The Irony of the Security Council
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 short article examines the contradiction at the centre of the United Nations Security Council. Beginning from the Charter’s stated purpose of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, the author sets out the powers conferred on the Council under Chapter VII, including the determination of threats to the peace, the mediation of disputes and the authorisation of force. Against this the author places the conduct of three of the five permanent members: the pressure exerted by China on Taiwan, the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003, and the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in 2022. The failure of the Council to adopt a resolution on Ukraine in February 2022, defeated by the veto of the state whose conduct was at issue, is presented as the clearest expression of the problem: the body charged with preventing aggression is constituted so that its most powerful members cannot be held to account by it.
Editorial note: the assessment of the states discussed reflects the author’s own perspective. This journal’s editorial position is neutral. *
KEYWORDS *
United Nations, Security Council, veto, permanent members, Chapter VII, aggression, Ukraine, Iraq, Taiwan, accountability, institutional reform, international order
INTRODUCTION
The establishment of the United Nations by the United States, Europe, and other allies after the Second World War was intended to enhance international diplomacy (Simonoff 2012). The preamble of the UN Charter indicates the intention of the organization to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The First and the Second World Wars were captured therein as having “twice in our lifetime brought untold sorrow to mankind”.
Chapter III, Article 7 of the Charter establishes the principal organs of the UN as the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat.
MAIN CORPUS
The Security Council is the most powerful organ of the UN. Its powers and functions span the whole Charter. Chapter VII, Article 39 gives the Security Council the power to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Article 40 allows the Council to call upon parties to comply with provisional measures, and Article 42 gives the Council the power to authorise the use of force to maintain international peace and security when necessary.
However, the UN Charter encourages all its member states to settle their disputes peacefully and to refrain from the use of force. Its members must also respect the sovereignty of all member states. Simonoff, a legal adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, speaking at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, praised the work done by the UN since its inception. He highlighted the following:
The maintaining of international peace through the averting of war.
The development of friendly relations among nations.
The achievement of international cooperation.
The decisions of the Security Council are legally binding on member states. The Security Council has the power to impose sanctions on states. Sanctions have been imposed on countries like North Korea and Iran. Some of these are examples of the exercise of the powers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, whose main task is to keep world peace.
The Security Council consists of 15 members who have one vote each. Among the 15 states are the five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The permanent members were the major allies and victors of the Second World War. These members are supposed to be the peacekeeping champions of the world. They are the international peacekeeping giants.
However, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton, 19th century). The giants are at it.
China has consistently pressured Taiwan, declaring the government and its elections illegitimate, and has not ruled out the use of non-peaceful means.
The United States invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003, alleging that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, an allegation later shown to be unfounded.
On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine.
These three world powers, the United States, Russia, and China, are all permanent members of the UN Security Council. They are the giants of the international community. The Security Council must reach agreement in order to adopt a resolution. On 25 February 2022, the Security Council could not adopt a resolution on the Ukraine crisis, as the Russian Federation exercised a veto. Kyiv’s Permanent Representative told the Council that its words had less value than a hole in a New York pretzel. The draft submitted by Albania and the United States gained the support of 11 members but was vetoed by the Russian Federation, with China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstaining.
The giants are indeed taking their turns in bullying the peasants. Nobody is about to stop this Russian giant; it is its turn to spit its fire.
SUMMARY *
The article states a structural point in compressed form. The Council was designed on the assumption that the great powers would police the peace, which requires that they not be the ones breaking it. Where a permanent member is itself the party whose conduct is in question, the veto converts the Council from a mechanism of accountability into a guarantee of impunity, and the vote of 25 February 2022 illustrated this without ambiguity: eleven members in favour, one negative vote, and no resolution. The author’s further point is that this is not confined to one state, since each of three permanent members has acted in ways the Charter prohibits, and the arrangement protects all of them equally.
CONCLUSION
The body charged with maintaining international peace and security cannot act against those of its own members most capable of disturbing it. That is the irony the Charter has carried since 1945, and the events of 2022 displayed it more plainly than at any time since the Cold War.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The contradiction the article names is real and it was deliberate, which is the first thing worth establishing. The great powers made their participation conditional on the veto at San Francisco, and the smaller states accepted it because a United Nations containing the great powers and unable to restrain them was judged preferable to a League of Nations that they had left. That bargain is the reason the organisation has survived eighty years while its predecessor lasted twenty, and it is also the reason it cannot do what the author asks of it. Whether the trade was worth making is a genuine question; what is not in doubt is that it was made knowingly.
The reform debate is correspondingly older than most readers assume, and it has produced proposals that are worth naming because they represent what is actually achievable. The initiative on restraint in cases of mass atrocity, supported by well over a hundred states, asks permanent members to undertake voluntarily not to veto where genocide, crimes against humanity or large scale war crimes are at issue. The code of conduct promoted by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group runs along similar lines. Neither binds anyone, and both create a cost: a permanent member that vetoes in such a case now does so against a publicly stated standard it has been asked to accept. Formal amendment is a different matter, since Article 108 requires the concurrence of all five permanent members, which means the veto cannot be removed except by those who hold it.
What has developed instead is a set of routes around the Council, and these are the more instructive part of the answer. The General Assembly’s Uniting for Peace procedure, devised in 1950 for exactly this situation, allows the Assembly to meet in emergency session and make recommendations where the Council is deadlocked, and it was used within days in 2022 to adopt a resolution on Ukraine by 141 votes to 5. Its resolutions are not binding, and their value lies elsewhere: they establish where the membership stands, they deny the vetoing state the claim that its conduct is merely contested, and they provide the basis on which other bodies act. The Assembly has since required that any veto be followed automatically by a debate in which the vetoing state explains itself, which is a modest measure and one of the few adopted in decades.
Two further observations belong here. Accountability has migrated toward the courts, which do not depend on the Council: the International Court of Justice has heard proceedings arising from the invasion, the International Criminal Court has issued warrants, and a mechanism has been established to register damage. None of this stops a war, and all of it constrains the range of settlements that will later be available. And the article’s own framing suggests where the leverage sits. If the permanent members cannot be restrained by the Council, the constituency for reform is the rest of the membership, and the pressure available to it is legitimacy: a Council whose composition reflects 1945 and whose decisions are seen as protecting its own members forfeits the authority on which its resolutions depend. That is a slow instrument and it is the one the smaller states actually hold.
