How effective is mediation and dialogue in protracted violent conflict? This paper explores approaches to and formats of mediation and dialogue, and the relevance and effectiveness of these strategies in the context of protracted violent conflicts, particularly in the South Caucasus. Mediation and dialogue cannot be contained in an ivory tower and need to be placed in a real-life conflict context characterised by violence, mistrust, political opportunism, vengeance and systemic injustice. The EU needs to develop a more nuanced understanding of the interplay of mediation and dialogue and the conflict context in which it operates.
Dialogue is generally process-focused, while mediation is a product-focused process. However, the distinction is blurred, especially at the unofficial level. Mediation and dialogue are necessary strategies for conflict resolution and conflict transformation, but will not build peace if they are the only strategies used. They have to be part of a larger process, addressing issues such as transforming institutions, governance structures, alleviating poverty and demilitarisation.
Lessons learned through mediation and dialogue projects include the following:
- Mediation and dialogue projects are slow to adjust to changes in the conflict context.
- Dialogue between conflicting parties is usually more effective and efficient if participants have a common ground that is unrelated to the conflict, such as a profession, gender, generation or societal role.
- Official mediation processes often collapse at the onset of violence only to proceed when it subsides, but unofficial dialogue processes can survive the different conflict phases.
- Unofficial dialogue can raise public support for peace talks which may in turn influence rival leaders’ decisions to intensify the peace process.
- Politically motivated official mediation can be effective in brokering a cease-fire but when the principles of impartiality and neutrality are compromised, the sustainability of talks may be jeopardised.
- Official mediation may yield an agreement acceptable to leaders but not to the public if it is not complemented with an unofficial dialogue process.
The EU has an important role to play in peacebuilding in the individual conflicts in the South Caucasus, as well as in the promotion of regional stability and security. Mediation and dialogue ought to be in the palette of EU strategies for conflict transformation. A more nuanced understanding of these processes, as well as of the interplay of mediation and dialogue and the conflict context factors needs to be developed within the EU and its programmes and missions that deal with conflicts in the European Neighbourhood – the South Caucasus included. Recommendations for the EU and other donors include:
- In developing mediation and dialogue projects that focus on ‘second-order’ issues, the EU can help to diffuse tensions and pave the way from more challenging projects.
- Donors need to be more flexible in their funding so that projects can be implemented when they are most relevant rather than when funding is available.
- Evaluations of unofficial dialogue and mediation projects need to adopt process-orientated strategies appropriate to the context of each project
- Linking unofficial mediation and dialogue to practical projects, such as job creation, can improve relations with dialogue participants.
- Improved liaison between the key players, including the EU, NGOs and state authorities would facilitate a more effective dialogue and mediation process.
- A mediator that is perceived as neutral and impartial and accepted by all parties can work on the improvement of relationships and trust that cement step-by-step progress in talks.
