Benefits of Mindful Mediation for fragile states
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article argues that mindful mediation offers particular benefits for fragile states, understood as countries with weak state capacity and contested legitimacy where governments cannot control their territory, deliver public services or contain crime and corruption, and where citizens face emigration, economic decline and inequality. Writing from the perspective of a Somali author, the paper names Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen and Venezuela among such states, and identifies Sudan after the removal of Omar al Bashir as an especially urgent case. Grounding mindful mediation in self understanding, patience, open mindedness and empathy as safeguards against ethical failure, the author sets out a series of benefits: lower cost and shorter duration than civil litigation; the fostering of unity through a win win process, illustrated by the contrast between the Kenyan coalition arrangement of 2008 and the judicial resolution of the Venezuelan legitimacy dispute; the preservation of positive relationships in societies divided along ethnic, political and distributional lines; comprehensive and customised agreements that take psychological and procedural matters into account, as in the Colombian peace process facilitated in part by Switzerland; higher compliance and durability because outcomes are voluntary rather than imposed; improved governance and protection of constitutional and human rights; reduction of gender based violence and child abuse; economic development through an environment attractive to investment; and the improvement of international relations and trade. The article closes by noting the engagement of the World Bank, the European institutions, the Busan High Level Forum and the United Nations Development Programme in addressing state fragility. Readers should note that the country characterisations and case interpretations reflect the author’s own perspective; the editorial position of this journal is neutral as between the parties in the conflicts referred to.
KEYWORDS *
Mindful mediation, fragile states, Somalia, Sudan, conflict resolution, governance, human rights, gender based violence, economic development, compliance, self-determination, international organisations
INTRODUCTION
Mindfulness encompasses the mental ability to develop responsibility for oneself to assist one in solving current life issues and challenges. Unless an individual can understand him/herself, they cannot understand others. For that matter, mindful mediation is a holistic process of conflict resolution founded on a blend of evidence-based simulations and techniques through the use of inmate personal competencies and abilities in decision making (Purser & Milillo, 2015). The mediators, in this case, develop patience, open and broad-mindedness, and empathy elements to prevent any ethical pitfall in the mediation process.
Fragile states usually have weak state capacity and poor state legitimacy exposing the citizens to vulnerabilities and a range of shocks due to poor governance and conflict. In most cases, the governments of these nations are unable to control much of their territories, provide public services and social amenities, and handle crimes and corruption, among others (Zoellick, 2018). Hence, they experienced massive emigration to the neighborhoods to seek refuge and a peaceful environment. Besides, they suffer severe economic decline and, economic inequality and often seek help from the international community.
Moreover, they consist of political breakdowns like the rise of factionalized elites, suspension of arbitrary application of the law, and delegitimization of the state. Examples of these states include my country, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, and Venezuela, to mention a few. Political disturbances have to raven peaceful state of these nations hence making them the most fragile and conflicting states in the world today. Currently, there is an intense conflict in Sudan since the toppling of the 30 years autocratic, dictatorial, and corrupt president, Omar Al Bashir. For that matter, the country stands to be the most fragile, and mindful mediation is necessary for the revival of peaceful coexistence and harmony. The objective of this study, therefore, seeks to elaborate on the benefits of mindful mediation for fragile states. Such benefits include:
MAIN CORPUS
Less costly and Time-Saving Compared to Civil Litigation
Unlike other forms of conflict resolution such as legal litigation mindful mediation has several benefits, especially for the fragile states that require unity to champion their nation’s growth and development. The first benefit for this kind of conflict resolution is that it is less costly and time-saving compared to civil litigation hence will save the country from incurring any funds and consuming much time trying to create peace at the expense of their development (Georgakopoulos, 2017). Mindful mediation requires agreement by the two conflicting parties by first understanding their needs and later comprehends the essentials of the other. In fragile states like Venezuela, most citizens live poor lifestyles with low income and poor social services to meet their daily basic needs.
Regardless of the approach that they shall take, the ultimate objective should be a transformation of the people’s lives and improvement of the country’s economy. Mindful mediation is, therefore, a better approach to solve the disputes not only in this country but also in Syria and Sudan that experience conflict due to similar reasons. The process will be cost-effective for the country since the preparation usually is more comfortable as compared to civil litigation, there is no need for legal experts hence no court fees and related charges, and can be held anywhere at the comfort of the rivaling parties (Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011). Besides, the process typically takes less than a week for the parties to agree; hence, it is time-saving, unlike the legal channels that are bureaucratic and time-consuming. The mediator is also well conversant with the issue at hand and only comes as a neutral party to guide the disputants out of the conflict hence does not require much time to investigate like in other processes. As a result, the fragile countries will sort out their issues faster and focus on the transformation and reformation of the affected countries.
Fosters Unity by Allowing the Disputants to Work Together
Mindful mediation is a win-win process where there is no loser and gainer like another process as legal arbitration. In courts, the jury makes final decisions on who is right and who is wrong, and the parties are obliged to abide by their verdict. This kind of conflict resolution has caused more harm than good to fragile states where most individuals usually fight for self-interests. When the National Assembly in Venezuela invalidated the re-election of President Nicholas Maduro, he moved to Supreme Court that disregarded such actions and upheld the election (Ponceleon, 2019). In this case, it implied that the opposition leader Juan Guaido, who receives much support from the parliament and the western countries lost. The decision of the Supreme Court did not solve the underlying situation but only worsened it.
Unlike such forms of conflict resolution, mindful mediation listens to the views of both parties and grants the chance to work together towards the transformation and reformation of the country. For instance, during the 2007 election in Kenya, the incumbent President and opposition leader disagreed over the election results plunging the country into serious violence. The adversity of the situation attracted the attention of the international community and humanitarian groups leading to the United Nations (UN) intervention through mediation. The primary mediators in the process were the former late UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, and the then Tanzanian President (Sharma, 2015). Eventually, the parties agreed to work together where one became the president and the other the prime minister. Unlike the case in Venezuela where one became the winner and the other the loser, mediation gave both disputants the chance to work together that led to the development and reformation of the country. Therefore, mindful mediation is essential as it grants the opportunity for both opposing parties hence enhance peaceful existence and economic development in the fragile states.
Enhance Positive Relationship between the Disputants
Mediation involves interaction between the two aggrieved parties to quell the risen temperatures and hatred, unlike the legal litigation that views the conflicting parties from an individual perspective. The mediation process involves negotiation between the two sides to reach an all-satisfying solution to the matter at hand systems (Boutellis & Zahar, 2017). The party presents both of their interests and wishes to come to terms. Through the help of the mediator, such interests are harmonized so that everyone’s need is taken into account. Thus it is a win-win process.
