when the legal system in the USA was deemed unsatisfactory in solv- ing people’s disputes creating an alternative dispute resolution movement in the 1980’s. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we wit- nessed real limits to diplomacy and associat- ed public scrutiny and criticism. Thousands of peacekeepers and soldiers die as a con- sequence of conflict and intervention strat- egies. Billions of taxpayers’ money is being spent on military interventions. Yet we fail to solve conflicts and are subjected to its conse- quences, one of it being migration.
Indeed there are efficient ways to solve conflicts, namely to go beyond positional bargaining and to understand the main mo- tivation and root causes that create actions which in turn create conflict. “Getting to Yes”, written by the Harvard Professors Wil- liam Ury and Roger Fisher to help negotia- tion parties create win-win, rather than win/ loose situation remains a bestseller and a practice that created a professionalization of interest based mediation, which gained solid ground in the field of international relations and diplomacy. With the end of the Cold War and the beginning of an era of local and regional conflicts, many based on ethnic, or national self-determination, ensued, con- fronting the international community with the continued challenge of non-intervention while at the same time the responsibility to protect.
Dialogue and mediation offer themselves as a meaningful tools and practice. The vis- ible successes of dialogue and mediation from South Africa in the 90’s, in the Balkans, to Indonesia/Aceh, Mozambique, and more recently Colombia, or negotiations regarding Iran and Macedonia and many more pro- cesses that are actively being mediated by the international community, serve as an inspi- ration for locally driven, but internationally supported peace negotiations, no longer the exclusive realm of only diplomatic efforts but much in the hands of specialised individuals and organisations.
In time and with advocacy of the interna- tional peace movement, international peace mediation has made its powerful in-roads in international Institutions beginning with the United Nations, but also the European Union, African Union and the OSCE. Some states such as Switzerland and Norway but also Finland and Germany have, for prag- matic, ideological or strategic reasons, made mediation part of their foreign policy doctrine. International institutions have insti- tutionalised mediation support as a profes- sional way to enhance the effectiveness of engagement through methods other than peacekeeping, although not exclusively so. It shows a willingness to engage in a new form of diplomacy.
How realistic is this? The persistence of intractable conflicts causes frustration and give rise to cynicism. It is painful to witness the outcome of the Syrian civil war, the per- sistence of conflict in the Middle East, and the catastrophic situation in other conflict settings such as South Sudan which in itself the result of a mediated process, or Yemen following an UN assisted national dialogue, just to name a few. It is true that the regionalisation of conflict and the non-abidance to international norms and the degeneration of a ‘code diplomatique’ or international responsibility pres- ent a genuine challenge to the maintenance of international peace and also to the trans- formative work of international peace medi- ation. And it is true that although today me- diation and negotiation might be the most prevalent methods for conflict resolution, the majority of conflicts remain unresolved. As a matter of fact, close to 50% ongoing conflicts since 2005 remain unsolved.
This said, mediation and dialogue, if practiced as a value based professional prac- tice by the international community, remainthe single most important diplomatic prac- tice for solving conflicts today. And yet, it does not pair well with military arms compe- tition by countries with substantial military industrial complexes. We need to be clear that military intervention can only remain a source of action of last resort. Military inter- vention cannot stop the refugee flows that have seemingly threatened the Western world, di- alogue and mediation followed by constructive interventions can — if a commitment of all parties is in place.
Lip service is not enough: if it is to change this state of the world, this practice needs to be mainstreamed in today’s diplomatic work at all levels, not only half-heartedly in a cri- sis management moment, when most often solutions are imposed rather than negotiat- ed. Mediation in fact entails the engagement of an impartial third party, free from national interests besides that of peace. How many of these actors do we really have available? How can mediation actors responsibly manage the realities of a peace process and agreement with local stakeholders, not just negotiate at a table with the elite? Mediative diplomacy entails a mandate, long-term trust building, building of a structured tailored process and supporting parties to follow through the process, rather than imposing the one or other format or outcome. On the insti- tutional level, it requires solid competence and well-trained competent diplomats, not just good will. There must be a genuine sub- scription to values of mediation and its pro- fessional practice. This means resources, be it human or financial to support processes, best synergised between actors but certainly not to compete against each other, which is often the case.
Information and analysis that we produce and consider thus should focus on effective conflict analysis that concerns itself with ad- dressing root causes rather than lamenting short term political problems, the latter to be considered as symptoms of a bigger prob- lem. It requires the international diplomatic community opening itself and empowering the practice of non-governmental organisa- tions and civic leadership who seek to trans- form their societies. It requires parties to be accountable to their own process. And, once out of the limelight, there must be follow-up. The peace process begins but does not end with the agreement. A peace process, as we know from the Balkans, lasts at least a gen- eration and sufficient resources need to be available to maintain this dynamic. And here, there must be a collective commitment.
Peace mediation is not just a nice acces- sory or complement to traditional diploma- cy, but it must be embedded in a rich policy framework that includes trade and commer- cial policy as well as security policy. And let’s not forget its limits: Human rights, are indivisible interests and needs and are not up for negotia- tion. That is a key dilemma, take Syria or the DRC as an example.
The famous words of “Be the Change that you wish to see in the world” of Mahatma Ghandi create a powerful vibration to the practice of con- flict resolution. It begins with each of us. No state actor could espouse the practice of mediation unless it has made dialogue and non-violent communication a part of its democratic process. The practice of peaceful conflict resolution, mediation and dialogue is something that is yet to be fully integrat- ed in our societies and educational systems. Only by truly embracing such an approach, humanity has a chance to use conflict as an opportunity for development and growth in global societies

