Bridging Conflict Through Dialogue: The Role of Mediation and Non-Violent Communication in Dispute Resolution – Lessons from the Ukraine-Russia Crisis

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 relationship between nonviolent communication and mediation, and tests both against the war between Russia and Ukraine. After tracing the development of nonviolent communication from the work of Marshall Rosenberg and its roots in humanistic psychology and in Gandhian thought, the author sets out its four principles of observation, feelings, needs and requests, and considers how each may be applied at successive stages of a mediation. A section on limitations follows, addressing the time required to acquire the skills, the risk that the method is perceived as manipulative, its inadequacy where power is severely unequal, and the cultural variation in norms of emotional expression. The author then draws a parallel with the Jain principle of ahimsa. The final section applies the analysis to the negotiations conducted in Belarus and Turkey during 2022, and concludes that while such methods can humanise adversaries and clarify underlying needs, they cannot by themselves address strategic objectives or asymmetries of power, and must be combined with political, diplomatic and security instruments.

Editorial note: the account of the negotiations and the assessment of the parties reflect the author’s own perspective. This journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the parties concerned. *

KEYWORDS *

Nonviolent communication, Rosenberg, mediation, needs and positions, empathy, ahimsa, Jainism, Russia, Ukraine, power asymmetry, humanitarian corridors, Istanbul talks

INTRODUCTION

Human civilisations cannot exist without conflicts. Peace and stability depend upon the methods used to handle these conflicts. In recent years, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has attracted the attention of everyone in the world. Its resolution has been attempted with the participation of several countries and international organisations. In this scenario, mediation and nonviolent communication have been used in efforts to address the crisis.

Mediation, a structured approach to resolving conflicts, and nonviolent communication, a strategy for promoting empathy and understanding, provide practical strategies to tackle the root causes of conflicts and develop long-lasting peace. Nonviolent communication is a communication style created by Marshall Rosenberg that focuses on empathy, compassion, and comprehending human needs. Its objective is to promote constructive exchanges by emphasising transparent and courteous communication, which proves especially efficacious in conflict resolution scenarios, such as mediation. Mediation, a systematic method of resolving conflicts, greatly benefits from the principles of nonviolent communication as it promotes the open expression of disputants and active listening to others. Integrating these principles into mediation techniques improves the calibre of interaction between conflicting parties. It bolsters the mediator’s endeavours in directing them towards a situation wherein they can communicate. The significance of this approach in mediation is increasingly acknowledged as societies confront intricate interpersonal and organisational problems. Both fields aim to promote comprehension and collaboration, amplifying the impact of their junction.

This paper reflects on the possible application of nonviolent communication in conflicts, analysing the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It examines the synergy between nonviolent communication and mediation and considers the implementation of these principles for transforming mediation procedures and the possibility of achieving better and lasting conflict settlements.

MAIN CORPUS

History of nonviolent communication

Rosenberg, a psychologist, drew inspiration from the works of Carl Rogers and Mahatma Gandhi. He founded nonviolent communication in the 1960s. Rosenberg aimed to develop a communication approach prioritising empathy and connection rather than conflict and pressure. The formative years of his upbringing in racially segregated Detroit throughout the 1940s and 1950s, marked by exposure to violence and discrimination, influenced his understanding of the need for empathetic communication.

Rosenberg’s work was also influenced by the humanistic psychology movement, which emphasised the capacity of individuals to develop and achieve their full potential. Rogers’ client-centred therapy, which emphasises sympathetic listening and unconditional positive regard, formed the basis for numerous ideas in nonviolent communication. Rosenberg combined these concepts with Gandhi’s nonviolent teachings, which promoted peaceful resistance and communication as methods for resolving conflicts.

Rosenberg developed a systematic method of communication and documented it in his publication, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. This book described the principles and offered a manual of communication skills with greater effectiveness and empathy. The approach has achieved acclaim and has been embraced in several domains, such as education, business, and conflict resolution. Its impact is expanding as training programmes and workshops are carried out in more than 60 countries. It has also been applied in combat zones for dispute resolution and for promoting mutual comprehension among opposing factions. This evolution mirrors a transition towards communication and conflict resolution methods that prioritise empathy and collaboration.

Principles

Nonviolent communication is based on four fundamental principles: observation, emotions, needs, and requests. These are concepts for promoting empathy and comprehension in communication.