Fragile countries are generally underdeveloped and socially divided along with various factors like ethnic alienation, political groups, and unequal share of public resources, among others. For that matter, the foremost stewardship that can fuel peace, harmony, and economic growth is unity since rendering one a loser, and the other winner will only worsen the situation (Del Ceno, 2013). Mediation, therefore, is significant since it preserves a positive relationship by creating an all-binding solution through negotiation. It heals and encourages direct communication between the parties that will be reflected in their supporters, thus necessary for the improvement and enrichment of such states like Sudan and Somalia.
Comprehensive, Rapid, and Customized Agreements
Normally, the courts have a bureaucratic system and procedure for handling matters. Despite a long time that it may take in one level to seek the issues, a party who is not satisfied proceeds to appeal such verdicts since no one is always ready to lose. On the contrary, mediation often begins at the early stages of disagreement and involves the parties in a comprehensive discussion to deduce the best way forward that both parties embrace. Moreover, the process takes into account legal and extra-legal matters such as procedural and psychological issues that are rarely considered in the civic litigation systems (Boutellis & Zahar, 2017). It goes into a broader context to study the reactions and feelings of each and educate them on how to handle such situations.
For that matter, mindful mediation places the power of decision-making in the hands of the disputants. Since both disputants will be aware of the consequences of their actions, they will have more control over the outcome of their dispute settlement. In this case, the parties always stay mindful and take ways that promote peace and harmony (Haynes, Haynes & Fong, 2012). Such kinds of agreements are better for the economic, social, and political development of fragile states. For instance, Switzerland played a significant mediation role in 2016 to facilitate negotiation between the Columbian government and FARC rebels that led to the signing of a peace treaty between the disputants.
Compliance and Long-Lasting Solution
The conflicting parties in fragile countries are always very radical and violent to obtain what they need despite the pinned legal consequences. Mostly, these cases do not succeed in the legal framework since everyone is determined to prove their might towards obtaining their interests both as an individual and group of supporters (Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011). For that matter, the disputants regularly defy the civic litigation outcomes and embrace personal channels, which prolong and deteriorate the situation.
However, mindful mediation begins by first allowing the parties to contemplate about themselves and understand their issues before coming to the table. Unlike legal channels, which are subjective and involuntary, arbitration is always objective and voluntary. Therefore, the parties negotiate and reach their agreements and vow to comply with the terms. The arbitrator, in this case, does not impose the solutions on the parties as it would be in other techniques hence the party finds the final resolutions favorable and quickly implements them leading to the reformation of the underlying situation for long-lasting peace.
Effective Governance
Conflicts have prolonged poor governance in the fragile states, promoted corruption, and hindered the delivery of social amenities to the citizens. Besides, it has led to a violation of constitutions and human rights, making such countries less favorable for human habitat (Clark, 2013). For instance, the ongoing war in Syria had led to several constitutional breaches and violations of human rights through the use of chemical weapons to kill innocent civilians. There have been humanitarian crimes of manslaughter and killings since the onset of the war between the ruling autocratic government and the opposition. Similarly, the conflict in Venezuela has paralyzed government operations such that it is incapable of providing social amenities like food, medical care, and clean and safe water to mention a few.
Mediation seeks to create peaceful existence among the national leaders to focus on the protection of the constitution and provision of social amenities to its people. This benefit has not is highly sabotaged and eliminated in the fragile states. For instance, the toppled President of Sudan was charged with corruption and constitutional breaches that have kept the country in hardship and poverty. However, other fragile states that resorted to amicable mediation have shown significant progress towards proper and effective governance that protects the constitution and human rights. Ethiopia and Rwanda have achieved the highest rates of transformation with effective leadership and focus on improving service delivery and eliminating corruption in their states due to successful mediation (Clark, 2013). Hence, mediation is crucial for fragile states to eliminate corruption, safeguard the constitutions, and promote effective governance.
Elimination of Gender-Based Violence and Child Abuse
The fragile war-ravaged countries experience several challenges that derail human rights and dignity like sexual assault, especially against females. The ladies are sexually harassed by the rebel militants in the process of fighting against each other (Clark, 2017). Besides being brutally from the strangers, the women always face domestic violence from their intimate due to lack of civilization and the perception of male supremacy over female beings.
Moreover, children always face brutality and mistreatment that goes against their rights. Young children as low as below 15 years are used as a medium of transporting weapons hence exposing them to dangers and threats associated with war. Such children do not obtain basic needs like education, proper healthcare, and parental care, among others. In most cases, the fathers join militant groups or are killed by the rebels leaving the women with the entire responsibility of the family. Due to these challenges, several humanitarian groups have stepped up to rescue the women and children from the hostility of conflicts. As a result, various negotiations have been employed with some showing success while others are failing. For instance, the efforts of Switzerland to mediate in Somalia have failed on most occasions that have left the country in conflict hitherto. Other nations, such mediation have been prosperous include Burundi, Colombia, and Indonesia etcetera reached a peaceful agreement with Switzerland as the mediator (Mohdin, 2017). Thus, issues of gender-based violence and child abuse have declined substantially hence an equal society that honors human rights and dignity.
Educates and Empowers the Disputants
Further, mindful mediation is always educative, unlike other forms of mediation. Mediation plays a significant role in educating the rivals on various aspects of negotiation and how to negotiate successfully. In other forms of conflict resolution, there the parties charged with resolving the dispute do not educate the conflicting individuals but uses such knowledge to reach their agreement where in most cases they determine the winner and the loser (Crocker et al., 2015). However, mediation seeks to illustrate the entire process of negotiation to the parties so that they reach an agreement on their own. The parties will not only solve the disputes but also get empowered and feel valued. The skills learned in the process help the parties to bring the disputing followers together and settle matters amicably. Besides, the parties can solve future issues at early stages before deterioration hence enhances long-lasting peaceful existence in such fragile states.
Enhanced Economic Development and Growth
Some conflicts occur in resource-rich countries like Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The impacts of conflict in such states led to a low level of economic development and growth. Despite the attempted mediations in these countries, any long-lasting success towards peaceful coexistence has not actualized through the intensity of war has significantly reduced. Foreign and domestic investors are always afraid of putting their resources in places where losses are evident (Herbert et al., 2011). As a result, most different countries like Iran, South Suda, and DRC have basked at the shame of poverty, corruption, and hunger.
