|
Linked below is an article recommended by TAPM Board Immediate Past Chair Kimberly Best. The article is called “Peacemaking in Trouble: Expert Perspectives on Flaws, Deficiencies and Potential in the Field of International Mediation” by Matt Waldman.
Here is Kim's In-Depth Summary of this fascinating research:
Many of us have asked and wondered about mediations contributions to peacebuilding in this current world of multiple, multicountry wars. This study, based on in-depth interviews with 86 leading mediation professionals and 10 expert colloquia, reveals that international mediation is facing serious challenges. While mediation has always been difficult given the powerful drivers of conflict and mediators' limited means, today's context is particularly challenging: conflicts are increasingly complex and internationalized, major powers are divided, and there's a lack of political will to resolve conflicts.
The research identifies multiple fundamental problems in how mediation is conducted:
Goals and Timeframes: Mediation efforts often suffer from overambitious objectives, particularly around comprehensive peace agreements, while working with unrealistic short-term timeframes that don't match the long-term nature of peace processes.
Structural Issues: The traditional model centered around high-level envoys is increasingly unsuited to modern conflicts. UN missions are often overburdened with multiple responsibilities, and bureaucratic procedures can stifle effective mediation.
Personnel Problems: Selection processes for mediators often prioritize political considerations over mediation expertise. Many appointees lack crucial social and emotional intelligence skills as well as technical mediation expertise.
Knowledge Gaps: Mediation teams frequently lack deep understanding of local contexts, including cultural, social, and economic dynamics that are crucial to conflict resolution.
Process Issues: There's often an overemphasis on reaching agreements rather than building relationships between parties. Ownership by conflict parties is frequently lacking, and confidentiality versus transparency is often mismanaged.
Prevention and Implementation: Despite rhetoric about prevention, most resources go to crisis response. Post-agreement implementation support is typically inadequate, though this phase can be as challenging as reaching an agreement.
Learning Deficits: Professional development is insufficient, organizational learning is weak, and there's a significant gap between research and practice.
The field faces increasing competition from alternative approaches promoted by powers like China and Russia, which focus more on elite bargaining and militarized conflict management. These alternatives may appeal to governments looking to avoid the demands of inclusive peace processes.
The article outlines several key changes needed to improve mediation effectiveness. Here are the main changes recommended:
1. Goals and Timeframes:
- Move away from overly ambitious "comprehensive peace agreements"
- Adopt more realistic, incremental objectives
- Use longer timeframes that match the reality of peace processes
- Stop expecting quick results
2. Structure and Organization:
- Reduce over-centralization around single high-level envoys
- Develop networks of mediators working at multiple levels
- Streamline UN bureaucracy and procedures
- Better coordinate between different mediation actors
3. Personnel:
- Reform appointment processes to prioritize mediation expertise over political connections
- Ensure mediators have social and emotional intelligence
- Require proper mediation training and expertise
- Include more local expertise and knowledge
4. Process:
- Focus more on building relationships between parties rather than just getting agreements signed
- Ensure genuine ownership by conflict parties
- Better balance confidentiality and transparency
- Develop better strategies and creative approaches
5. Implementation and Prevention:
- Provide much stronger support after agreements are signed
- Invest more in conflict prevention
- Maintain engagement over longer periods
- Ensure adequate resources for implementation
6. Professional Development:
- Strengthen training and continuing education
- Improve organizational learning
- Better connect research with practice
- Develop professional standards
7. System-wide:
- Improve coordination between different mediation actors
- Increase long-term, flexible funding
- Develop better monitoring and accountability
- Create professional standards and possibly a professional body
The article argues that these changes need to be both specific (like improving appointment processes) and systemic (like fundamentally changing how mediation is organized and conducted). It emphasizes that superficial changes won't be enough - the field needs fundamental transformation to remain relevant and effective.
Conclusion:
The field of international mediation stands at a critical juncture. Its record is too mixed, the challenges too great, and the stakes too high to accept anything less than fundamental change. The rising threat of great power rivalry, climate-driven conflicts, and the emergence of alternative approaches that may prioritize quick fixes over sustainable peace all demand that mediation adapt and improve.
The path forward requires both specific reforms and systemic transformation. This isn't just about adjusting tactics or updating methods - it's about fundamentally reimagining how international mediation operates. Lives literally hang in the balance. As one mediator in the study powerfully states: "International mediation is just scratching the surface of what it can contribute, and what it needs to contribute to the planet."
The mediation community must embrace rigorous self-scrutiny and far-reaching change, even when uncomfortable. This isn't optional - it's an ethical imperative given the human cost of failed peace processes. If the field cannot transform itself, it risks becoming irrelevant precisely when it's needed most. The challenge now is to channel the expert critique offered by these experienced practitioners into determined action for reform. The future of peace processes - and the lives they might save - depends on it.
Click the button below to access Matt Waldman's full research study:
|