The first principle, observation, highlights the significance of differentiating between the act of observing and one’s subjective feelings about it. Observations are to be conveyed objectively, without judgment or evaluation. The clarity of communication aids in the prevention of misconceptions and minimises defensiveness during interactions. Instead of making a general statement like “You are always late,” a more specific observation may be made by saying, “I observed that you arrived 15 minutes after our scheduled time on three occasions this week.” One sees neutrality in the observation. The fact is communicated without any judgment. There is no accusation in the observation. Hence, resistance is absent in the reaction from the other person.

The second principle, emotions, is acknowledging and expressing one’s feelings without attributing fault to others. The approach promotes personal responsibility for one’s emotions through the use of “I feel” expressions, such as expressing frustration as “I feel frustrated,” instead of attributing anger to others with statements like “You make me angry.” This decreases the chances of conflict by highlighting personal experience rather than attributing blame. Understanding and expressing emotions is important for fostering empathic communication. It helps both individuals to make an emotional connection.

The third principle, needs, revolves around finding out the needs that underlie one’s feelings. All human behaviours aim to fulfil needs, such as security, affection, independence, and social interaction. By expressing these needs, individuals can overcome superficial conflicts and tackle the real causes of conflict. For instance, when an individual is frustrated due to their opinions being disregarded, the need may be for acknowledgement or respect.

The fourth principle, requests, requires formulating explicit, affirmative and practicable requests derived from the recognised needs. Unlike demands, which can bring about resistance, requests are invitations for cooperation. They are precise and amenable to negotiation, facilitating a mutually satisfactory result. Instead of stating, “You need to listen to me,” the approach would be to ask, “Would you be open to dedicating five minutes of your time to attentively hear my concerns without interruptions?” Engaging in discussions of this nature encourages teamwork and diminishes the chances of further conflict.

Together, these principles establish a means of communication that emphasises the importance of understanding, transparency and reciprocal regard. The method promotes a less aggressive discussion and is more favourable to understanding and resolving issues by emphasising observations, feelings, needs and requests.

Mediation and its role in conflict resolution

Mediation involves an impartial intermediary, called a mediator, assisting the parties in conflict and facilitating a dialogue between them to attempt to resolve their conflict. Mediation is not the same as litigation or arbitration inasmuch as it allows the parties in conflict the power to independently make their own decisions rather than imposing an adjudicated resolution upon them. The mediator’s function is to facilitate communication between the parties in conflict and to enable them to delve into their fundamental interests and requirements. Mediation, a practice with ancient origins, can be traced back thousands of years and is found in diverse cultures such as ancient Greece and China as well as in India. Mediation has become an important element of conflict resolution in various fields, such as family law, business, and international relations. Mediation is favoured due to its informal and voluntary nature, cost-efficiency, and expedited process compared to litigation.

Mediation is preferred because it can handle a conflict’s substantive issues and relational concerns. Substantive issues are the issues of disagreement, while relational concerns refer to the emotional and psychological interactions between the parties. Mediation also provides a means for the parties to address relational issues, which leads to the promotion of enduring and satisfying results. Communication is treated as of utmost importance in mediation. Effective communication facilitates understanding opposing views, builds trust, and identifies shared interests.

Interplay of nonviolent communication and mediation

The principles of nonviolent communication resonate with the objectives of mediation, as both emphasise empathy, attentive listening, and regard for the needs of others. Incorporating these principles into mediation procedures provides advantages in resolving substantive and relational issues in conflict. The emphasis on empathy, clarity and mutual understanding aligns with the objectives of mediation, rendering it an effective tool for mediators. Mediators can better their capacity to foster productive discourse and assist parties in moving beyond positional negotiation to delve into their fundamental wants and interests. One significant meeting point is prioritising, comprehending and expressing needs. During numerous disagreements, the involved parties often prioritise their positions, which refer to their desired outcomes, rather than their needs, which pertain to the underlying reasons for their desires. The method promotes recognising and articulating one’s needs, transforming the dialogue from making demands to discussing interests. This change is of utmost importance in mediation, as it expands the range of potential for innovative and mutually advantageous resolutions.