Through the mediation process, the conflicting parties can learn about the impacts of conflicts on poor social and economic systems. Conflict is usually a significant barrier that hinders development in any place, regardless of the resources available. Consequently, the international communities have established various strategies to mediate between conflicting states to help champion economic development. A successful mediation will lead to a serene environment that attracts foreign investors to invest in areas like agriculture for food security, infrastructure and roads for industrialization, and education for civilization amongst other sectors in the economy (Herbert et al., 2011). For instance, most countries that have mediated their differences amicably have received support from organizations like the World Health Organization to improve the health of its people hence strengthening human capital that is very key in the industrial revolution and economic growth.
Improved International Relations and Trade
Some fragile countries occasionally face global actions such as blockade and sanctions, thus limiting their regional and international trade activities. For instance, the US placed sanction against the government of Venezuela that has adversely affected its relations with the western and European countries (Grant, 2019). Besides, the blockade has paralyzed the operations of the government, which is unable to acquire essential products such as medicine from the United States. Similarly, fragile states are exposed to transnational organized crime that interferes with the peace of the country. For instance, Syria experiences transnational organized attacks from the Islamic States in Iraq (ISIS) who joined to help the opposition topple the government of President Bashar Al-Assad (Bijlani, 2017).
For that matter, fragile nations have adverse international relationship and activities, which eventually negatively affects their economy. Mindful mediation will play a critical role in rectifying the situation in these countries to enhance their regional and international operations towards proper governance and growth of the economy ((Haynes, Haynes & Fong, 2012). Therefore, fragile countries like Venezuela should embrace mediation and calm the country to eliminate international barriers towards the improvement of trade and good relations. Otherwise, the situation shall worsen to hinder their economic development and transformation goals hence lag by failing to meet the Global Sustainable Development Goals.
SUMMARY *
The author assembles a comprehensive case for mediation as the preferred instrument in fragile states, resting on a single underlying claim: where institutions are weak and society is divided, a process that produces a winner and a loser deepens the fracture, while one that produces a jointly authored outcome begins to repair it. From this follow the practical advantages the article enumerates, lower cost, greater speed, customised and comprehensive agreements, higher voluntary compliance, preserved relationships, and the secondary benefits for governance, human rights, investment and international standing. The distinctively mindful element is placed at the beginning of the process: parties are asked to understand themselves and their own needs before they attempt to understand each other.
CONCLUSION
In a bid to help the fragile conflict countries, the World Bank adopted two reports to address the issue through substantial and sustained investment to strengthen legal institutions and governance. The institutions should, in turn, offer security and justice, create employment opportunities and transform the social welfare and lifestyles of their people. Besides, the European Nations adopted the idea of resilience technique to handle such issues and mediate to enable fragile countries to transform and enjoy the benefits of mediation (Clark, 2013). Further, the Busan High-Level Forum on Aid in 2011 reached a consensus on how to assist the states to get out of fragility. The UNDP’s main strategic plan is to dismantle the complicated fragility and poverty in conflicting countries and enhance a better future for such people.
As a result of the plight of the fragile state globally, the international communities through various organizations like the UN, UNDP, WHO, and World Bank, among others are focused on transforming the situation in such countries. The United Nations have fostered for mediation activities in various fragile countries such as South Sudan, Colombia, Rwanda, Burundi, DRC, Sierra Leone, Syria and Israel among others (United Nation, 2017). Despite the failures of others, the countries that have successfully mediated live to enjoy the benefits discussed above. It is therefore worth concluding that mindful mediation is crucial towards transformation and reformation of the fragile countries to achieve the established Global Sustainable Development Goals.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The author’s central argument holds, and it is strengthened rather than weakened by acknowledging where mediation in fragile states meets its hardest limits. Two of the article’s own examples make the point. Somalia has been mediated repeatedly over three decades without lasting settlement, while the Kenyan agreement of 2008 succeeded within weeks. The difference lies not in the technique but in the conditions: Kenya had two identifiable parties, each able to bind its followers, in a state whose institutions survived the crisis. Somalia has had neither. A framework for mediation in fragile states must therefore begin with that diagnosis rather than with the advantages of the method.
Where a state has fragmented, the classic model of two parties at one table is unavailable, and mediation has to be built upward rather than downward. Local agreements between clans, communities and districts over water, grazing, markets and security produce settlements that hold because those who make them can enforce them among their own people. Elders, religious authorities and customary courts already perform this work daily and typically without external recognition; supporting and connecting these processes, rather than importing an unfamiliar framework above them, is the realistic path in a country such as Somalia, and it also builds the layer of legitimate authority that any future national settlement will need.
Elite power sharing deserves a more cautious treatment than the article gives it. The Kenyan coalition ended the violence and deserves the credit the author accords it, but the deeper causes it left untouched, land grievance, exclusion and impunity, produced further crises later. Power sharing that divides offices among leaders while leaving the exclusion of ordinary citizens intact teaches a costly lesson: that violence is rewarded with a seat at the table. Agreements should therefore be judged not by whether the principals shook hands but by whether they altered the terms on which power is contested next time.
Two of the article’s claims call for qualification, and mediation practice is better for making them explicit. The suggestion that a process typically concludes within a week describes commercial mediation, not the mediation of armed conflict, where realistic timeframes run to months and years, and where promising speed sets expectations that guarantee disappointment. And crimes against individuals, particularly the sexual violence and the use of children in warfare the article rightly condemns, are not matters for negotiation between the parties who committed them. Mediation can secure the release of children, humanitarian access and protection commitments, but where it becomes the instrument by which such acts are quietly amnestied it purchases quiet at the price of the next generation’s grievance. Survivors need a distinct process, and mediators serve them best by keeping accountability mechanisms open rather than trading them away.
Finally, the mindful dimension the author places at the outset is the element most easily lost when a process becomes political. Asking parties to understand their own needs before confronting each other is not a preliminary courtesy; in societies where identity and fear drive the conflict more than material interest, it is where the actual work happens. In fragile states above all, mediation that changes only who holds office, without changing how people see one another, produces intervals between wars rather than peace.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
References
Bijlani, R. (2017). 15 Facts About The Syrian War. The Borgen Project. Retrieve from https://borgenproject.org/facts-about-the-syrian-civil-war/
Boutellis, A. & Zahar, M.J. (2017). A Process in Search for Peace: Lessons from the Inter-Milan Agreement. International Peace Institute. Retrieve from https://www.ipinst.org/2017/06/lessons-from-inter-malian-peace-agreement
Clark, H., (2013). “Conflict and Development: Breaking the Cycle of Fragility, Violence, and Poverty.” United Nations Development Programme. Retrieve from https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2013/08/12/-conflict-and-development-breaking-the-cycle-of-fragility-violence-and-poverty-.html
Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., Aall, P., & Palamar, S. (2015). Why Is Mediation So Hard? The Case of Syria. In Handbook of International Negotiation (pp. 139-155). Springer, Cham.