Finally, a word about the article’s closing image. It is vivid and it concedes more than the author perhaps intends, since a world in which giants take turns and nobody stops them is one in which the smaller states have no recourse at all. The record does not support quite that much pessimism: the Council has authorised action in a great many cases where no permanent member’s interest was at stake, its sanctions and peacekeeping mandates operate continuously, and the routes described above exist because the deadlock has been worked around before. The honest conclusion is narrower and more useful than despair. The Council cannot restrain its own permanent members, it was never designed to, and everything else it does remains available. Knowing which category a given crisis falls into is what allows the effort to be directed where it can produce something.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Simonoff, Mark. Diplomacy at the United Nations. 3 December 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXKjJL-Asu8. Accessed 15 September 2024.
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter. Accessed 25 October 2024.
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Articles 2(4), 24, 25, 27, 39 to 42, and 108.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V), Uniting for Peace, 1950.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES 11/1 (2022) on the aggression against Ukraine, and Resolution 76/262 (2022) establishing the standing mandate for a debate following the use of the veto.
Security Council draft resolution S/2022/155 of 25 February 2022 and the record of the meeting, S/PV.8979.
Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, 2015.
France and Mexico, Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, 2015.
Report of the High level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004). A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, United Nations, New York, chapter on Security Council reform.
Bosco, D. L. (2009). Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World. Oxford University Press, New York.
Diplomacy in action
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
EDITORIAL NOTE *
This article assesses the conduct of several states and reaches critical conclusions about them. The assessment reflects the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the states concerned. The article was written in autumn 2024 and its account of ongoing conflicts should be read with that date in mind.
ABSTRACT *
This article examines diplomacy as both an instrument of peace and a vehicle for national interest, and asks whether the two can be distinguished in practice. After considering the ambiguity of the term itself, the author traces the expansion of diplomacy from relations between states to a field involving international organisations, non-governmental bodies and private individuals, and the corresponding fusion of domestic and foreign policy. Sections on negotiation and mediation in crisis address the particular difficulties of hostage situations, the effect of communications technology, and the conditions under which mediation succeeds. A section on financial diplomacy traces the Bretton Woods institutions from their founding purpose of post-war reconstruction to a present in which the borrowers are developing states and the lenders are developed ones. The article then examines the United States Foreign Service, drawing on published accounts by serving diplomats, and reads the stated purpose of promoting national interests against the claim to work for peace. A final section returns to the Security Council and the veto.
KEYWORDS *
Diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, crisis, hostage negotiation, Bretton Woods, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Foreign Service, national interest, Security Council, veto
INTRODUCTION
The term diplomacy is a common word in most working environments, in daily life, and in many conversations. She is a diplomatic person might mean that this person can handle difficult situations well. It could also be understood in a negative light, as describing someone who is not entirely truthful. It can signify someone engaging others for peace at the expense of truth. The truth is not always a peaceful thing. What a person believes to be their truth might not be the truth of the other. In a world of chaos and constant warfare, diplomatic is a word used daily in local and international news. Its meaning is true to one and untrue to another. It is a hope to some and another step of unfairness to others.
To be diplomatic is the ability to relate cordially and engage in good relationships with others. It is the peaceful alignment of the interests of the parties. Diplomacy is the influencing of international situations, directly or indirectly. It can function in times of peace and of war; it knows no limit. However, there are questions to be asked when the originators of diplomacy are themselves anti-diplomatic. R. P. Barston, in Modern Diplomacy, examines the history and development of diplomacy and its relation to international trade, finance, negotiation, and mediation. Mark Simonoff’s address at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics gave an overview of the role of the United Nations in current world politics. The third edition of Inside a U.S. Embassy describes the people who work within United States embassies, their biographies, their work, the mission, and their daily life while posted abroad. In this paper I write on the following: the evolution of diplomacy, diplomacy in times of crisis, diplomacy and the economy, the United States and diplomacy, and the irony of diplomacy.
MAIN CORPUS
Evolution of diplomacy
Diplomacy is the “management of relations between states and between states and other actors” (Barston 2006: 1). In diplomacy, the promotion of interests, defence, and security is central. Diplomatic personnel acquire the information necessary to avoid threats and conflicts between their host and their home countries (Barston 2006: 3). They are skilled in observing, finding, and relaying information. In the diplomatic process, the fusion of countries’ international and domestic policies has continued to shape the international community. International decisions are made by countries with regard to their domestic situation (Barston 2006: 11). A country’s domestic circumstances therefore determine what it makes of its foreign policy. For example, the foreign policy of a country ruled by a military government will differ from that of a democratic one (Barston 2006: 17).
The establishment of the United Nations by the United States, European states, and their allies after the Second World War was intended to enhance international diplomacy (Simonoff 2012). The end of the Cold War also saw considerable expansion in this respect. The existence of de facto states, together with economic, transport, and social cooperation among states, has widened the international arena (Barston 2006: 6). The formation of regional organisations such as ECOWAS, of global organisations such as the United Nations, and of its specialised agencies, has expanded international diplomacy (Barston 2006: 9). The creation of these organisations has therefore broadened the scope of diplomacy.
Diplomatic relationships have moved from relations between states alone to the work of foreign and diplomatic offices with a wide range of counterparts. Diplomacy has ceased to be the exclusive business of appointed diplomatic officers. It now includes actors such as non-governmental organisations, international organisations, and private individuals (Barston 2006: 1). Foreign policy has become so complex that the involvement of other actors has become necessary (Barston 2006: 14). Maintaining and creating relationships between states is therefore not only in the hands of ministries of foreign affairs but also involves an extensive range of actors. For example, in the current war between Israel and its neighbours, the United Nations and its agencies, together with regional Arab organisations, have been vital in moving towards humanitarian arrangements and ceasefire negotiations.
Diplomacy in times of crisis
A crisis is an inevitable feature of situations where people coexist, whether as a local or an international community. Diplomacy’s attempt to create cordial relationships between states does not prevent crisis. The existence of conflict, however, does not necessarily mean a failure of diplomacy. One of the purposes of diplomacy is the settlement of disputes between states and between states and other actors. The tools of diplomacy are employed when conflict arises. The possibility of resolving a crisis is therefore at the core of diplomacy.