Another crucial aspect is the significance of empathy. The approach suggests that empathy involves not just comprehending someone else’s emotions and requirements but also articulating that comprehension to increase rapport. Empathy plays a crucial role in mediation by removing obstacles, diminishing antagonism and fostering a collaborative environment. When participants perceive that their concerns have been acknowledged and comprehended, they are more inclined to participate in the process and strive towards resolution actively. The method offers mediators a tool for effectively handling emotions during the mediation procedure. Conflicts involve intense emotions, and how these emotions are managed significantly influences the result of mediation. This methodology enables mediators to effectively assist parties in constructively expressing their feelings without being accusatory or critical of the other party. This helps prevent the situation from becoming more intense and enables the fundamental problems to be dealt with more efficiently.

The combination improves the mediator’s capacity to establish a nurturing and considerate atmosphere where parties can communicate honestly, examine their needs and strive for a resolution that satisfies everyone involved.

Applications in the mediation process

In mediation, the actual implementation requires incorporating the fundamental concepts of observation, feelings, needs, and requests into the mediation process. Integration can occur at several points, from the initial encounter with the parties to the ultimate agreement.

In the early phases of mediation, the approach can be employed to create a secure and courteous atmosphere. The mediator can exemplify it by using impartial language, refraining from judging and prioritising observations above judgments. For instance, a mediator could state, “I observed the presence of tension in our previous session,” instead of saying, “You displayed hostility last time.” This method minimises defensiveness and establishes a favourable atmosphere for the mediation process. The approach can facilitate the mediation process by enabling parties to articulate their feelings and needs more clearly. The mediator can promote the use of “I feel” phrases and assist parties in recognising the underlying needs behind their stances. When one side displays irritation, the mediator may enquire about the unfulfilled need causing displeasure. This form of inquiry facilitates the progression from assigning fault to attaining a more profound comprehension of one’s own and the other party’s needs.

The approach is also beneficial in expediting the negotiation stage of mediation. By prioritising needs over positions, the mediator can assist parties in examining a broader spectrum of potential solutions for resolving their conflict. For instance, if both parties need security, the mediator could investigate several methods to fulfil that need, such as utilising financial agreements, contractual assurances or continuous communication. This degree of flexibility enhances the probability of discovering a resolution that satisfies both sides’ needs.

During the concluding phase of mediation, the approach can be employed to guarantee that the agreement is unambiguous, precise and capable of being put into effect. The mediator can assist parties in formulating their agreements as affirmative requests rather than ultimatums. Instead of explicitly stating that “Party A will not do X,” the agreement could be modified to express that “Party A agrees to undertake action Y to resolve the concern.” By employing positive framing, the likelihood of future conflict is diminished and the cooperative aspect of the agreement is strengthened.

Limitations

The approach has numerous advantages in mediation but also a few constraints. One of the main obstacles is the significant amount of time and effort needed to acquire and master these skills. For mediators and parties, it signifies a fundamental change in their cognitive approach and active participation in communication. Shifting in such situations can be particularly challenging, especially when faced with high stress levels or intense emotions, as this is when ingrained patterns and protective reactions are most prone to resurface. Another problem arises from the possibility that the method may be seen as manipulative if not employed with genuine sincerity. Suppose individuals feel that it is being used to manipulate or exert control over them rather than as a sincere attempt to establish a connection and foster understanding. In that case, they may develop resistance or scepticism. This can impede the efficacy of the mediation process.

Addressing deeply ingrained disputes or disparities of power is also difficult using this approach. When there is a substantial power imbalance or resource disparity between two parties, as seen in the evaluation of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, it may not be enough to tackle the root causes of the problems effectively. Other measures, such as legal assistance or advocacy, may be required to guarantee a just and impartial resolution. The approach requires profound self-awareness and emotional intelligence from the mediator and the individuals engaged in the process. Without possessing these attributes, it might be challenging to use it effectively, especially when confronted with intense emotions or intricate interpersonal dynamics. For instance, if a party encounters difficulty recognising or articulating their feelings and requirements, the mediation process may become stagnant or ineffective in generating significant outcomes.

Cultural differences might pose difficulties when implementing this approach in mediation. Diverse cultures possess distinct norms and expectations regarding communication, emotional expression and conflict resolution. Cultural norms about respect and appropriateness can vary, resulting in potential misunderstandings or resistance when interacting with individuals from various cultures. Mediators must demonstrate cultural sensitivity and adjust their use of the method accordingly.