Del Ceno, J. S. (2013). Construction mediation as a developmental process. International Review of Law, 2013(1), 1.
Georgakopoulos, A. (Ed.). (2017). The Mediation Handbook: Research, Theory, and Practice. Routledge.
Grant, W., (2019). Venezuela crisis: The political battle and the people caught in the middle. BBC News. Retrieve from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48030691
Haynes, J. M., Haynes, G. L., & Fong, L. S. (2012). Mediation: Positive conflict management. Suny Press.
Herbert, W. A., De Palo, G., Baker, A. V., & Anthimos, A. (2011). International commercial mediation. Int’l Law., 45, 111.
Mohdin, A., (2017). Switzerland long history of international crisis mediation has had mixed success. Quartz. Retrieve from https://qz.com/1069274/switzerland-and-the-north-korea-crisis-a-history-of-swiss-mediation/
Ponceleon, P.T., (2019). Recognizing Juan Guaido risks a bloody civil war in Venezuela. The Guardian. Retrieve from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/05/juan-guaido-venezuela-maduro
Purser, R. E., & Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-based conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 3-24.
Rasmussen, M. K., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2011). The direct and indirect benefits of dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and social anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 227-233.
Sharma, S. K., (2015). The 2007–8 Post-election Crisis in Kenya. The Responsibility to Prevent: Overcoming the Challenges of Atrocity Prevention, 280.
United Nation, (2017). Report of the Secretary-General: United Nations Activities in Support of Mediation Activities. United Nations. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DPA%20Report%20REV9%20ENG%20WEB.PDF
Zoellick, R (2018). Fragile states: securing development. World Bank.
The impact of mediation on international conflict resolution
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article surveys the effects of mediation in contemporary international conflicts, taking as its point of departure the range of active disputes from Venezuela, Palestine, Indonesia, Syria, Sudan and Iran to the trade confrontation between China and the United States. The author sets out five mediation strategies, procedural, communicative, directive, preventative and apolitical, and illustrates each with cases including the facilitation between the Venezuelan government and opposition between 2002 and 2004, the Kenyan post election mediation of 2007 and 2008, the Tokyo Conference on the reconstruction of Sri Lanka, preventive diplomacy in the trade and security disputes among major powers, and research based engagement by non governmental organisations on resource competition in the Middle East. The article then examines how the success of mediation is measured, distinguishing acceptance of the mediator, the signing of a peace agreement, partial outcomes such as power sharing arrangements or de-escalation zones, and the long term criterion of non recurrence, noting that by the stricter measures a majority of mediation efforts fail. Finally the author identifies the principal obstacles facing mediation today: the multiplication of conflicts since the end of the Cold War and the resulting displacement of more than sixty five million people, state fragility and the blurring of political, criminal and ideological motives, economic complexity, the proliferation of armed groups with unclear objectives, the regionalisation and internationalisation of disputes, the escalatory role of unverified information in the media, agreements concluded under strain that relapse into conflict, and insufficient support from the Security Council. The article concludes that mediators and peace advocates must combine work on active disputes with broader efforts to build a culture of peace.
KEYWORDS *
International mediation, mediation strategies, procedural strategy, communicative strategy, directive strategy, preventive diplomacy, measuring success, peace agreements, conflict recurrence, displacement, United Nations, Security Council
INTRODUCTION
The international environment is currently facing several conflicts started and stimulated by different parties for various reasons. The conflicts have endangered lives and distorted economies in such places. For example, currently, countries like Venezuela, Palestine, Indonesia, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and China vs. the United States are facing conflicts today. In most of these countries apart from the China-US (which is a trade war), many people have lost their lives while others seek refuge in neighboring areas due to the hostile conditions that are inhabitable. For that matter, the international communities led by the United Nations (UN) are focused on ensuring peaceful coexistence and interaction in such areas through mediation. The thesis, therefore, seeks to determine the effects of mediation in international conflicts today.
MAIN CORPUS
Strategies in Mediation
The underlying challenge in conflict resolution is defining the most suitable and sufficient mediation process. However, the identification of the best mediation stands as a nightmare since conflicts take varying contexts and directions. The strategies that include procedural, communicative, directive, preventative, and apolitical have been applied in attempting to solve the conflicts in the world. In regards to procedural strategy, the peacemaker regulates the timing, agenda, and venues, dispatch of information, and formality of the meetings (Moore, 2014). The main aim is to minimize stress and disruption between the disputants who never have a history of peacemaking.
For instance, between 2002 and 2004, the Organization of the United States in conjunction with the United Nations Development Program facilitated negotiation between the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the opposition to prevent conflict occurrence. Up to 2014, there has been calmness till when the opposition began opposing the leadership of Nicholas Maduro with the situation escalating in 2019 when he was being sworn in for a second term.
On the other hand, the communicative technique requires the mediator to advance and focus on fostering communication and cooperation passively. The Truth Commission takes part in establishing the violence and its major causes and helps the party mediate on their grievances (Moore, 2014). For instance, when the Post-Election Violence broke out in Kenya in the 2007-08 elections, the body was commissioned with major players coming from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with the late former UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan being the chairperson. In this case, the critical approach was power mediation that led to the parties agreeing on a coalition government hence peace.
In a directive approach of mediation, the peacemaker strives to influence the content and final decision of the negotiation. The mediator may threaten to employ practices like diplomatic sanctions or incentives and aids to the country (Ruggeri, Dorussen & Gizelis, 2017). A better example is the Tokyo Conference that sought the reconstruction and development of Sri Lanka. The parties that attended like the US, EU, Norway, and Japan offered financial support of USD 4.5 billion towards restoration and improvement of Sri Lanka, thus enhancing peaceful coexistence.
Moreover, preventative diplomacy helps the mediators to prevent disputes from arising or escalating into a conflict between disputants and limit the spread of fights should they occur. The strategy has been crucial in conflicts like the US-China trade war, the Russia-US disputes, and the North Korea-US conflict. Finally, there is the apolitical strategy where the non-profit and private organizations like the International Crisis Group participate in the resolution of international conflicts through researching, analyzing, and advocating for conflict resolution (Moore, 2014). A good illustration is the case of research conducted by the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) in 2009 in the warzones areas of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel to prevent any conflict that would have risen due to competition for scarce resources like water resources due to climate change.