Negotiation during crisis. Negotiation is one of the primary functions of diplomacy (Barston 2006: 2). It is an attempt to explore and reconcile conflicting positions in order to reach an acceptable outcome. Whatever the nature of that outcome, which may in fact favour one party more than another, the purpose of negotiation is the identification of areas of common interest and of conflict (Barston 2006: 48). The negotiation process is a progression towards a substantive agreement. It typically involves multiple phases, beginning with preparation and ending with the final agreement.
Negotiation can be complicated, especially where conflict has escalated into violence. At that point the issues in dispute have been reduced to a minimum, and negotiators must deal first with the most urgent. For example, in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the most urgent task of the negotiators was the situation of those held hostage. People held by both sides remain one of the outstanding issues as the war extends. Negotiation methods may vary depending on the specific context of a hostage crisis.
In many conflicts there is a possibility of hostage-taking on both sides to obtain leverage. Negotiations of this kind present unique challenges, with elements such as video communication, public appeals, and conflicting objectives. However, hostage negotiations are not beyond the capacity of diplomacy; rather, they fall well within the domain of diplomacy, which traditionally is concerned with developing and using a variety of contacts and with operating in dangerous situations (Barston 2006: 62).
Hostage situations have developed alongside technology. The use of video and telephone to communicate violence (Barston 2006: 62) complicates the situation. Video recordings and telephone communications concerning those held have featured in the current conflict. The use of modern technology has had an effect on crisis, sometimes negative and at other times positive.
Negotiations are affected by factors such as the negotiating environment, the assets available, and contingent variables. However, negotiating in crisis and reaching a settlement is possible where these factors are used constructively. Negotiators are aware of the factors that influence the parties and take them into account. Negotiation may also take longer and fail to reach a conclusion because of the influence of parties with personal objectives or interests.
Mediation during crisis. The settlement of disputes involves various methods such as inquiry, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, mediation, and judicial settlement. Mediation is distinguished from other forms of conflict resolution in that it not only identifies the issues in dispute but also works towards a solution.
Mediation focuses on facilitating communication and the understanding of opposing viewpoints. The mediator, as third party, seeks to influence the process and the content of potential solutions, often helping the parties adjust their perspectives, goals, and behaviour. Mediators, who may be external to the dispute, are crucial in facilitating peaceful resolution (Barston 2006: 234). A mediator must also earn the trust of both parties for the acceptance and effectiveness of the process, so as to “soften the edge of controversy and provide a mechanism for adjustment on issues of prestige” (Barston 2006: 234).
In times of escalated conflict, though faced with the difficulty of bringing the parties together, mediation is still accepted. Conflicting parties rarely reject mediation; it is usually entered into voluntarily (Barston 2006: 241). A successful outcome is usually characterised by the maintenance of confidentiality in the process, the use of informal mediators, and the wording of the agreement covering bilateral cooperation between the parties.
In complex, multiparty conflicts, several levels of mediation may occur concurrently, especially where one party lacks diplomatic resources or faces isolation. In these cases various forms of formal and informal mediation may be used to navigate the conflict. In the current wars between Israel and Hamas and between Russia and Ukraine, mediation continues in the attempt to resolve the issues in dispute and to find an agreement that better serves the parties.
Diplomacy and the economy
International conflict and war have contributed to poverty throughout the world. Banks and other financial institutions do not function during wars and violent conflict. Markets, shops, and supermarkets also cease to function in times of violence. Civilians therefore rely on supplies from their government and from local and international organisations.
In times of war and violent attack, stronger parties use their power to prevent the weaker from receiving financial and humanitarian assistance. They block supplies from reaching the weaker party in order to gain advantage. One of the tactics of winning a war is therefore ensuring that the other party lacks food and medical supplies. Nigeria prevailed in its war against secessionist Biafra in 1970 in part by ensuring that salt and other supplies did not reach Biafra.
In the current war, access for humanitarian supplies into Gaza has been repeatedly restricted, and the United States has publicly pressed for that access to be improved. During a full-scale war, participating countries, whether prevailing or not, suffer severe financial strain. Hence the need for funds in the aftermath of war.
For this purpose international financial institutions were created at the end of the Second World War. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established following the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, with 44 countries participating. The Bretton Woods agreements focused on preventing another collapse of the international monetary system such as that of the 1930s, emphasising reconstruction and the transition to peacetime economies (Barston 2006: 104).
The purpose of the conference was to prevent a recurrence of the financial collapse of the 1930s and to regulate the world economy. The main tasks of the Fund include providing international liquidity and assisting members with balance of payments difficulties. It aimed at establishing stable exchange rates and discouraging the use of direct controls (Barston 2006: 105).
The World Bank was established to facilitate capital investment for development, particularly in post-war recovery. It operates as a joint-stock entity with voting rights based on shareholding, and plays a role in loan recommendation and management (Barston 2006: 106). The Bank and the Fund therefore aimed to restore the economies of war-torn countries by lending to them. The Bank aims to facilitate capital investment for productive purposes, with an emphasis on less developed countries, providing financing through guarantees and direct lending (Barston 2006: 107).
Despite the intentions of these two institutions, they had limited impact during the late 1940s and early 1950s, since post-war reconstruction was primarily financed through the Marshall Plan. The United States played a vital role as a source of international liquidity through the dollar. However, developments in the late 1950s and early 1960s changed the focus of the institutions and reduced American influence. Serious balance of payments deficits in the late 1950s raised concerns about the role of the United States in the Bretton Woods system. Western European powers and Japan emerged as major decision-making groups in international financial matters.
The Fund saw an increase in membership, especially from Africa, which brought a wider range of interests and demands on resources. Both institutions have been reformed over the years, including through the establishment of the Development Committee. However, despite this restructuring, the major borrowers have been developing countries while the lenders are developed ones (Barston 2006: 112 to 118). Borrowing countries have continued to borrow at a greater rate, since debt negotiations are sensitive to domestic and international events (Barston 2006: 125).
Despite the restructuring of the Bank and the Fund and the conditions set for borrowing countries, the developed European countries, the United States, and Japan remain the principal beneficiaries. This form of financial diplomacy has kept developing countries returning for further loans. These countries are in continuing debt, with significant consequences. Financial diplomacy is, on this reading, arranged so that the rich become richer and the poor poorer.
