Mediation and Peacekeeping Strategies, Essay Example

The concept of peacekeeping and mediation has received significant attention from scholars in the past recent years. However, the nature and dimension of conflicts differ from one context to another. Among the circumstances that can stir warfare include corruption, ethnic and cultural factors, and failed states that fail to manage possibly divisive circumstances. Different circumstances and factors can result in a conflict; various mediation or conflict resolution approaches have been suggested, including multi-track and multi-agency approaches. However, these approaches are subject to criticism, with some arguing that they are majorly based on mere assumptions. Notably, some peacekeeping strategies have only prolonged wars, failing to achieve their intended purpose. Nonetheless, the success and failure of mediation are dependent on various factors. After the end of the Cold War, the world’s security situation has experienced new dilemmas, prompting a proper examination into the various ways of conflict resolution. Therefore, the paper shall explore the dilemma, critics, and the general understanding of mediation and the factors that contribute to mediation’s success and failure.

Strategies in Mediation and Peacekeeping

The question regarding the most effective strategies is a critical research problem. This is because identifying the best strategy will enhance mediators and make them effective peacemakers. However, researchers and practitioners worldwide are yet to identify the most optimal strategy to facilitate the mediation process with the utmost results. Yet, even the definition of mediation is divisive among various scholars. Earlier studies pointed out that the various forms of mediation include facilitative, manipulative, and formulative. However, later studies such as Svensson and Wallensteen (2014) suggested that ideal mediation strategies should be defined as fostering or forcing. Nonetheless, issues of mediation strategies are influenced by power, which explains why power and the mediator’s style are often intertwined in various studies.

According to some scholars, the most prevalent mediation efforts in civil wars are formulative, followed by communicative efforts, with manipulation or rather directive efforts being the least used strategy used (DeRouen & Bercovitch 2012). Gurses, Rost, and McLeod (2008) examined the effect of mediation on peace in civil wars and concluded that mediation is primarily associated with a longer peace duration. However, they also established that mediation from superpowers has a high probability of renewing the war. Formulative and facilitative mediation strategies are most effective in territorial wars. After analyzing the peacemaking strategies in Africa, it was established international mediation is often counterproductive, especially when mediators threaten or pressure the parties involved. Conclusively, fostering strategies have been thought to be more effective as compared to forcing strategies.

However, Sisk (2009) believes that countering provocative violence requires extensive peacemaking through military power and persuasion. He further notes that powerful international mediators have the greatest success rate in mediating conflicts. Most importantly, mediators with the ability to influence the resources of the conflicting parties or provide rewards when the parties settle their differences have the greatest leverage of achieving a peaceful settlement. Therefore, powerful nations or third parties are more likely to be effective mediators.

Nonetheless, there is no consensus on the effectiveness of major powers in settling conflicts. According to Bohmelt (2010), Trak One, or rather state-driven diplomatic strategies, effectively settles conflicts because the strategies have greater resources and leverage. However, the combination of unofficial and official tracks enhances the mediation process (Bohmelt, 2010).

Even though useful insights on different conflict resolution methods have been put across, there is no consensus on which method is more effective. However, one empirical study provides a comprehensive framework for distinguishing conflicts. DeRouen and Bercovitch (2012) assert that once you differentiate between high and low-intensity conflicts, it is only then that one can classify the effectiveness of any given strategy. However, the study concluded that methods that push for a settlement between the conflicting parties are mostly operative in high-intensity conflicts. In low-intensity conflicts, procedural strategies are more effective. Studies that have observed the relationship between crisis outcome and the method of mediation seemingly agree that facilitative mediation is effective in plummeting post-crisis conflicts.

Upon reviewing the literature on various mediation strategies, it is obvious that there are contradictory propositions regarding different mediation strategies and their effectiveness. This begs for literature that harmonizes the existing findings by comparing the various conditions that contribute to the success of one strategy over the other. Based on the available literature, it could be concluded that there is no ideal strategy. However, different strategies are effective in different circumstances.

