This paper from the International Peace Institute suggests that peacemaking will remain a central requirement for managing conflict and identifies some of the critical challenges for peacemakers. It identifies areas of consensus within the peacemaking field, highlights continuing debates, and discusses ‘new emphases’ that affect the way state-based or unofficial peacemakers operate. Capacity building for peacemaking at the regional and subregional levels should be prioritised, and greater coherence in peacemaking efforts should be pursued.
The task of peacemaking and conflict mediation will be of critical importance over the next five years. Peacemaking (including conflict prevention) and mediation are best understood as components of the broader field of activity and study known as ‘conflict management’. This term incorporates the full spectrum of third-party activities aimed at preventing, mitigating, suppressing, settling, resolving, or transforming violent conflict within and between societies. Debates in recent literature concern the place of coercive power (leverage) in international relations, the concept of ‘ripeness’ for third party actions, conflict trends and the factors that account for them.
A competitive dimension has emerged in peacemaking, involving ‘multiple mediators’ (who may have differing agendas in seeking the resolution of the conflict). Nevertheless, peacemaking experience and knowledge in key fields represent a critical gap in many institutions and governments.
- Some conflicts involve core national interests of major powers and, consequently, may not be suitable objects of UN peacemaking.
- Where the Security Council is prepared to support mediation (run from the Secretariat via the special representative or envoy system) the results can be impressive and effective.
- Effectiveness of regional institutions in peacemaking and mediation depends on the size, quality of governance, power balances and political cultures of their membership.
- The potential effectiveness of unofficial peacemakers within NGOs and civil society depends on their imagination, reputation, wits, use of ‘borrowed’ leverage and legitimacy variables, and their tradecraft skills.
- The interplay of official and non-official peacemaking plays out in accordance with the conflict types and institutional architecture of each region.
- There are niches and opportunities for skilled non-official bodies to make a difference in peacemaking. Some peacemaking activities are best performed by unofficial bodies.
The level of ‘demand’ for peacemaking and mediation will depend on assumptions about systemic factors, the availability of leadership and sufficient consensus among leading global actors. Improving the demand-supply balance of peacemaking and mediation initiatives requires:
- Support by leading powers and interested states for the new mediation support unit of the UN’s Department of Political Affairs in order to ensure greater coherence of efforts.
- Prioritisation of capacity building initiatives targeted at major regional institutions such as the Organisation of American States, African Union and Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
- Development of a UN roster of veteran envoys and collaboration by leading conflict management institutions to develop ‘lessons learned’ material.
- Establishment of professional standards for practitioners. Guidelines could address the dilemma of mediation among armed actors; when to not offer mediation; information sharing and coordinating third-party activities.
- Sustainable sharing of burdens between peacemaking actors and consideration by leading peacemakers of whether there are circumstances when peacemaking and mediation should not be offered by anyone.
- Encouragement of capacity building and initiative-taking at regional levels. Where such processes have begun and new roles are being developed, they should be supported in practical and political ways.