The United States and diplomacy
“The Foreign Service is a career like no other. It is much more than a job; it is a uniquely demanding and rewarding way of life. As representatives of the United States to foreign governments, Foreign Service members have a direct impact on people’s lives and participate in the making of history” (Dorman 2011: 20).
United States embassies are present in most countries of the world. The diplomatic career is a fulfilling one for those who serve. Diplomats travel to places they might never otherwise have visited. They learn about other cultures, encounter different foods, and experience different religions. They also encounter the other side of the work, which can be difficult and unforgettable. Examples include the burning of the United States embassy in Belgrade and the subsequent evacuation of staff (Dorman 2011: 283 to 285), and the diplomatic responses to the war in Iraq, even though many diplomats did not agree with the invasion (Dorman 2011: 121).
The United States embassy network is vast in its operations and present in almost every country (Dorman 2011: 21 to 24). Compared with other countries, the United States has embraced both native-born and naturalised citizens in its embassies and foreign offices (Dorman 2011: 33).
The United States, as the most influential state within the United Nations, presents itself as a democratic centre of the world and a symbol of international unity (Simonoff 2012). It is the first negotiator of conflicts in many parts of the world. However, is this so, or is it a facade? United States diplomacy gives the impression of an intent towards world peace. Can we conclude otherwise after reading between the lines of the words of its own diplomats?
“Every day, consular officers help stranded Americans get home. Every day, economic and commercial officers assist U.S. businesses to compete overseas. During times of upheaval, political officers are the ones on the front lines around the world, keeping Washington informed about the real situation. U.S. diplomats negotiate the international agreements that end the wars, keep the peace, and protect and promote U.S. interests” (Dorman 2011: 17).
The phrase promote U.S. interests carries considerable meaning. The quotation above is an exposition of what diplomacy amounts to in this account. As a former President of the United States stated repeatedly, America first. The diplomatic hands that are extended are extended for American businesses abroad and for American citizens. Can it be concluded that American interests are the reason it involves itself in other countries’ affairs, and why it appears to negotiate and to seek peace around the world?
The United States maintains several missions worldwide, especially in places of strategic interest. Two of these are the Agency for International Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service. The former has implemented humanitarian and development programmes in war-torn countries, including Iraq, where the war was an action of the United States (Dorman 2011: 273). An agricultural officer states that these organisations play a role in “improving foreign markets for U.S. products and building new markets” (Dorman 2011: 48).
The Agency for International Development reports to the Secretary of State and is therefore closely connected to national policy. These organisations have provided humanitarian support to a large number of developing countries and are represented by a substantial number of foreign service officers (Dorman 2011: 68). The Agency is not only a humanitarian organisation providing assistance to states in need but also an instrument of national policy. American ambassadors therefore maintain regular contact with its directors (Dorman 2011: 248).
The irony of the Security Council
The Security Council consists of fifteen members, each with one vote, and is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Among the fifteen are the five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Simonoff 2012).
The Council can impose sanctions on states. Its decisions are legally binding on member states. Sanctions have been imposed on countries such as North Korea and Iran. These are examples of the exercise of the powers of the permanent members, whose principal task is to keep world peace.
Simonoff sets out the purposes contained in Article 1 of the Charter: to maintain international peace, to develop friendly relations among nations, and to achieve international cooperation.
The Charter states that member states shall settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force. Members shall also respect the sovereignty of all member states. On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine. China has consistently pressured Taiwan, describing its government and elections as illegitimate, and has not ruled out the use of non-peaceful means. The United States invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 on the basis of an allegation concerning weapons of mass destruction that was later shown to be unfounded.
The Council must reach agreement in order to adopt a resolution. On 25 February 2022 it was unable to adopt a resolution on the Ukraine crisis, as the Russian Federation exercised a veto. The Permanent Representative of Ukraine told the Council that its words had less value than a hole in a New York pretzel. The draft submitted by Albania and the United States gained the support of eleven members but was vetoed, with China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstaining.
SUMMARY *
The article’s argument is that diplomacy cannot be assessed by its stated purposes because its stated purposes are always double. The same passage in which American diplomats describe ending wars and keeping the peace also describes protecting and promoting national interests, and the author’s contention is that these are not two activities but one, described in the terms appropriate to each audience. The same structure appears in the financial section, where institutions established to rebuild ruined economies now transfer resources in the opposite direction, and in the treatment of the Security Council, where the body charged with restraining aggression is composed so that its most powerful members cannot be restrained. The unifying observation is that instruments created for one purpose are retained because they serve another, and that this is visible in the documents of the institutions themselves rather than requiring any external accusation.
CONCLUSION
The Charter aims at a peaceful world. The United Nations has averted wars and has mediated and negotiated peace in situations of crisis. Diplomatic instruments are being used while wars continue. The ultimate goal remains the prevention of wider war and the pursuit of peace. The United Nations, states, regional organisations, and independent actors all have a part in averting conflict and resolving what is under way.
Building relationships among nations while keeping the peace is central to diplomacy. We have more in common than we know; we are all human, and the same colour of blood flows through our veins whatever our physical identity. Diplomacy is a means to an end. Its tools can and should be used to end a crisis.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s central charge, that diplomacy pursues national interest while speaking of peace, is accurate and it is not quite an indictment, and stating the distinction precisely is what makes the analysis useful.
Diplomacy is the pursuit of national interest by means other than force. That is its definition rather than its corruption, and the alternative to a state pursuing its interests through embassies, negotiation and aid is not a state without interests but a state pursuing them by other means. What deserves scrutiny is narrower and more answerable: whether a particular instrument is presented as something it is not. Development assistance described as humanitarian while allocated by strategic priority, mediation offered by a party with a stake in the outcome, or an institution presented as multilateral while governed by a handful of shareholders each invite the objection the author raises. The remedy in each case is disclosure rather than abstention, and this journal returns to the point repeatedly: a mediator with interests can still be effective, and a mediator with concealed interests cannot.
The financial section identifies a real pattern and the mechanism is worth naming, since it has been extensively documented. Voting shares at both institutions were fixed according to the economic weight of 1944 and have been adjusted only marginally since, the leadership of each has by convention gone to an American and a European respectively, and structural adjustment lending imposed conditions that were rarely met and whose effects on health and education spending were sufficiently well established that the institutions themselves changed the approach. The response the author’s argument implies is already under way in the form of alternatives, including the development banks established by regional groupings and by the BRICS states, and their significance lies less in their lending capacity than in the leverage a borrower gains from having somewhere else to go.