Nonviolent communication and ahimsa in Jainism

The principles of nonviolent communication and ahimsa, a fundamental tenet of Jainism, exhibit a deep harmony that forms the basis of successful mediation. Both philosophies prioritise preventing physical, emotional or verbal violence and advocate cultivating understanding, empathy and harmonious coexistence. During the mediation process, these principles serve as a framework to ensure a resolution that considers the needs of all parties involved and reduces conflict to a minimum. Ahimsa, a Sanskrit term meaning non-harm or non-violence, is the foundation of Jain philosophy. It means one should not harm any living being through actions, words, or thoughts. Jainism propagates ahimsa not merely as the absence of violence but as a positive commitment to compassion and kindness. This tenet applies to all living organisms, making it a universal moral guideline beyond religious limitations. Incorporating ahimsa and nonviolent communication into mediation methods can significantly improve the mediation process. Ahimsa principles, as used in mediation, stress the significance of upholding respect and empathy for all participants, irrespective of the nature of the conflict. Mediators can facilitate the transition from opposing stances to focusing on shared interests and needs by cultivating a nonviolent atmosphere.

The influence of ahimsa in mediation also encompasses the function of the mediator. A mediator led by ahimsa demonstrates impartiality, patience and dedication to the well-being of all parties involved. Ahimsa promotes confidence and transparency, crucial elements of an effective mediation procedure, more so in the mediation of international armed conflicts. The mediator’s adherence to non-violence encourages the parties to adopt a similar attitude, thereby reducing hostility and promoting a cooperative atmosphere. Implementing nonviolent communication in mediation, guided by the principle of ahimsa, also improves the efficiency of the mediation process by promoting introspection among the involved parties. Applying ahimsa in mediation promotes a long-term resolution by focusing on healing and reconciliation rather than mere resolution.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict: background

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has a long and complex background. The most recent escalation commenced in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and then engaged in conflict in eastern Ukraine. In 2022, the conflict intensified when Russia militarily invaded Ukraine, launching an assault that resulted in extensive destruction and a dire humanitarian disaster. The dispute encompasses geopolitical dynamics and profound cultural and historical tensions. The issue is deeply rooted in historical grievances, geopolitical rivalries, and territorial disputes. The war is a manifestation of a collision between the national identities of Russia and Ukraine. Russia aims to impose its dominance over Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, while Ukraine endeavours to connect itself with Western Europe and the wider international community. This has generated a difficult and intricate struggle that cannot be resolved using ordinary resolution mechanisms.

The response by several countries of the world to the crisis has demonstrated a range of reactions, with Western nations implementing sanctions against Russia and extending military and economic assistance to Ukraine. India and China have adopted positions of non-alignment. The dispute has also highlighted the difficulties conventional diplomatic endeavours face, leading to a heightened curiosity regarding other approaches to resolving conflicts, such as mediation and nonviolent communication.

Mediation efforts in the Ukraine-Russia conflict

In February 2022, the war between Ukraine and Russia intensified greatly, resulting in an invasion by Russian forces. Several countries and organisations expressed their apprehension of a humanitarian catastrophe and danger to worldwide security on account of the conflict. The attempt at diplomatic resolution of the crisis was initiated promptly, with the scheduling of numerous rounds of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, these conversations were intricate and impacted by long-standing historical resentments, security apprehensions, and opposing political objectives.

By March 2022, the conflict had escalated, resulting in substantial casualties and the forced relocation of residents. The need for a diplomatic resolution became of utmost importance, prompting the commencement of negotiations on 7 March 2022. These conversations aimed to achieve a cessation of hostilities and a lasting resolution of the conflict. The participation of international mediators and the implementation of communication principles played a role in the negotiating process despite numerous obstacles.

Diverse global entities have endeavoured to facilitate the resolution of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, yielding varying outcomes. The Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015, facilitated in part by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, sought to reduce tensions but failed to establish enduring peace. Mediation has been seen as a possible means of relieving tension and finding a settlement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Several states, such as Turkey and Israel, and organisations such as the Vatican, have attempted to facilitate negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Mediation efforts have been difficult due to the deeply rooted nature of the conflict and the power imbalance between the parties involved.