Mediation and Outcomes
The success of a mediation process is viewed from different perspectives by different persons. Some individuals consider the negotiation process as a success when both parties in a conflict formally or informally accept the mediator to allow talks. The perception was mainly during the times of a few numbers of mediation with high expectations. On the other hand, a successful mediation occurs when there are a solution and termination of the hostilities. In this case, it focuses on a situation where the eventual result is the signing of a peace agreement (Wallensteen & Svensson, 2014). In most cases, studies reveal that 55% of these mediation fails as they usually do not reach these extents. For instance, mediation of conflicts in countries like Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, and Venezuela has failed on this scale.
However, some scholars argue that the latter measure is broad, thus examine both the short term and long term results. In this case, they suggest that the outcomes of the process should be into two. One is coming into an agreement on political, power-sharing in a territory, third-party security guarantees, or justice enforcement (Wallensteen & Svensson, 2014). Majorly, it focuses on any outcome from the mediation process to minimize the hostility in the war region. For instance, under such measure, mediation in Syria may be considered a success due to establishing some war-free zones such as the Idlib region, Eastern Ghouta, the Rastan Pocket, Southern Syria through the appealing of Turkey, Russia, and Iran.
Conversely, long-term success considers the reoccurrence of conflict where a low chance of a repetition of the war and hostilities signifies the accomplishment of the mediation. In most negotiations that lead to a de-escalation or end of the war, the reoccurrence of war takes a longer time (Wallensteen & Svensson, 2014). Situations of disputes such as Venezuela took over ten years before re-emergence. In all of the above cases, there is no explicit determinant of mediation due to the unpredictable nature and behavior of conflict. For that matter, the outcome of the mediation process in regards to success is always relative depending on the scope of mediation.
SUMMARY
Challenges to Mediation
Currently, the number of conflicts has tripled since the end of the cold war thus increase the fatalities and victims of disputes and wars in the world. Over 65 million people have been displaced due to conflicts in their region with Syria displacing more than half of its population, around 6.5 million people (Bijlani, 2017). Therefore, the need and urgency of mediation have increased which has prompted the UN to focus on various measures of preventing future wars in other regions as they attempt to solve the existing ones.
The nature of the conflict also poses a challenge in the mediation process in regards to issues like state fragility, confusing lines among political, criminal, and ideological interests like in Syria where the ISIS against the government and the government humiliates its citizens (United Nation, 2017). Furthermore, the complexities in the economies of conflict and position of the countries like the US-China trade war, and unclear objectives of the increased armed groups are challenges in mediation. Besides, the regionalization and internalization of disputes complicate the situation, thus hindering mediation.
Fourth, the contribution of media in escalating the spread of information, some of which are uncertified leads to reactions and escalation of conflict in the affected area. Moreover, peace agreements under a strained environment lead to the relapse into conflict like were the case of South Sudan hence distorting the full mediation process (United Nation, 2017). Finally, inadequate support from the Security Council has limited the mediation efforts of the UN.
CONCLUSION
The rate of the ongoing war in the current world is increasing so fast that the UN, the Security Council, and private organizations must make a swift move to minimize, and prevent future emergence of any conflict through the strategies discussed above. Until now, the impact of mediation has been quite low due to the rising number of wars and their intensification in such areas. Therefore, the mediators and peace ambassadors must put more effort in not only focusing on the ongoing disputes but also significant on the creation of awareness about the importance of peace, love, and harmony and support one another in the society. Consequently, the mediation challenges will be eradicated hence a highly effective mediation process for a peaceful and humane world.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The figure the author cites, that a majority of mediation efforts fail when measured by the signing of a peace agreement, is less discouraging than it first appears, and understanding why points toward what the field most needs.
The measure itself is part of the problem. Judging mediation by signatures alone counts as failure every effort that opened a humanitarian corridor, secured a prisoner exchange, prevented a war from spreading, or built the relationships on which a later settlement was founded. Kenya was mediated successfully in forty one days only because earlier interventions, which are recorded as failures, had established contacts and mapped the terrain. A field that measures itself by its rarest outcome will systematically undervalue its most common contribution, and will also attract the resources appropriate to a rare achievement rather than to a continuous practice. A more honest evaluation framework, one that records de escalation, humanitarian access, relationships maintained and violence prevented alongside agreements concluded, would give both mediators and their funders a truer picture of what the work achieves.
That reframing has a practical consequence for where effort is placed. The strategies the author describes are almost all deployed once violence has begun, when positions have hardened and constituencies have accumulated losses that must be justified. Preventive engagement is comparatively cheap, and its successes are invisible precisely because nothing happens; funding structures reward the visible, which is why prevention is chronically under resourced. Standing regional early warning and dialogue capacity, staffed by mediators already known and trusted in their regions, addresses the article’s observation that conflicts increasingly regionalise before international attention arrives.
Two further points follow from the obstacles the author lists. First, the fragmentation of parties, the proliferation of armed groups with unclear objectives, makes the classic model of two identifiable sides at one table increasingly rare. Mediation practice needs to develop for this reality: local and sequential processes that build settlements from the ground upward, coordination among simultaneous tracks so that parties cannot forum shop, and inclusion of civil society, women’s organisations and displaced populations whose stake in durability exceeds that of the armed actors. The article’s own observation that agreements concluded under strain relapse points to the same conclusion, since agreements owned by more people break less easily.
Second, the mention of unverified information as an escalatory force identifies something newer than most mediation doctrine accounts for. Where rumour can mobilise a community faster than any mediator can reach it, conflict parties should be encouraged to agree communication protocols alongside ceasefires, and mediation teams need capacity to counter false reports quickly and credibly.
Finally, the constraint the author names last is the decisive one. Mediation cannot substitute for political will among those who supply the parties with weapons, money and protection. Where the Security Council is divided, mediators can still preserve channels, protect civilians and prepare frameworks, but they cannot manufacture the consent of great powers. Recognising that limit honestly is not defeatism; it is what allows mediation to be judged by what it can actually deliver, and to be ready with an agreement when the political moment finally arrives.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
References
Bijlani, R. (2017). 15 Facts About The Syrian War. The Borgen Project. Retrieve from https://borgenproject.org/facts-about-the-syrian-civil-war/
Hossain, F. A., & Ali, M. K. (2014). The relation between individual and society. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(08), 130.
Mcloughlin, C., (2016). State-Society Relations and Citizenship. GSDRC Applied Knowledge Services. Retrieve from https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/state-society-relations-and-citizenship/state-society-relations-overview/
Moore, C. W., (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Queiroz, R., (2018). Individual liberty and the importance of the concept of the people. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 99.
Ruggeri, A., Dorussen, H., & Gizelis, T. I. (2017). Winning the peace locally: UN peacekeeping and local conflict. International organization, 71(1), 163-185.