Two additions belong here. The account of hostage negotiation is accurate as far as it goes and omits the distinction the field regards as fundamental: negotiations to secure release, conducted by specialists whose sole objective is that the person comes out alive, are separate from political negotiations about the terms of a conflict, and the two are placed in different hands precisely so that the first is not traded against the second. Where they are merged, as they have been in the current case, releases become contingent on political progress and people die waiting. And the treatment of humanitarian access as a tactic of war deserves its legal frame: the Geneva Conventions require parties to allow the passage of relief consignments for civilians, and the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited by treaty and constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute. That obligation binds every party regardless of the conduct of the other.
Finally, the article’s title identifies an irony and its conclusion offers a hope, and the distance between them is where practitioners work. Institutions built by the powerful will serve the powerful, and they will also do things the powerful would not otherwise do, because a rule invoked selectively is still a rule that can be invoked. The Charter’s prohibition on the use of force is violated and it is also the reason such violations require justification, and justification is a constraint on what can be done next. That is a modest defence of a compromised system and it is the one the record supports.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Barston, R. P. (2006) Modern Diplomacy. 3rd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Dorman, Shawn (ed.) (2011) Inside a U.S. Embassy: Diplomacy at Work. 3rd edition. Washington D.C.: American Foreign Service Association.
Simonoff, Mark (2012) Diplomacy at the United Nations. New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College, 3 December 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXKjJL-Asu8
United Nations (2022) Security Council Meeting Coverage, 8979th Meeting, 25 February 2022, SC/14808. https://press.un.org/en/2022
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Articles 1, 2, 25, 27 and 33.
Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Articles 23 and 59, and Protocol Additional I, 1977, Articles 54 and 70.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Bretton Woods, 1944.
Berridge, G. R. (2015). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton, New York.
Woods, N. (2006). The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, professional standards and field manuals, Geneva.
Faure, G. O., & Zartman, I. W. (Eds.) (2010). Negotiating with Terrorists: Strategy, Tactics, and Politics. Routledge, London.
Mediation: The Possibility of Peace in Conflict
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
The fact that conflict is all around us epitomizes the fact that it is inalienable with living. Near and far, directly or indirectly, we all deal with and experience conflict. Issues of conflict encompass us subtly or in escalation. Conflict is part of life; daily encounters are embedded with conflicts. Conflict is not negative; it should be viewed in a positive light. It is an expression of human diversity and richness. Conflict is, therefore, not an issue for avoidance but should be seen as a means to a good end. The only problem with conflict is violence. However, whether a conflict is peaceful or escalated into violence, there is still hope for peace.
This paper substantiates the possibility of peace in conflict with examples of several resolved conflicts and a hope for peace even amid several ongoing violent conflicts. It underlines the achievements of mediators in conflict resolution in the past and the hope for the future. Alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, has come to stay, and the role of mediators cannot be overstated. The intervention of an impartial mediator makes a difference in the lives of conflicting parties. The mediator needs to get to the root of the conflict to avoid a reoccurrence, and aims to encourage the conflicting parties to build a relationship while they are in conflict and after a resolution. I therefore refer to a conflict as a painful gain. The benefits are enormous when there is an amicable resolution between conflicting parties. The parties to a conflict can understand their differences and see the beauty in a resolution. Their relationship is strengthened, or perhaps a new relationship is created.
Editorial note: the references to ongoing armed conflicts and the assessment of the parties involved reflect the author’s own perspective. This journal’s editorial position is neutral. *
KEYWORDS *
Conflict, mediation, peace, escalation, root causes, timing of intervention, humanitarian corridors, women in conflict, natural resources, enforceability, alternative dispute resolution, relationship building
INTRODUCTION
The core nature of man is conflict. History has recounted conflict as part of existence. Families, clans, villages, towns, and countries constantly conflict. Whether as a creationist or an evolutionist, the beginning of the world pictures the world’s existence hand in hand with conflict. The Big Bang theory of the universe’s birth identifies and buttresses some form of conflict. Humans, therefore, are prone to conflict as individuals, small and large groups. Conflict arises for several reasons, but the unmet needs of parties are the reason for most conflicts.
Issues of conflict within families are similar to those within larger societies. It is easy to think that less important things cause conflicts within smaller groups than international conflicts. It is, however, interesting to know that the cause of conflict within and amongst family members is similar to the cause of disputes amongst nation-states. Conflicts are, therefore, a natural part of human existence. However, violent conflict is not. History has shown the disadvantages and consequences of an escalated conflict. Violence and war have occurred and are still occurring due to conflict.
Resolving conflicts brings peace, relationship building, and a better understanding of the conflicting parties. A nonresolution might result in violence and war, which have occurred several times in the past and at present. The world at large has not learned from the falls of a violent conflict, the loss of lives and property, and the psychological and emotional trauma that is passed from generation to generation. Instead, the plunging into violence has continued and is seen today in both the local and international communities. The call for peaceful resolution of conflict is at the four corners of the world. An amicable resolution of dispute is encouraged in all ramifications of life, the family, the workplace, communities, and the world.
This paper will look at conflict with the eyes of positivity, mediation, the difficulty of mediation in times of crisis, and the need for a peaceful existence amid conflict.
MAIN CORPUS
To stop a conflict
Conflict is beneficial to man and is an essential part of any organization or community. It is a natural occurrence within all living things, especially humans. Conflict in itself should not be seen as negative. It is the handling of a conflict that determines its outcome because, “Conflict is neither positive nor negative in and of itself. Conflict is an outgrowth of the diversity that characterizes our thoughts, our attitudes, our beliefs, our perceptions, and our social systems and structures.”
Conflict should, therefore, not be considered objectively; a situation where people who co-exist do not conflict should be concerning. A saying of the Yoruba in the western part of Nigeria, West Africa, sees a lack of conflict between people that co-exist as deceitful.
Conflict is the expression of people’s individuality, the colorfulness of their minds and thoughts. The diversity between people is what makes the community vibrant. These attributes should be considered positive and not be the cause of violence of any kind. For example, in a family of multiple children, there is a diversity of opinions, and so is there in our society and the world. The conflicts that arise within families translate into societies. Diversity is a healthy aspect of human society. Diversity can open up possibilities, challenge us to consider alternatives and keep us from allowing ourselves to stagnate. We need to celebrate diversity, not fear it or perceive it as a threat.
