Despite renewed demands for diplomacy and negotiation, recent developments in many countries call to question the usefulness of dialogue in resolving some of today’s conflicts. This paper discusses the 2009 Oslo Mediators’ Retreat, which explored how mediation and diplomacy can adapt to the ever-changing environment of conflict resolution. Serious debate is needed to establish basic criteria on when it is appropriate to use which conflict resolution tools, including when it is legitimate to use force.
After a period of confrontation marked by the war on terror and weakening of mediation efforts, there is now a renewed demand in many areas for diplomacy and mediation. However, recent developments in many countries demonstrate the concurrent strand of scepticism about the usefulness of dialogue in resolving today’s conflicts.
Forum participants included senior mediators, representatives of governments and international organisations, analysts and decision makers. These included representatives of the United Nations, United States, the Association for South East Asian Nations, the International Crisis Group and the Organisation of African Unity. Countries examined were Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iran, Nepal, the Philippines and North Korea.
To address recent changes in the structural aspects of conflict, mediators may need to shift from mediation between separate entities (i.e., two states) to mediation within governments. Other observations in Forum discussion and debate included:
- Because of the politics of a given conflict and the diversity of parties, it is unrealistic to expect that all parties can agree on a common mediation approach.
- While use of force can have value in resolving conflicts, a mixture of both use of force and diplomacy is the best option.
- While it is not the mediator’s role to prepare conflict parties for negotiations, mediators should ensure that parties receive pre-negotiation advice.
- Coordination between military peacekeepers and civilian heads of mission are best served by the United Nations’ model, which subordinates the military to the civilian.
- While regional mediators are better placed for understanding a conflict’s culture and history, they are rarely seen as neutral. Their efforts often fail because they become caught up in their own interests and constantly shifting alliances.
- International Criminal Court (ICC) actions can have a crucial impact on negotiations. Mediators can only minimally influence the ICC’s timing of indictments which can materially affect negotiations.
In positive terms, the number of conflicts has declined recently; peacemaking by diplomatic means is increasingly accepted. However, the following issues remain:
- Terrorism continues to be a global threat. Mediators may have to accept that a no-violence policy is not always useful.
- Increased mediation will require revised global decision making architecture and better coordination and capacity building.
- While Africa has increased its pool of mediation talent, it has yet to solidify its ability of resolve its own conflicts.
- The mediation policy community needs to coordinate its communication and articulate lessons learned so as to guide and influence the practice of conflict mediation.