India’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is notable. Although India has not officially engaged in mediating the issue, it has consistently promoted conversation and diplomacy to resolve it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s engagements with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have underscored the significance of peaceful dialogue. India’s hesitation to take on a direct mediation role can be ascribed to various causes, including its historical connections with Russia and its strategic concerns in preserving neutrality.

The ongoing conflict has posed significant challenges to mediation efforts, primarily due to the power imbalance between the parties involved and the prevailing deep mistrust. Notwithstanding these difficulties, mediation remains an essential instrument for addressing the conflict.

The potential role of nonviolent communication in the conflict

Implementing nonviolent communication in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict can help bridge the communication divide between the parties. The approach promotes directing attention towards the fundamental needs and emotions that lead to disagreement rather than the superficial expressions preceding negotiations. Through cultivating empathy and promoting mutual understanding, it can potentially help reduce tensions and establish a favourable atmosphere for effective communication. Its effectiveness in the Russia-Ukraine crisis depends upon the mutual readiness of the parties to participate in the process and the mediator’s expertise in enabling communication using these principles.

The negotiation process between Ukraine and Russia was marked by meetings held in Belarus, Turkey, and other locations. International actors mediated or hosted these negotiations. The initial focus was on establishing humanitarian corridors to allow the safe evacuation of civilians and the delivery of essential supplies to besieged areas.

Communication principles of this kind may be employed in such talks to bridge the significant gap between delegations. Mediators can encourage both parties to express their concerns and demands in a manner that reduces hostility and promotes mutual understanding. In the negotiations held in Turkey in March 2022, the Ukrainian delegation emphasised the need for immediate ceasefire arrangements to prevent further civilian casualties, while the Russian side focused on security concerns related to NATO enlargement. Framing demands in a way that acknowledges the other side’s stated concerns contributed to temporary understandings on humanitarian corridors.

Despite the use of such methods and of mediation, the process was hindered by deep mistrust and the asymmetry of power between the two parties. The negotiations of late March 2022 in Istanbul marked a turning point, where a more substantive discussion took place regarding the potential for a neutral Ukraine and the security guarantees required by both sides. However, the lack of a clear framework for implementing these guarantees led to the collapse of this particular round of talks.

Lessons learned

The ongoing crisis between Russia and Ukraine provides valuable insights into utilising mediation and nonviolent communication in international disputes. The situation highlights the significance of understanding the fundamental reasons for the conflict, such as historical resentments, national identities, and geopolitical objectives. Mediation and nonviolent communication can be potent instruments for tackling these basic concerns. Still, they necessitate a sophisticated understanding of the conflict’s context and the needs and interests of the parties.

Furthermore, the crisis underscores the difficulties of mediating with a substantial power imbalance between the conflicting parties. When faced with such situations, the mediator must be able to equitably consider the concerns of the less powerful party while also ensuring that the more powerful party perceives their interests as being acknowledged.

The Russia-Ukraine crisis is a clear example of the constraints of nonviolent communication when it comes to significant international disputes. Although it can successfully foster empathy and understanding, it is inadequate to tackle the intricate power dynamics and strategic goals that fuel these conflicts. To obtain a durable resolution, it is necessary to integrate it with other tactics such as mediation, diplomacy, and conflict management. The conflict highlights the necessity of a multilateral dispute resolution strategy. The participation of various global stakeholders, including nation-states, international organisations, and non-state entities, is crucial in establishing a complete and enduring resolution. Mediation and nonviolent communication are vital to this multilateral approach. Still, they must be incorporated into a comprehensive plan that tackles the conflict’s political, economic, and security aspects.

The concepts of nonviolent communication have extensive relevance in international disputes. By emphasising the emotional and psychological aspects of conflict, they can contribute to humanising the people involved and establish a basis for trust. In future conflicts, including such approaches in mediation procedures could assist in addressing the apparent problems and the underlying needs and values that fuel the conflict.

The lessons from the Ukraine-Russia crisis underscore the possibilities and obstacles associated with implementing these tactics in global conflicts. As the world strives to resolve disputes peacefully, integrating mediation and nonviolent communication will become increasingly crucial. The need for a comprehensive and enforceable peace agreement that addresses the core concerns of both parties is crucial for any future negotiations. The lessons learned can inform future diplomatic efforts, emphasising the importance of combining these communication methods with robust political solutions to achieve lasting peace.