An attempt to prevent or cover up conflict is in no way a solution and does not make a society or organization peaceful. It could cause an escalation if the cause of the conflict is not addressed. Conflicts should therefore not be prevented; however, parties to a conflict should attempt to resolve their issues. When parties are unable to resolve their issues, the need to resolve with the facilitation of a third impartial party is encouraged. The intervention of a third party, a peacemaker, or a mediator will assist in resolving conflict where parties cannot resolve. The peacemaker acts as a facilitator to assist the parties in understanding their issues and coming to an amicable settlement.
Addressing a conflict through mediation
Mediation has become a welcome process of dispute settlement between disputing parties at the local level and within the international communities. It is the most favored ADR activity. Mediation not only resolves disputes between parties but also builds the relationship between the parties. It is a process of listening and moving to interests from positions.
In the international community, mediation has produced more positive results than other means of conflict resolution. The interference of a third impartial party is more acceptable to parties than other forms of conflict resolution. The peacemaker is a facilitator who assists the parties in understanding their issues and coming to an amicable settlement.
In the international community, the advantages of mediation are more evident. This is partly because, in international law, court decisions are unenforceable. Decisions by the ICJ, for example, do not have the enforceability of decisions within a nation-state. Nation-states cannot be held accountable by territorial and international courts in the same way. Israel has turned a deaf ear to the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice.
Sanctions imposed on countries sometimes have little or no consequence for those countries. When sanctions are imposed on countries by stronger ones, they can overcome economic sanctions imposed on them by finding necessary solutions. For example, Russia has found alternate buyers for its petroleum. Despite sanctions from the United Kingdom and the United States, Russia has been selling petroleum to India. On the contrary, countries usually adhere to agreements made by them, and there is usually no need for enforcement or the imposition of sanctions when their needs have been addressed in a mediation process.
Parties are in conflict because they have been unable to solve their problems. Parties’ inability to solve their problems could cause the conflict to escalate into violence or make the parties seek a third-party intervention. Escalation of a conflict can result in threat and violence. The result of violence is the loss of lives and property and usually the loss of the contested issue of conflict. However, “escalation of a conflict cannot continue indefinitely; one way or the other, the crisis will lead to an outcome.” In an escalation, either one party wins, some demands are made and met, or a third party intervenes. Whether the conflict has escalated or not, the handling of the issues is as important as the issues themselves.
In conflict resolution, the peacemaker can be an international organization, for example the United Nations, a more substantial or well-respected country, for example the United States of America, a former president of a country, for example Jimmy Carter, or a professional or informal mediator. The intervention of a peacemaker might prevent a conflict from escalating.
In mediation, the parties own the floor and should be allowed to solve their issues. The mediator encourages dialogue between the parties within a safe environment where the parties can share views and concerns without restrictions. The mediator helps the parties to identify their needs and stake in the conflict. The parties are made to understand their ability to make choices and also understand the implications of the choices that they make.
The timing of an intervention is crucial for the resolution of a dispute. International organizations should recognize when a conflict is brewing and when an escalation is possible. A late reaction to an international conflict can result in extreme loss of human lives, property, and perhaps the issue in conflict. A timely intervention is, therefore, key to a successful handling of a conflict. The cable networks have broadcast the war between Israel and Palestine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Perhaps this is the result of a late response from the United Nations and negotiators on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Also, there was a significant sign of certainty of an emergence of war between Russia and Ukraine. Maybe more efforts at intervention at the earlier stage of conflict would have made a difference in what occurs now.
Root of the conflict
Conflicts usually do not start suddenly. An interview of disputing parties is bound to show biases, grudges, or links of such to amount to a conflict. The cause of a conflict can be missed if the mediator or third party does not diligently dig deep. In civil wars, issues within communities do not begin in a day. In the international community, relationships between nations decline with time. Indeed, Vladimir Putin made no secret of Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine. The issues of conflict between Russia and Ukraine had been in the pipeline.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine did not start with the attack carried out by Hamas in October 2023. Perhaps it started in 1948 when the United Nations partition plan led to the establishment of Israel. The conflict between Israel and Palestine could have been influenced by stories passed down centuries ago. The war that has escalated into the greatest of wars between the two sides is a build-up of deep-rooted issues. To successfully resolve a conflict, the peacemaker must address the real issues of conflict. A resolution that does not address the real reason parties conflict will cause a reoccurrence that might pose a worse situation than the previous one. To effectively address a conflict, it is cogent that the mediator knows the cause of the conflict. To understand the conflict, the mediator has to know and understand the background of the parties.
The mediator must also empathize with the parties’ feelings and recognize why the parties feel a particular way about an issue. The mediator must be able to wear the parties’ shoes, understand why the parties hold dear what they do and why they feel the way they feel about the issue.
Causes of conflict
Conflicts and resultant wars have ravaged both international and local communities. Reasons for these conflicts vary, and they are specific and peculiar to individual parties. The things that people hold dear vary from person to person and community to community. Competition between people, communities, and at the international level is healthy. In the international community, “as long as the competition between states takes place within the boundaries of conventional diplomacy, international conflict is not problematic.” It is the escalation of the conflict through forceful confrontation and violence that is unacceptable.
One of the overwhelming causes of conflicts within and between nation-states is the existence of land and natural resources. War and violent conflict emerge “whenever the potential development of an individual or group is held back by the conditions of a relationship, and in particular by the uneven distribution of power and resources”. The rise in prices of necessities like oil, food, and shelter, the emergence of militant groups as seen presently in Haiti, and the violation of basic fundamental human rights are some other causes of wars.
The coexistence of communities of similar ancestral history and ties has been strained due to their struggle for land and natural resources. These communities, however, have more in common than their diversity. Communities, no matter how diverse, are able to find some commonality in their histories if attention is given to their similarities rather than their differences. Boundary nations might even have the same ancestors if traced.
The devastating effect of an escalating conflict can be avoided if the cause of a conflict is properly handled. For example, the conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon on the Bakassi peninsula would have resulted in a brutal war if not well handled by the leaders of the two countries. The adherence to the decision of the ICJ was done because the parties wanted a settlement and not a violent conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India have been about territory and natural resources. The two countries have survived many wars, which could have been avoided. A conflict on shared natural resources between states should lead to an agreement on equitable access and not war.