Factors that contribute to the success of the Mediation Process

The main concern surrounding the debate around the mediation process involves its success. Indeed, the outcome of any conflict resolution process is the important thing. However, the indicators of success in international conflict remain a question of interest among different scholars. According to one scholar, success in conflict resolution involves both parties accepting the mediator and the mediation effort either formally or informally. However, this definition may be limited to a time when there were fewer mediation attempts. Others measure the success of mediation by looking at the extent to which the process has eliminated hostilities among the conflicting parties and ensuring democracy. Evidently, this definition is particularly inclined towards interstate conflicts. Therefore, the definition of what entails success significantly varies among different scholars. Notably, the definitions are inclined towards a specific era or conflict.

Since the definition of success in conflict resolution has proven problematic, orthodox scholars contend that the measures of successful mediation are way too broad to be defined. Furthermore, the outcomes have to be separated into specific peace arrangements. However, the success of any mediation process relies upon the willingness of the parties to reach a temporary or long-lasting solution. In the context of international mediation, there are various requirements that ought to be met, including motivation by disputants to resolve the conflict, an opportunity for a mediator to get involved, and mediator skill. The success of the mediation process heavily relies on the mediator’s talent and skill. To be precise, the mediator needs to have process skills such as the ability to reframe issues and listen, and content skills, which involve his or her ability to understand the issues pertaining to the conflict in light of the political, legal, and economic environment.

There are a number of prerequisites that influence the success of any mediation process, including the mutual desire to reach a common consensus, a formula to benefit all the parties involved, an acceptable negotiation process, and strong leadership that can sustain the entire process. Notably, conflicts are more likely to be resolved successfully when the issues pertaining to the conflict are properly understood. Furthermore, conflicts are more likely to be resolved successfully if all parties recognize the concepts of globalization and regionalization.

According to some experts, one important aspect of conflict resolution that is often overlooked is the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking (Svensson and Wallensteen 2014). In this view, the real success of any conflict resolution, especially in light of the international context, is one that supports certain institutions that will discourage the possibility of another conflict. Patricia Weiss assessed a conflict resolution that is successful in terms of reinforcement, peacekeeping, and society’s ability to move from conflict peace. According to Weiss, achieving these aspects is the most important thing when defining a successful conflict resolution (Weiss, 2006).

Indeed, a fair number of scholars agree that a mediator’s tools of leverage and resources are key to the success or failure of a conflict resolution. Some of the important tools of leverage include rewards, insurance, and legitimacy. Resources such as expertise, information, and coercion are vital to the success of a conflict resolution. Leverage enables mediators to influence the objective, normative, and objective environments (Melin, 2011). For instance, a mediator can influence the objective environment through side payments, rewards, political or military retaliation against enemies. Normative leverage is demonstrated when a mediator vouches for the inclusion of the legitimacy of a party that did not participate in the peacemaking process. A subjective environment, on the other hand, is achieved when the mediator changes one party’s perception of the issue at hand. Furthermore, this can be achieved by reinforcing trust among parties during the problem-solving process.

Given the changing dynamics of conflicts, choosing an appropriate mediator is a vital step to a successful mediation. The process of mediation matches the character and skills of the mediator, meaning that a mediator’s experience, knowledge, and skills are key to the success of the mediation process. Even though self-proclaimed mediators are likely to think that they can successfully mediate a dispute, most of them are likely to consider conflicts that they have vast knowledge and experience. Nonetheless, it is vital that disputants or representative attorneys select a mediator that suits the conflict at hand.

Experts note that timing is an important determinant of the success or failure of a mediation process. Notably, if an attorney or disputant lacks proper information, it is more likely that the entire process will be stalled. Furthermore, scheduling the mediation process way too early before key events occur may jeopardize the entire process. Therefore, a proper evaluation of the case and the potential risks need to be done. An example of a time when mediation is likely to fail is when the parties dive into the process without receiving a final judgment from the court. Acquiring this information is vital to the success of the mediation process because it enables disputants to consider the best alternatives for reaching an agreement. Failure to do this may result in unwarranted decisions that can only prolong the war rather than establishing peace. Therefore, it is important to table the available facts first before attempting to make a move, which is likely to be followed by certain consequences. In this case, the consequences may be positive or negative, depending on the choices made.