SUMMARY *

The article’s argument reaches a conclusion that qualifies its own starting point. Nonviolent communication is presented as a method whose contribution to mediation is real and specific: it separates observation from evaluation, locates responsibility for feelings with the person who has them, moves parties from positions to needs, and converts demands into requests. Tested against the case chosen, however, the author finds those contributions insufficient. Where one party has invaded another, where the parties are severely unequal in capability, and where each side’s stated needs, security guarantees on one and sovereignty and territorial integrity on the other, are experienced as incompatible, a method designed to improve the quality of exchange cannot supply what is missing. The author’s conclusion is therefore not that the approach fails but that its domain is narrower than its advocates sometimes suggest, and that it belongs within a settlement architecture rather than in place of one.

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of nonviolent communication into mediation signifies a notable progression in the realm of conflict resolution. By placing empathy, understanding and the articulation of needs as top priorities, it improves the mediation process, resulting in more efficient and long-lasting outcomes. The increasing global need for successful conflict resolution has led to the recognition of the valuable tools these principles provide for mediators working in various contexts, ranging from personal disagreements to intricate international conflicts. In the future, numerous possibilities exist to incorporate these principles into mediation techniques more effectively. Training programmes for mediators should integrate additional strategies of this kind to enhance their ability to mediate sympathetic and needs-oriented discussions.

The growing acknowledgement of the significance of emotional intelligence and empathy in leadership and conflict resolution indicates that this approach can influence mediation and wider societal communication and conflict management methods. With its increasing use, there is a potential for a transition towards more empathetic and cooperative methods of conflict resolution, both in interpersonal connections and within broader systems. It provides a robust foundation for improving mediation methods. By promoting empathy, clarity and mutual respect, mediation informed by these principles can potentially convert disagreements into chances for establishing a connection and personal development. As the field of conciliation progresses, incorporating these principles will be essential in influencing fairer and more peaceful outcomes for everyone involved.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The article’s honesty about the limits of the method is its most valuable feature, and the reason for those limits can be stated more precisely, because doing so identifies where the approach does belong in this kind of conflict.

Nonviolent communication was developed for encounters between individuals who will continue to deal with one another and who each speak for themselves. Interstate negotiation satisfies neither condition. A delegation does not have feelings; it has instructions, and its members answer to a capital that is not in the room, in some cases to a public that must be persuaded, and to an institutional interest in the outcome. Asking a negotiator to speak of what they feel is asking them to exceed their mandate. That is not a defect of the method but a description of its domain, and the distinction the field draws is between the interpersonal level, where the method operates directly, and the representative level, where its influence is indirect at best.

Where it does operate at that level is worth naming, because it is not nothing. The unofficial channels this journal has examined elsewhere, the dialogues among former officials, scholars and civil society figures that precede and accompany formal negotiation, are precisely where the participants speak for themselves and where the capacities the article describes have effect. Mediators also use them in their own conduct rather than requiring them of the parties: reformulating what one side has said so that the other can receive it, distinguishing the account of an event from the judgment attached to it, and identifying the concern beneath a stated demand. That is the realistic claim for the method here.

Two observations follow from the article’s own case material. The talks of March 2022 came closer to a framework than is often remembered, and what obstructed them was not the quality of communication but the absence of anyone able and willing to guarantee what was being discussed: Ukraine sought security assurances of a kind that the 1994 Budapest Memorandum had already failed to provide, and no state was prepared to underwrite new ones. Guarantees, not empathy, were the missing element, and that is a lesson about settlement architecture. And the negotiations that have produced results in this war, on grain, on prisoners, on nuclear safety at occupied facilities, were technical, narrow, mediated by parties acceptable to both sides, and conducted without either recognising the other’s political claims. They are the working model for what is achievable while the political question remains open.

Finally, the parallel with ahimsa deserves a qualification that strengthens rather than weakens it. In the Jain tradition ahimsa is a discipline binding on the practitioner, an obligation about one’s own conduct, and it makes no claim about what an adversary will do in return. Read that way it corresponds exactly to what a mediator can offer: to conduct oneself without harm, to refuse to add to the violence, and to remain available. Read as a strategy for changing an adversary’s behaviour, it invites the objection the article’s own case supplies. The stronger version is also the more demanding one, since it asks the practitioner to hold the discipline where it produces no visible result, which is the condition in which most work of this kind is actually done.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team