Spirkin, A., (2011). Dialectical Materialism: Man and Society. In Themes in Soviet Marxist Philosophy. Retrieve from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s04.html
United Nation, (2017). Report of the Secretary-General: United Nations Activities in Support of Mediation Activities. United Nations. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DPA%20Report%20REV9%20ENG%20WEB.PDF
Wallensteen, P., & Svensson, I. (2014). Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 315-327.
US – China Trade War
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article examines the trade conflict between the United States and China as it intensified through 2018 and 2019. The author sets out the origins of the dispute in American allegations concerning intellectual property, forced technology transfer through joint ventures and cyber intrusion, and the refusal of the United States, Canada, Mexico and European Union states to recognise China as a market economy. The escalation is traced through successive rounds of tariffs, from the twenty five percent levies on fifty billion dollars of goods to the increase in May 2019 on two hundred billion dollars of Chinese imports and the Chinese response covering sixty one billion dollars of American products, and on to the sanctioning of Huawei on security grounds and the loss of Google services on its devices. The article poses a series of critical questions about the consequences: the effect on the global market and on companies dependent on Huawei components, the timing and evidential basis of the security claim, the likelihood of further Chinese retaliation, and whether tariffs and bans can correct a trade deficit at all, given that China itself runs deficits with other trading partners such as Germany. In a closing section the author argues that the structure of the conflict points less toward trade equilibrium than toward a contest for global supremacy, which makes mediation between two superpowers particularly difficult. Readers should note that the attribution of motives, including the characterisations of the American administration and the reference to Venezuela, reflects the author’s own perspective; the editorial position of this journal is neutral as between the parties.
KEYWORDS *
United States, China, trade war, tariffs, intellectual property, technology transfer, Huawei, sanctions, trade deficit, global economy, superpower rivalry, mediation
INTRODUCTION
The US and China conflict intensified in 2018 that entails the placement of tariffs. The president of the United States sought to mend the abuse of a broken international system and unfair trade activities between the two nations. The US held that Chinese laws undermined the intellectual property rights to engage in joint ventures with their companies. For that matter, the US, Canada, Mexico, and the EU nations allege the Chinese market to be distorted, thus do not recognize it as a market economy. In 2018, Richard Trumka president claimed that China had robbed the US intellectual property and forced its way to acquire critical US advances in technology (BBC News, 2019). Besides, the United States, other countries have claimed that Chinese hackers have invaded their scientific confidentialities. For that matter, the imperialist nations have developed a hostile relationship with China.
MAIN CORPUS
In May 2019 the US President Donald Trump increased the tariffs on China from $ 200 billion on Chinese imports from 10% to 25% after failing to strike a trade deal. Similarly, China revenged by announcing that levies will be imposed on US products amounting to $61 billion (Chipman & Wong, 2019). The two countries have been in a prolonged economic battle where when one imposes a tariff barrier on the other; then the affected nation does the same. The US and Chinese governments earlier in January planned a meeting to talk about their trade relationship and find a consensus. However, the US canceled such a meeting holding that there was no agreement about the IP rules.
Even though the delegation from the US and China, including the two bosses, have been able to meet and talk, there has not been a resolution for the issues of the two countries. The two countries have been playing hardball with no country willing to settle for less. Recently, on May 19th, the Trump administration sanctioned the Chinese tech mobile company Huawei, citing it to be a security threat (McDonald, 2019). The impact of that ban is likely to affect both nations adversely since many US companies depended on microchips from the giant tech. However, the Chinese administration has not reacted and still following up on the issue before they give the next course of action.
Critical Questions
With the current sanction of the Chinese giant tech company Huawei, the main question is the impact it will have on the global market. It is evident that apart from invading the US market that saw it being ahead of the long-time mobile firm, Apple Inc., Huawei had a large market share beyond China and the US. The ban followed the deactivation of its play store Google that cause many worries among the users. The main question that everyone asks him/herself at the moment is; how has the world market taken such action? What about the companies that used Huawei’s microchips and software? Will they stop operating or will the US government compensate them for the losses that are evident in the current financial year?
The central claim of the US government for the ban was that the mobile device was a security threat. However, for how long has it been a security threat to the world, and have they ever warned the public against such threats before? Formerly the Trump government had imposed 25% tariffs on $ 50 billion in products like aerospace, automobile, communication and robotics, food ingredients, construction materials, bike spare parts, and burglar alarms among others (Gillespie & Horowitz, 2018). Similarly, china place a similar tariff, especially on the US agricultural products, luggage, electronics, housewares, and food, among others. With the current sanction, how is China likely to respond? Establish a ban on iPhone from the US too?
The main objective of the initial barriers was to ensure fair trade deals between the two countries and other players in the global market. Trump argues that the US has a huge trade deficit with China, thereby needs to equalize such deficit. However, then is the creation of barriers and banning some products from China a solution to such economic imbalance? Does China also have trade deficits with other countries in the world? For instance, China has a trade deficit with Germany, where it imports most of its motor vehicles (Walker, 2019). Should they also do the same to other nations in a bid to correct such abnormalities? Since the two economies are the pacesetters in the global market, what is likely to happen in the global market? Are shortages of the affected products likely to occur and what will it mean to their prices? What about the economic stability of the global world? Could there be another period of economic depression as a sign of a cold war between the two countries?
SUMMARY
The underlying main block towards the settling of these disputes is the rigidity of Trump who believes that to create fairness in the trade between the two countries is to increase barriers like tariffs (Jolly & Partington, 2019). For that matter, he believes that the trade relationship between the US and China will obtain an equilibrium. Now that he has gone past just a tariff to a ban, will that create such balance? Moreover, what impact does it have on the employment and growth of US industries? Until the two countries’ leaders soften their game, the solution to the current conflict will take a long to find.
CONCLUSION
Challenge the Conflict Structure
The structure is this conflict does not seem to substantiate the objectives of enhancing the trade between two countries to reach equilibrium but rather a battle for global supremacy. Currently, China has increased its world involvement, and that has emerged as a threat to the United States. It is undeniable and that why there are instances of war in socialist countries like Venezuela, where the US needs to have control over them. The US president usually is adamant does not fancy talks between countries to create a favorable business environment. As a result, the mediation of this conflict stands a challenging matter not only due to that but also because it is a war between the superpowers who are expected to give direction.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The author’s most useful observation is that this dispute has two layers which are constantly confused with one another, and that the confusion is what makes it intractable. The upper layer is commercial: tariffs, deficits, market access, subsidies, intellectual property protection. The lower layer is strategic: which power will set the standards, own the networks and hold the technological lead of the coming decades. Commercial disputes are negotiable, because every party gains from an agreed rule. Strategic rivalry is not negotiable in the same sense, because what one side gains the other experiences as loss. Presenting a strategic contest as a trade negotiation guarantees that every trade agreement will be broken as soon as the strategic calculation shifts, which is precisely the pattern the article documents.
