Some Thoughts on Dialogue
By Micheline Calmy-Rey, former President of Switzerland
At a time when the U.S., UK, France, and Russia have gone to war with the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) and intensified their airstrikes in Syria, the legitimate question is whether this is effective. Do these interventions have the capacity to put an end to the war? The U.S. State Department lists 65 countries as partners in the so-called Global Coalition to Degrade and Defeat ISIL, established in September 2014. Since then, the Islamic State movement has maintained its control over a large swathe of territory in Syria and Iraq, and it is gaining strength elsewhere.
Armed action may not single-handedly provide the solution to the Syrian crisis, but what about diplomacy and negotiation? UN-sponsored peace talks on Syria are being undermined by a host of factors, including proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, blockades by the warring parties have reportedly put hundreds of thousands of Syrians at risk of starvation and malnutrition. The Syrian war has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced more than eleven million.
Current global news is not dissimilar to the darkest pages of religious history in the 16th and 17th centuries, where inclusive dialogue and persuasion were often portrayed as the work of the devil. Once again, ostracism and brutal punitive force are becoming popular solutions. One wonders whether the Enlightenment ever took place.
Should we look for dialogue without discrimination — even if that means sitting down at the table with armed groups such as IS?
What is to be done when states and non-state actors violate international law and its principles? When they kill indiscriminately, rape, and torture? Who should be called a terrorist, and who should be called a freedom fighter? Which are the legitimate means for political action, and which should be banned?
There has been increased consensus over the last few years as to what should be considered, in law or in fact, as a threat to security or a serious violation of human rights. But we often have difficulty agreeing on whether to negotiate or to sanction, whether to engage or to boycott, whether to enter into dialogue or to exclude.
Our international system is in the midst of an upheaval. Violence, terrorism and war continue to wreak havoc: there have been more conflicts in the last five years than ever before. These conflicts reflect new forms of violence. Transnational movements and new technologies change their nature. And we know of the shocking number of victims these scourges leave in their wake, mostly civilians.
It is obviously not a matter of advocating dialogue against all odds. One must assess the risks before acting, and not hesitate to ask the fundamental questions: is there a chance of moving things forward, or is the perceived opening a mere delaying tactic? What are the goals of dialogue? To deal with what issues, with whom, and at what level? In this field, each case is unique.
A growing number of countries and organisations are advocating “soft power,” which involves maintaining dialogue across a number of fields of international politics. This approach may be used to defend national interests, solve global problems or facilitate talks between parties to a conflict. States seeking influence through soft power now take part in genuine “dialogue competition”. More of them wonder how to move from a simple discussion to authentic political negotiation on a crisis or conflict. In so doing, it is a matter of defending the cause of political pragmatism: asking ourselves whether it is worthwhile distinguishing between good and bad political forces.
Some are outraged as they see a pro-terrorist slant to this realism. Let us not be fooled: dialogue does not inevitably lead to accepting what is unacceptable. Trying to understand does not mean excusing and does not mean complicity.
Dialogue does indeed depend on compromise: but pursuing compromise certainly does not mean jeopardising the values one firmly holds.
True dialogue is nevertheless a risky enterprise. It requires a significant investment in time and resources, with uncertain and often modest results. One is faced with political deadlocks and terribly frustrating situations, as with ongoing peace efforts in the Middle East. And success is often fragile.
These factors may explain why so little time is dedicated to negotiations before deciding on armed intervention. They may also explain why many key stakeholders don’t get a seat at the table. The ongoing UN-brokered peace process in Syria remains fragile because important groups or parties of the conflict have been excluded. Why exclude the main players from the discussion? Why lay down preconditions, such as the departure of President Bashar al-Assad? More than half of the population of Syria is living under the control of armed groups. Why is it not possible to negotiate humanitarian access to these conflict zones?
Dialogue also presents a number of dilemmas due to its very nature:
- Tensions between the pursuit of peace and respect for human rights lead to debates around impunity for abuses, as in the cases of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan; Joseph Kony, head of the Lord’s Resistance Army; former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic; or the FARC rebels in Colombia;
- Tensions between economic interests and international commitments, including cases where legal standards and principles are seen to be sacrificed for economic interests, and others where economic interests may be jeopardised by advocacy for peace and human rights;
- Tensions between each country’s desire to keep the best relationships possible with other countries, and their readiness to accept the risk of temporary deterioration in ties.
These dilemmas require a realistic approach, as Manichaeism leads nowhere. For the people most affected by conflict, the answer does not lie in exclusion: peace or human rights, prosperity or principles, engagement or isolation. In conflict zones, people die, are wounded, go hungry. They rightly expect their politicians and diplomats to find solutions. A traditional justice system can be aligned with the requirements of the International Criminal Court. National economic necessities and global objectives must necessarily be reconciled.
A country’s status depends partly on its contribution to solving global problems and to producing “global public goods”. Armed intervention is not the only type of action. Good offices, mediation and dialogue are also tools — not only after military interventions, but also as preventive instruments to forestall greater harm.
Learn more about our contributors
This article represents the view of the individual writer, not that of International Crisis Group or of its Board.