The lack of good governance within countries, the withholding of energy supplies, human rights violations, and environmental degradation are also reasons for conflict. The genealogical information passed down from generation to generation is also a reason for conflict. There are conflicts where parties are not fully aware of the reason why there is friction between them and the other party. The victims of war in the Gaza region and Israel at present do not know how the conflict in the region started. It is notable that “the Arab-Israeli conflict is now in its seventh decade. An earlier conflict between the small Jewish and the much larger Arab community in Palestine had first erupted in the late Ottoman period”. The cause of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is, therefore, one that has been present for longer than the current occupants of both territories have lived. The parties have continued to wage war against each other at the slightest provocation due to stories and information passed down.
Mediation in crisis
Unresolved conflicts result in crisis, war, and violence. This is because: “Conflict is the pursuit of needs and desires that are in contradiction with each other. Such needs have potential of many kinds. They may include, the list is endless, material needs such as resources, political needs such as a grasp on levers of power, and subjective needs in relation to identity.”
It is easiest to infer and settle disputes when parties are still in disagreement with each other. When there is no external influence, the parties can find solutions to their problems. Any mediator would have an easy sail when two parties are still upset and in a state where they can listen to each other’s grievances.
The mediator can find the conflict’s sole actors at this time. The parties are identifiable and can effectively communicate with each other. The parties are still pacifiable and have not involved other sympathizers or interest groups in their conflict. At this early stage of conflict, mediation rules are easier to follow. The parties are within reach, are present on set, and the relationship-building can start.
When a conflict has escalated, or there is already an outbreak of war, the issues become complicated. The sympathizers on each side of the conflict make the issues worse. The conflict might even become extensive, with more parties becoming involved. History has it that the Second World War started with the Nazi invasion of Poland. The war between Israel and Palestine could revert to a wider regional war if it continues.
It is recorded that “throughout the decades of low-level conflict, the indigenous Palestinian Arabs were supported and helped by a large part of the Arab world.” At that point, the parties to this present conflict would be Israel, Palestine, Hamas, and some other countries within the Arab nations. At present, bringing the stakeholders together at a table is getting as complicated as it could be. The war was supposedly between Hamas and Israel, as broadcast by the cable and local news and by Israel itself. The least politically aware person knows that this war has affected not only the Hamas militant group but, majorly, the Palestinian people.
Mediators might have to lay aside the dispute settlement during war and crisis and save lives. The task of the mediator, therefore, becomes severalfold. The urgency of specific issues takes precedence over the settlement of the disputes. The negotiators involved in the Israel and Palestine war have, therefore, resorted to working within the humanitarian corridor. The release of the hostages and the provision of food and medical supplies have taken preeminence over a ceasefire.
Mediation in crisis is, therefore, not the same and could be more complicated in times of conflict. In times of violent conflict, the tasks of the mediators become more complex. Mediation is now beyond an amicable settlement of disputes between parties. The initial conflict issues would have given birth to more issues that must be addressed for peace to occur.
Human rights violations are at their highest during a violent conflict. Women and children are mostly vulnerable during crisis or war, and boys are recruited as soldiers in war. Even though there has been a role change between men and women as regards participation at the war front, women and children are mostly at the receiving end of a war. The stake of women is higher compared to that of men. “Women become the bearers of the culture that the men are fighting to defend.” They are victims and partakers of the war. “Women and the girl child are exposed to unwanted and highly traumatic pregnancies, HIV and other transmitted diseases.” Despite the effect that violent conflict has on women, they are usually excluded from negotiation and the process of settlement.
In a crisis or war-torn situation, reaching a peace agreement between the parties can take more time than a non-violent conflict. The mediation process becomes delayed, which is one of the benchmarks of mediation. The war situation sometimes negatively affects the efforts of the mediators or negotiators. The parties are seen within the purview of crisis and chaos. It is difficult to decipher which party intends positive actions as both sides are involved in the various violations. In war times, “best intentions, however, might not bear fruit if the environment is too hostile.”
Ethnic issues that have resulted in civil wars and generational issues resulting in violent conflict within nation-states therefore make mediation a more difficult task. Also, more deadly conflicts may increase the level of hostility and might often entail feelings of hatred and vengeance that linger on after the end of a war, thereby reducing the willingness of the parties to honor a peace agreement if one exists. Even if a conflict is temporarily ended, through victory or settlement, hostile parties may only await a new opening in the political opportunity structure to strike again, especially if they feel that the underlying issues have not been addressed. A peace settlement or mediation might become impossible. A long time or permanent peace might also be impossible after a war. Though it is clear that mediation during times of war and violence is difficult, it is still worth trying, and peace is possible. The United Nations and international organizations have not relented in their efforts for a peaceful world.
SUMMARY *
The article’s organising claim is that conflict and violence are separable, and that the whole of mediation practice rests on that separation. Conflict expresses diversity and is unavoidable; violence is a way of conducting conflict and is not. From this the author derives the case for third party intervention and, more distinctively, an argument about sequence: the earlier a mediator arrives, the fewer parties there are, the more identifiable they remain, and the more capable they are of hearing one another. Once violence has begun, constituencies form, sympathisers attach themselves, both sides accumulate conduct that disqualifies them in the eyes of the other, and the mediator’s task changes in kind rather than in degree, from settling a dispute to keeping people alive.
CONCLUSION
Can man engage in conflict without it resulting in violence? There have been more resolved conflicts than escalated ones. If all the conflicts that exist or have existed resulted in violence, everyone would be against one another as this paper is being written. Indeed, negotiation, mediation, and amicable settlements, whether formal or informal, have saved the world from much chaos. In the last century or so, more than a hundred million people have died in wars. The figure does not include the many who have been murdered by politically repressive regimes or the victims of the terror sometimes evoked in response to them.
The conflicts that have, however, resulted in violence have shocked the world and its communities. A picture of the current wars has made the effect of violent conflict more evident. The war between Russia and Ukraine has affected other countries’ food and oil supplies, especially third-world countries. Citizens of Palestine have become refugees in other countries. Is a dream for peace beyond the world’s reach?