Some scholars argue that fairness is an important indicator of a successful mediation process. Even though fairness is often interpreted differently by people, its existence may suggest that the process is successful. Fairness depicts an equitable outcome that can be equated to success. Some of the concrete indicators of fairness include neutrality, equitability, disputant control, and consistency. In as much as there are observable aspects of fairness, the significance of perceived fairness in any mediation process cannot be undermined. Arguably, conflicting parties may not recognize the indicators of fairness, and therefore may not mean anything to them, especially if they conclude that the proceedings were not conducted fairly. The perceived thought of unfairness, whether it is true or not, is crucial when evaluating the success of any mediation process. After all, convincing the parties that the experience was fair is the most important thing during mediation.

To a larger extent, satisfaction is another indicator of success. When both parties are satisfied with the outcome and the entire mediation process, they are likely to perceive the process to have been successful. Nonetheless, party satisfaction is majorly perceptual, which means that different individuals may perceive it differently. During the mediation process, parties come in with different goals, which are personal to them. The goals are streamlined by their individual values, expectations, personality, and environment. Even though satisfaction is an individual quality, it does not mean that determining a successful outcome is difficult. Categorically, if an outcome satisfies both parties, it is right to conclude that mediation has been successful.

Perhaps the most concrete pointer of any mediation process is its effectiveness, which measures the results achieved, behavioural transformation, and the change that has been realized. A mediation process is initiated primarily to change the behaviours and attitudes of the conflicting parties. Therefore, it is only empirical to gauge the success of the process through the positive impacts that have been realized. For instance, when conflicting parties cease to be violent or accept a ceasefire, it can be a sign of a successful resolution. Therefore, effectiveness allows people to observe what the mediator has achieved in the conflict. Unlike other forms that could be subjected to perceptual disagreements, effectiveness is measurable and observable.

A successful mediation begins with a sincere desire to arbitrate the conflict. As obvious as it may sound, some mediators may have a hidden agenda of prolonging the process in order to increase the overall cost of litigation. A mediator who shows good faith while mediating a conflict is likely to achieve success. Most importantly, even though the conflicting parties could be compelled to participate in the mediation process, it is most effective when they do it voluntarily. Therefore, it is important that each party has the desire to end the conflict. It is hardly possible to achieve success when there is no real desire from all the parties.

Many times, conflicts may require new approaches and terms that have not been previously utilized. Therefore, another key factor in the success of the mediation process is creativity. A creative mediator is likely to come up with new solutions that suit individual conflicts. Weiss (2006) explains that creativity is a result of the combination of listening skills, experience, and the ability to think outside the box. Therefore, a skilled mediator does more than representing the conflicting parties. Instead, he or she develops creative solutions that provide an avenue for a peaceful settlement.

It is important that confidentiality is maintained as a key aspect of the mediation process that is to be successful. Gurses et al. (2008) identify specific confidentiality levels key to a successful mediation process; communications confidentiality of anything spoken at the mediation table and any other communication that is shared privately between the mediator during a private session with each party. As a mediator, ensuring confidentiality will lead to trust, which is important if the mediation process has to be successful. It is important that private conversations remain confidential and not exposed to any unwarranted party.

Resolution alone may not necessarily imply a successful mediation outcome. In the real world, this may be too restrictive. Some conflict situations are difficult to achieve a resolution. A real transformation in behaviour or attitudes may not occur immediately or after a short period. For instance, the case of the Israeli-Palestine conflict may not be coming to a resolution anytime soon. The only thing that can be achieved in such cases is perhaps a caseation of fire. Therefore, the international community may consider such efforts as successful. Such conflict situations require a critical distinction between a settlement and a resolution.

The Camp David treaty provides an example of what entails a successful and failed mediation process. The accord was a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. A number of overarching lessons can be learned from how the mediation process was handled. First of all, the first phase of the treaty failed because the United Nations had specific requirements that were not met. As a result, the conflict continued. However, President Carter made certain moves that are historically commended. In some conflict situations, because disputants do not want to make the difficult choice. Sometimes, one of the conflicting parties may storm out of the mediation room. However, President Carter restricted these behaviours between Begin and Sadat. Sources indicate that Carter would physically block them from leaving the mediation room (Findlay & Thagard, 2014). Since he had leverage being the president of the United States, he threatened Sadat, the Egyptian president, that departing from the negotiation room will isolate Egypt from the world. In this case, Carter used his power and skill to make sure that Sadat and Begin remain at the negotiation table. Not all cases require the persuasion strategy.