The practical consequence is that the two layers should be separated rather than bundled. Intellectual property protection, forced technology transfer, subsidy discipline and market access are genuine, definable questions on which reciprocal, verifiable commitments are possible, and they are best resolved where such rules already have machinery: reform of the multilateral trade system so that disputes are decided by an adjudicator both sides accept, rather than by whoever can absorb more pain. That machinery has been allowed to weaken precisely when it was most needed, and restoring it serves both parties, since neither wants a world in which every trading relationship is renegotiated by threat.
The security layer requires a different instrument. Where one state believes another’s telecommunications equipment endangers it, the dispute is not resolved by prohibition but by verification: independently audited security standards, source code review facilities, certification regimes applied equally to vendors of every nationality. Such arrangements already exist in miniature and could be extended. They convert an accusation that cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be answered, into a technical standard that can be met or failed, which is exactly the conversion mediators seek in any dispute where trust has collapsed.
Third parties matter here more than the bilateral framing suggests. The states, companies and consumers affected by this conflict vastly outnumber the two governments conducting it, and they possess an interest neither Washington nor Beijing fully represents: a predictable trading system. Coordinated engagement by the European Union, Japan, the ASEAN economies and others, pressing for rules rather than taking sides, provides both parties with a face saving route away from escalation, since concessions made to a broad coalition are not defeats inflicted by the rival.
Finally, a note of realism. Escalation between powers of this weight is rarely halted by argument; it is halted when the domestic costs become visible, to farmers, manufacturers, workers and consumers on both sides. Mediation’s contribution in such moments is to have prepared the framework in advance, so that when both leaderships need an exit, an agreement is available to be signed rather than still to be invented.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
References
BBC News, (2019). A quick guide to US-China trade war. BBC News. Retrieve from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45899310
Chipman, K.A. & Wong, D. (2019). Thye US-China Trade War: A timeline. China Briefing. Retrieve from https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a-timeline/
Folarin, S. (2017). Chapter Three: Types and Causes of Conflict. Covenant University, Ota Nigeria. Retrieve from http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/3241/1/Folarin%2025.pdf
Gerzon, M., (2014). To Resolve a Conflict, First Decide: Is It Hot or Cold? Havard Business Review. Retrieve from https://hbr.org/2014/06/to-resolve-a-conflict-first-decide-is-it-hot-or-cold
Gillespie, P. & Horowitz, J. (2018). Your China-US fight question answered. CNN Business. Retrieve from https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/07/news/economy/trade-war-united-states-china-questions-answered/index.html
Jolly, J. & Partington, R. (2019). US-China trade war: all you need to know about Trump’s tariffs. The Guardian. Retrieve from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/06/trump-china-tariffs-trade-talks-tweets
Lively, J., (2014). Affirmations: the Why, What, How, and What if? Psychology Today. Retrieve from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/smart-relationships/201403/affirmations-the-why-what-how-and-what-if
McDonald, J., (2019). Huawei Will Lose Some Google Services After US Ban. Time. Retrieve from http://time.com/5592088/huawei-phones-losing-google-services/
Mciver, S., (2018). The A-Z of Mediation: Empathy. UK Mediation. Retrieve from https://ukmediation.net/2018/06/12/a-z-mediation-empathy/
Pollack, J. D., (2017). No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. Routledge.
Shaver, K. G., (2015). Principles of social psychology. Psychology Press.
Thompson, J., (2014). Empathy is the secret weapon. Mediate.com.
Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2009). Cognitive consequences of affirming the self: The relationship between self-affirmation and object construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 927-932.
Walker, A. (2019). US-China trade war: Your Questions Answered. BBC News. Retrieve from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48226820
Mindful questions on the conflict in Syria
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article surveys the Syrian war from its beginning in 2011, when protests against torture and repression were met with mass detention and killings, through the formation of the Free Syrian Army, the alignment of regional and international powers behind the opposing sides, the entry of ISIS and the resulting shift in United States priorities, the use of chemical weapons including the attack at Douma in 2018, and the accusations levelled by the United Nations against both government and opposition forces for killings, sexual violence, torture and the denial of water, food and healthcare. The author then sets out the humanitarian status quo: some 6.5 million people who have fled to Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon, more than six million trapped inside the country, minimal humanitarian access with some 2.9 million people in remote areas unreached, and children among those most affected, alongside renewed military escalation in Idlib, Aleppo and Hama and the repeated failure of demilitarised and security zone arrangements. The closing section poses a series of questions about the true drivers of the war and the real interests of the external actors, and argues that the international community has never brought the government and the rebels to one table to identify the underlying issue, concluding that without a redefinition of external interests and better conflict handling techniques, peacekeeping and safe zones will remain unattainable. Readers should note that the framing and attribution of motives in this article reflect the author’s own perspective; the editorial position of this journal is neutral as between the parties and their accounts of the conflict.
KEYWORDS *
Syria, civil war, humanitarian crisis, refugees, chemical weapons, ISIS, international intervention, safe zones, mediation, United Nations, Idlib, displacement
INTRODUCTION
The war began in 2011 when the public was protesting wrongful, and torture in the country, President Bashar Al-Assad reacted by imprisoning of more people and killing hundreds of them. That led to the formation of a rebel group known as the Free Syrian Army to oust the authoritative regime in July 2011 (BBC News, 2019). The Middle East countries like Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are against such acts, thus support the opposition while Iran supports the president and has supplied soldiers to reinforce the government forces. Besides, it has emerged as a backyard for international intervention where the US backs the rebels as Russia supports the government. That has even escalated the war leading to the displacement of several people from the country.
When ISIS joined the rebels to fight against the President, the US reacted by training a section of the rebels to fight the Islamic States in Iraq rather than fighting the authoritative president. For that matter, the president has applied chemical weapons to kill civilians as the US intervene using airstrikes (Bijlani, 2017). The united nations have accused both the opposition and the government of committing human crimes such as manslaughter, rape, and torture besides preventing access to essentials of life like water, food, and healthcare. The latest chemical attack occurred in July 2018 in Douma where 40 people died and several others injured. Several others died later due to suffocation and injuries (BBC News, 2018). Currently, the war has existed more than World War II.
