Yasin Erdoğmuş 232009036
Question: Explain how and why states use mediation as a tool of foreign policy.
Mediation as a tool of Foreign Policy Introduction Throughout the history, disputes solved whether peacefully, or belligerent ways (i.e. declaring war, using arms). In old days, the second option was commonplace. However, after the first devastating wars of the 20th century it is less common. C.W. Clausewitz defined the old system of settlement of disputes as “War is the continuation of international relations in a different dimension”. But after the 2nd World War, with the establishment of United Nations, the assumption towards settlement of disputes rapidly evolved into peaceful manners. Therefore, peaceful settlement of disputes became a central idea in the UN charter: The UN obliges member states to ‘settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered’. Major motive behind the UN idea was to reduce the tension, open communication links among nations in order to limit international wars. There are mainly 6 different types of settling of a dispute; 1. Negotiation (trying to solve difference of opinion through direct talks) 2. Mediation (includes a third party or an international organization in order to help
the disputed states to reach an agreement) 3. Inquiry (disputant may agree for an impartial fact finding mission) 4. Conciliation (combination of mediation and inquiry) 5. Arbitration (disputing states agree to confer the jurisdiction to a judge) 6. Adjudication (International Court of Justice is the main pillar of adjudication)
This article will, mostly, cover the ‘negotiation’ and ‘mediation’ and I will broadly focus on the ‘mediation as a tool of foreign policy’. Definition of Mediation A consensus definition of mediation states that it is “a process of conflict management where disputants seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an individual, group, state
Yasin Erdoğmuş 232009036
or organisation to settle their conflict or resolve their differences without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law” (Bercovitch, Anagnoson, and Wille). Brief History Mediation, commonly, is studied under peace-building. Peace-building is, rather, a relatively new concept that has risen to prominence in the 1990s. Peace-building means action to identify and support structures that will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict. As preventive diplomacy aims to prevent the outbreak of a conflict, so peacebuilding starts during the course of a conflict to prevent its recurrence.1 Although there have been significant cases of conflicts that have come to an end through peace agreements, this is not the normal pattern. Kreutz has a study about the conflicts from 1940s onwards. He identifies 141 terminated conflicts between 1946 and 1989, of which only 9 % ended with a peace agreement, 1 % ended in a ceasefire, 58 % ended with victory of one side, and 38 had other outcomes. In the post-Cold War period, on the other hand, until 2005, 147 conflicts terminated, with 18 % ending in a peace agreement, 20 % in a cease fire, 14 % in victory of one side, 48 % in other outcomes. The post-Cold War period, as understood from the statistics given above, seen a significant increase in the proportion of conflicts ending in peace agreements and a sharp reduction in the number ending in victory.2 How to reach an agreement? Conflicts, as Väyrynen argued, are inherently dynamic, and conflict resolution has to engage with a complex of shifting relations, often within a wider system that has become resistant to piecemeal change. The end of the Cold War itself was a significant factor in transforming the context of many conflicts and contributed to the ending of a significant number of conflicts. Observable factor was the reduction in the capacity and willingness of external powers to support fighting groups. Druckman argues that conflicts are ripe for negotiated settlements only under certain conditions. The main condition is a ‘hurting stalemate’. Both sides must realize that they cannot achieve their aims by further violence and that is costly to go on. The concept of ‘hurting 1 Griffiths, M. O’Callaghan; “Key concepts of International Relations” (London; Routledge Press, 2001) 2 Ramsbotham, O. Woodhouse, T. Miall, H; “Contemporary Conflict Resolution” (Polity Press, 2011)
Yasin Erdoğmuş 232009036
