The essence of negotiations is for the parties to work together to solve a problem. For negotiators, this means they must focus on an objective, look to the future, rather than to the past. For mediators, it is essential to establish one’s ethics, and keep them.
This study is a collection of 11 cases of mediation work with diverse conflicts, parties and mediators. The study examines various peace processes, giving some indicators on why some were successful, while on the other hand others were failures.
Key findings:
- There is the idea that we need African chief mediators for African conflicts. This is because they have first-hand experience, and a keen sense of the African political, cultural and military realities at hand. This is correct; however, any African chief mediator needs the best possible experts in his mediation team, irrespective of their nationality. A key challenge for the chief mediator is to be a gate-keeper between the actual process, and the many observers, special envoys, regional and global states that want to have a say. Mediators are never neutral, yet they need to work in an even-handed, non-judgmental manner to be effective. Third parties have to be accepted by the conflict parties, or else they will not be able to serve as mediators. For mediators to be able to help the conflict parties they need to work with the various parties in an even-handed manner without condemning them. Once they condemn other individuals, they are no longer open to dialog and change. It is not the role of the mediator to condemn perpetrators of human rights violations or war crimes. The role of the mediator is to build into the process a system within which these crimes can be investigated and dealt with further down the road.
- Tough, directive approaches are often needed. However, they may also fail, calling again for more facilitative, non-directive approaches. A mediator may start with low-powered, non-directive mediation, and when this fails, he or she will adopt a more directive, tough approach. However, the inverse was also illustrated by the study: The tough, directive mediation approach failed in some cases, calling for a shift to a non-directive approach that was then successful. Most processes go through different phases, calling on different combinations of facilitative and directive mediation.
- Inclusive processes are rare and not necessarily always the best approach; rather, exclusive and inclusive formats have to be carefully combined. Mediators should not seek the maximum of inclusiveness at any price. Representation, decision-making power, inner party cohesion, and pragmatic power politics must also factor in any process design. Various formats can be combined to allow greater participation of various stakeholders without making the process unmanageable.
- The coordination efforts of third-party actors are essential. Numerous actors, including state, regional, and international organizations, personalities, and NGOs, are needed to deal with the diverse topics, multiple actors, and changing phases of a peace process. There have been cases where third parties were duplicating efforts or distracting from the main process.
- The geo-political context and interests of neighbouring states set the framework in which a peace process takes place. Peace processes occur between the conflict parties directly concerned. If the global or regional states hinder any agreement between these actors, however, it is highly unlikely that the peace process will be effective.