MAIN CORPUS
Status Quo
Currently, more than half the population of Syria has fled to seek refuge in neighboring countries like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon, which is around 6.5 million. The number makes Syria the most massive humanitarian catastrophe. More than six million people are trapped in Syria amidst the escalating war despite the international agreement to minimize the intensity of such war (UNHCR, 2019). Humanitarian access to the country is very minimal due to the high level of insecurity in the country, leaving about 2.9 million people in remote areas without any aid. Most of the people affected by diversity are children.
Recently, northwest Syria experienced military escalation where the Russian and Syrian regime initiated a deadly campaign of the bombardment of parts of Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama Provinces after an attack of certain groups formerly linked to Al Qaeda. Various agreements to establish demilitarized regions in the country have been violated and talks about creating security zones failed. Most of the countries like the USA, Russia, and Turkey participating in reducing the war in Syria have conflicting interests making their talks about creating secured zones in eth country futile.
Mindful Questions
The Syrian war is in its 9th year without a basic understanding of the leading cause of war in Syria. As a result, several questions emerge. First, what is the leading cause of war in Syria? Is it a dictatorship from President Bashar Al-Assad or is it a battleground for the different international countries for supremacy, US and Russia? The US supports the rebellion regime, and Russia supports the government towards ending the war. For this matter, is the international community in a consensus to end this war soon?
When the United States began their support, they were against the authoritative government and wanted justice for the aggrieved parties. Later on, the Islamic States in Iraq joined together with the rebel group to fight the ousting of the president. However, the US government changed its aim and began fighting ISIS, which was also in the same course in their country (Bijlani, 2017). So far, their fight to remove the dictator from power has reduced and intensified their fight against ISIS. What is the main interest of the US in the Syrian war? The President who has committed humanitarian crime sabotage or elimination of the ISIS who are also in the course of toppling that lousy government? Can the US government cooperate with ISIS since Syria is an Islamic state to fight for justice for the tortured, brutalized, and aggrieved citizens? If not, will the war ever end?
Countries like the European Union, the United States, and Turkey, among others, have shown their solidarity with innocent children by offering aids through bodies like UNCHCR and UNICEF. They have also called for talks in a bid to create secured areas in the region to enhance their aids and the safety of the citizens (BBC News, 2018). Conversely, these groups have various interests and would like to control specific areas that have inhibited the aim of these conferences. What then, is the main objective of these nations? Narrow interests or the assistance of the humiliated and poor citizens innocent trapped in the war?
SUMMARY *
The article’s central observation is structural rather than partisan: after nearly a decade, the parties to the Syrian war and their external backers have never agreed on what the war is about. For some it is a struggle against authoritarian rule, for others a contest between outside powers, for others still a campaign against jihadist organisations. Because each actor pursues a different objective, every negotiated arrangement, from demilitarised areas to safe zones, has collapsed, while the humanitarian consequences, millions displaced abroad, millions trapped inside, and populations beyond the reach of aid, continue to accumulate. The author’s conclusion is that external actors must first clarify their own interests before any process can succeed. The question in the article about possible cooperation with ISIS reflects the author’s rhetorical framing and does not represent the editorial position of this journal.
CONCLUSION
The mediation process needs neutral individuals to assist the disputants in solving their issues amicably. However, the international community has not brought the rebels and the government to the table to unearth the main issue. Will they manage to reach a long-lasting solution by separating the parties in the parties in the mediation process? Therefore, it is essential for the international community to redefine its interests in the Syrian War and establish better techniques in handling the conflict. Otherwise, peacekeeping missions and creating safer zones in the country will remain a nightmare.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The failure of successive Syrian peace efforts has less to do with the absence of talks than with the structure of the war itself. A conflict in which every major party has an external patron capable of replacing its losses is a conflict in which no party ever reaches the point of exhaustion that ordinarily makes settlement possible. This is why the author’s instinct is correct: mediation between Syrians alone cannot succeed while the states supplying them remain outside any binding framework, and mediation between those states alone cannot produce a peace that Syrians will live by. Both tables are necessary, and they must be connected.
Given that, expectations should be arranged in ascending order of difficulty rather than pursued all at once. Humanitarian access is the first order of business, not because it settles anything, but because it is the only subject on which every actor’s stated position obliges them to agree, and because a functioning cross line and cross border corridor under neutral monitoring is both immediately life saving and the cheapest available test of whether commitments are honoured. Local ceasefires that hold, prisoner and detainee exchanges, and clarification of the fate of the missing follow the same logic: each is achievable in isolation and each builds the thin layer of credibility on which anything larger depends.
Constitutional and political questions belong at the end of that sequence, not the beginning. Where they have been placed first, as in successive international conferences, they have consistently produced deadlock, because they require the parties to concede in advance what the war has been fought over. A constitutional process that is genuinely inclusive, involving not only the government and armed opposition but the refugee population, civil society and the communities that have governed themselves through the war years, has a chance of durability precisely because it does not begin as a bargain between armed actors.
Two things deserve emphasis in a conflict of this character. Accountability cannot be traded away as the price of a settlement: the documented use of chemical weapons and the abuses attributed to multiple parties concern crimes against individuals, and a peace that quietly amnesties them creates the grievance that produces the next war. Preserving evidence and keeping accountability mechanisms open, even where prosecutions are not immediately possible, is part of a durable settlement rather than an obstacle to it. And the return of refugees must be voluntary, safe and dignified, negotiated with the returnees themselves rather than arranged between governments, since forced return to conditions of insecurity is not the end of displacement but its continuation in another form.
Finally, a word on the author’s framing. Asking what each external actor really wants is the right question, and it is also the question mediation exists to answer, not through accusation but through the patient work of establishing what each party can actually accept and what it fears. In Syria, that work has been attempted repeatedly and has failed repeatedly. Its failures are nevertheless the record from which the next attempt must be built, since the alternative is not the absence of a process but the continuation of the war.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES *
Lynch, M. (2016). The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East. PublicAffairs, New York.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (2015) on a political settlement in Syria.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons.
Geneva Communiqué of the Action Group for Syria, 30 June 2012.
Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva (successive reports).
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Fact Finding Mission and Investigation and Identification Team reports on incidents in the Syrian Arab Republic, including Douma, April 2018.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2019). Syria Regional Refugee Response, Inter agency Information Sharing Portal, Geneva.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Humanitarian Needs Overview: Syrian Arab Republic, Damascus and Geneva.
Memorandum on the Creation of De escalation Areas in the Syrian Arab Republic, Astana, 4 May 2017, and the Sochi Memorandum on Idlib, 17 September 2018.
Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary General for Syria, reports on the Constitutional Committee, Geneva.
International Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (IIIM), established by General Assembly Resolution 71/248 (2016).
International Crisis Group, Middle East reports on the Syrian conflict, Brussels.