Even though Jimmy Carter is considered to be among the weakest American presidents, he had the virtue ad skills required as a mediator. His attempt to bring Sadat and Begin to the negotiating table was futile. However, he had a proper understanding of the conflict and the matters that were important to each conflicting side. According to Thirteen Days in September, Carter identified even the most microscopic details of the conflict and brought them to the table (Wright, 2014). One of the key factors to a successful conflict resolution is understanding the key issues at stake. A mediator ought to fully comprehend what the conflict entails and come up with creative ways of solving the conflict.

When designing a multi-track approach, there are various steps that need to be followed. First of all, it is important to understand the root causes of the conflict at hand. Secondly, the peace process needs to be owned by the local actors, meaning that they need to be fully empowered. A successful mediation process requires that the local actors are perceived as the major stakeholders in the mediation process. The subsequent step then involves the identification of the key actors in the conflict, including the visible and non-visible actors. The facilitators also need to be identified. Third parties or mediators need to be approved by the parties involved in the conflict. Lastly, all the required resources need to be availed to ensure the success of the mediation process.

Conclusively, mediation as a concept has been received differently, with scholars presenting different perspectives on which strategies are effective in conflict management. In this regard, the factors that contribute to the success of the mediation remain a topic of debate. Nonetheless, it could be concluded that different strategies suit different situations. However, the evolvement of conflicts in the international context requires strategies that are unique to contemporary society. However, despite the level of the argument, there are certain agreeable factors that determine whether a conflict resolution will be successful or not. A mediator should, therefore, be equipped with both personal and professional skills that will result in a successful mediation process. Overall, confidentiality and genuineness when handling a conflict are key determinants of a successful mediation. As discussed, not all conflict situations result in a successful resolution, as in the case of the Iraq war. It may take longer to realize the impact of the mediation; however, achievements such as a ceasefire can still be a sign of ending a conflict. Nonetheless, it is vital that mediators gain a proper understanding of the conflicting issues before attempting to negotiate the process. At the end of the day, the most successful strategy is one that has the most fulfilling outcomes for both parties.

References

Wallensteen, P. and Svensson, I., 2014. Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), pp.315-327.

DeRouen, K. and Jacob Bercovitch., J 2012. Trends in civil war mediation. In: Joseph J Hewitt, Jonathan Wilkenfeld & Ted Robert Gurr (eds) Peace and Conflict 2012. Boulder, CO: Paradigm pp.59–pp.70.

Gurses, M., Rost, N. and McLeod, P., 2008. Mediating civil war settlements and the duration of peace. International Interactions, 34(2), pp.129-155.

Sisk, Timothy D, 2009. International Mediation in Civil Wars: Bargaining with Bullets. London: Routledge. xiþ253 pp. ISBN 9780415477055. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), pp.257-257.

Böhmelt, T., 2010. The effectiveness of tracks of diplomacy strategies in third-party interventions. Journal of Peace research, 47(2), pp.167-178.

Kydd, A., 2003. Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), pp.597-611.

Melin, M.M., 2011. The impact of state relationships on if, when, and how conflict management occurs. International Studies Quarterly, 55(3), pp.691-715.

Beber, B., 2012. International mediation, selection effects, and the question of bias. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(4), pp.397-424.

Fagen, P.W., 2006. Remittances in conflict and crises: how remittances sustain livelihoods in war, crises and transitions to peace. The World Bank.

Wehrenfennig, D., 2008. Multi-track diplomacy and human security. Human Security Journal, 7, pp.80-88.

Lyons, T., 2016. The importance of winning: Victorious insurgent groups and authoritarian politics. Comparative Politics, 48(2), pp.167-184.

Findlay, S.D. and Thagard, P., 2014. Emotional change in international negotiation: Analyzing the Camp David accords using cognitive-affective maps. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6), pp.1281-1300.

Wright, L., Thirteen Days in September: Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp David by Lawrence Wright (6-Nov-2014) Hardcover.