The 1994 UNICEF collection of children’s artwork titled Dream of Peace speaks volumes to the current occurrence in the world today. The Dream of Peace, a collection of children’s artwork from the former Yugoslavia, can prompt children to discuss their own visions of war and peace and to express them through artwork. Where books are in short supply, children can be encouraged to produce books of their own. These may contain real-life stories of how they have dealt with conflict, fictional stories, and children’s own poems, songs, and drawings on themes of peace. Does a dream for peace seem beyond the reach of the world’s citizens?
Peace is not a far-fetched idea. It is not a world without conflict, but where conflicts are resolved and not allowed to destroy but to build. Peace is a world where children’s and adults’ rights alike are protected. A place where children can go to school and feel safe. Where people, communities, and nations alike understand their differences as gifts and not curses. This is a world of peace and tranquility. A dream for peace starts from the home, the early school every child attends. The need for peace is taught directly or indirectly in schools, associations, and communities. Is peace a dream? At present, conflict has resulted in so much harm affecting children born and unborn in a way that perhaps the world has never experienced before. Amicable settlement of disputes is a welcome approach to dispute resolution in every society, place of work, and the international community. The children will continue to dream of peace, and so will all men imagine a world without war and violence.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s argument about timing is the most useful thing in it and carries an implication the author does not draw. If intervention is easiest before violence begins, then the great majority of mediation resources are deployed at the point of least effectiveness, because conflicts attract attention when they become violent and not before. That is not a failure of mediators but of the systems that dispatch them, and the corrective is institutional: standing early warning capacity connected to standing rapid response, funding that does not require a crisis to be released, and diplomatic presence maintained in places where nothing is currently happening. Every serious review of prevention has reached the same conclusion, and the obstacle has never been analytical but budgetary and political.
The observation about humanitarian corridors deserves to be elevated from an aside to a category. What the author describes is not a compromise forced on mediators but a recognised form of practice: humanitarian negotiation, conducted by different people from those pursuing political settlement, with different objectives, different counterparts and different measures of success. Its practitioners negotiate access, safe passage, the treatment of the detained and the movement of the wounded, and they do so with whoever controls the ground regardless of that party’s standing. Confusing the two tracks damages both, since a humanitarian negotiator who is thought to carry a political mandate loses access, and a political process that depends on humanitarian outcomes acquires hostages to its progress. Keeping them separate and connected is a design question with an established answer.
The point about the exclusion of women can be stated with the evidence that supports it. This is not only an equity claim: agreements concluded with the substantive participation of women have been found significantly more likely to be implemented and to endure, and the mechanisms are identifiable, since women’s organisations have typically been engaged with the affected population throughout the fighting and bring information and constituencies that formal delegations lack. That converts the argument from one about fairness, which can be deferred, into one about durability, which cannot.
Two qualifications would strengthen the analysis. The claim that international judgments are unenforceable is broadly true and not uniformly so: compliance with International Court of Justice decisions in bilateral disputes has historically been substantial, and the Bakassi case the author cites is itself an example, resolved because a judgment, a mediation process led by the Secretary General and a bilateral commission worked together. That combination, rather than the choice between adjudication and mediation, is the transferable lesson. And the framing of intractable conflicts as the product of stories passed down understates what is contemporary in them: land, water, movement, security and political rights are present disputes with present remedies, and treating them as inherited enmity risks the fatalism the article otherwise resists.
Finally, the article’s closing turn to children and to education names something the field consistently undervalues. The capacities that make conflicts survivable, the ability to hear an account one dislikes, to distinguish a position from an interest, to separate a person from their conduct, are learned or not learned long before anyone reaches a negotiating table. Peace education has weak evidence of preventing wars and reasonable evidence of changing how individuals handle disagreement, which is a modest claim and the right one. It is also the work available to every reader of this journal, in schools, workplaces and families, on the days when nothing dramatic is happening.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Eliasson, Jan. 2009. Peace-making Under the United Nations Flag: Reflections on a Quarter Century of Mediation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiQXte28e0A Accessed March 14, 2024.
Young, Enda. 2019. Conflict Resolution, Mediation, Conflict Resolution Techniques, Mediation Process, Negotiation. William J. Clinton Leadership Institute at Queen’s University, Belfast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAX7ujNYzBA Accessed September 20, 2023.
Eriksson, Jacob. Small-State Mediation in International Conflicts: Diplomacy and Negotiation in Israel-Palestine. London: I. B. Tauris and Company, Limited, 2015.
Frantzman, Seth J. “The Lingering Conflict: Israel, the Arabs, and the Middle East 1948 to 2011, by Itamar Rabinovich.” DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies 22, no. 1 (Spring 2013): 183 to 185.
Gurses, Mehmet, Nicolas Rost, and Patrick McLeod. “Mediating Civil War Settlements and the Duration of Peace.” International Interactions 34, no. 2 (April 2008): 129 to 155.
Herre, Bastian, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, Max Roser, Joe Hasell and Bobbie Macdonald. War and Peace. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace Accessed March 30, 2024.
International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation. 2015. The Role of Mediation in the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes with Ethnic and Religious Components. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Wk1-2a2E0 Accessed October 20, 2023.
Kleiboer, Marieke. 1996. “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, no. 2. Sage Publications.
United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. 2015. Launch of Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners. Accessed March 14, 2024.
Ahtisaari, Martti. 2007. The Role of Inter-Governmental, State and Non-Governmental Players in Conflict Resolution. London School of Economics.
Rabinovich, Itamar. The Lingering Conflict: Israel, the Arabs, and the Middle East 1948 to 2012. Blue Ridge Summit: Brookings Institution Press, 2012.
United Nations. 2012. Guidance for Effective Mediation.
Weeks, Dudley. 1992. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution. First Edition. Los Angeles and New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
World Mediation Organization. Mediation and Conflict Management. Berlin.
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
United Nations Secretary General and World Bank (2018). Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
International Committee of the Red Cross and Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, professional standards and field manuals on humanitarian negotiation.
Krause, J., Krause, W., & Bränfors, P. (2018). Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace. International Interactions, 44(6), 985 to 1016.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and the Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies (2017).
International Court of Justice, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, judgment of 10 October 2002, and the Greentree Agreement of 12 June 2006.
Zartman, I. W. (2001). The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8 to 18.
Salomon, G., & Cairns, E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook on Peace Education. Psychology Press, New York.