stalemate’ is widely accepted in policy-making circles. Others refer to the need for a ‘ripening process’ to foster ‘ripe moments’3 Zartman argues that, for negotiations to succeed, there must be spokespersons for the parties, a vision of an acceptable compromise and a deadline. Recognition and dialogue are the sine qua non of mediation, and for these to take place both parties have to be accepted as legitimate. Drachmann and Green (1995) suggest that changes in relative legitimacy as well as relative power between regimes and insurgents affect the propensity to negotiate.4 While the primary conflicting parties play the most important role in determining outcomes, the role of a third party also has an immense role in reaching an agreement. As Bercovitch pointed out that about two thirds of the Post-Cold War conflicts had been mediated. Wilkenfeld and his colleagues also found that mediated crisis were twice as likely to end in an agreed fashion as cases without mediation. Roles of Mediators They typically help the conflicting parties by gathering them in a room elsewhere from battlefield. There are sine qua nons of a mediator; gaining trust of parties and confidence, setting agendas, clarifying issues and formulating agreements. They arrange venues, reduce tensions by exploring the interests of the parties and sometimes guiding the parties to unrealized possibilities and also by allowing them to present their cases, finding their depts, framing and ordering the discussion, and questioning the pros and cons of different options. Therefore, mediation can sometimes perform a valuable role in opening up new political space. Governments play a pivotal role as mediators, but of course, international organizations also play a considerable role in managing conflicts. Mediation as a tool of Foreign Policy In this part, I will answer the two questions by elaborating Mediation as a tool of Foreign Policy. What is the main motivation behind mediating disputes? Particularly, why states try to mediate?
3 Zartman, W; “Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars” (Brookings Institution Press, 1995) 4 Ramsbotham, O. Woodhouse, T. Miall, H; “Contemporary Conflict Resolution”
Yasin Erdoğmuş 232009036
Because, it brings prestige to the mediating countries by promoting international peace and stability. A successful mediation may earn the gratitude of other nations. However, less powerful nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) act as a mediator. They usually emphasize on peacekeeping as their main motive. However, such groups are also motivated in order to uphold their reputations. Zartman and Touvalnote note that NGOs are often "interested in a particular outcome, not because it affects them directly, but because they believe in its inherent desirability”5 Mediating countries believe that “mediating states will gain much more outcome which is more favourable than the outcome gained by continued conflict.” Similarly, parties will accept mediation when rejecting it will result in greater harms. In addition, mediation may offer parties a way to negotiate compromises without losing face. The mediator may also be seen as guarantor of the final settlement. Peace-building is a matter for countries at all stages of development. For countries emerging from conflict, peace-building offers the chance to establish new institutions, social, political and judicial, which can give impetus to development.6 Conclusion As I briefly mentioned above, mediation is one of the ways of peaceful settlement of disputes. After the 2nd World War, with the establishment of United Nations, the assumption towards settlement of disputes rapidly evolved into peaceful manners. I defined mediation as “a process of conflict management where disputants seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an individual, group, state or organisation to settle their conflict or resolve their differences without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law.” Mediation, commonly, is studied under peace-building. Peace-building is, rather, a relatively new concept that has risen to prominence in the 1990s. The end of the Cold War itself was a significant factor in transforming the context of many conflicts and contributed to the ending of a significant number of conflicts. The time of mediation is so significant in order to reach an agreement that is called as ‘ripe’.
5 Zartman, W. Touval, S. : "International Mediation in the Post-Cold War Era" (United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996) 6 Griffiths, M. O’Callaghan “Key concepts of International Relations”
Yasin Erdoğmuş 232009036
While the primary conflicting parties play the most important role in determining outcomes, the role of a third party also has an immense role in reaching an agreement. They typically help the conflicting parties by gathering them in a venue. To sum up, states do mediation for their international prestige and development.
Bibliography; Davutoğlu, A; “Turkey’s Mediation: Critical Reflections from the Field” (SAM Vision Papers No: 6, 2013) Griffiths, M. O’Callaghan; “Key concepts of International Relations” (Routledge, 2001) Kamrava, M; “Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy” (Middle East Institute, 2011) Ramsbotham, O. Woodhouse, T. Miall, H (2011); “Contemporary Conflict Resolution” (Polity Press) Zartman, W. Touval, S. "International Mediation in the Post-Cold War Era" (United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996) Zartman, W; “Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars” (Brookings Institution Press, 1995)