In UN parlance, officials and diplomats tend to use the more general term ‘mediation’ in place of ‘peace mediation’. However, neither of these terms is defined systematically in any major UN document.
Ignorance of the conceptual work has probably been an intentional choice on the part of the Secretariat to allow the UN constituency, and particularly UN member states, to come up with the conceptual framework of peace mediation, which is gradually emerging in the wake of the first-ever resolution on mediation issued by the UN General Assembly on 28 July 2011.34 However, such an approach premised on the ‘spontaneous’ rise of the peace mediation concept has its limits, particularly when it needs to be transformed into an operational doctrine. In this respect, the MSU should strengthen its role in the areas of mediation knowledge, policy and guidance, lessons learned, best practices and training. The MSU could clarify the remit and applicability of mediation in different phases of the conflict, its relationships to other forms of conflict management and the peace mediation concept.
A closer examination of the MSU’s activities and documents, however, reveals that it has implicitly devised a conceptual framework of peace mediation, although that has not been systematically outlined in any document. The MSU has implicitly advocated a comprehensive interpretation of mediation in two ways, as evidenced in the aforementioned Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council. Firstly, the report advocates a broad base of mediation actors and particularly the participation of women in mediation initiatives.
Gender equality has also figured as a guiding principle in the MSU’s work, although some inadequacies persist. For example, the MSU Standby Team currently includes only one woman (another is in the process of being recruited)35, and MSU officials have admitted that it has not yet successfully performed one of its key objectives, namely the mapping of relevant women groups in conflict zones that could be empowered and integrated into peace processes.
34 A/RES/65/283 (2011), 28 July 2011.
35 It should, however, be noted that approximately half of all the MSU staff (20–30 persons in total) are currently women.
Secondly, the Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council, as well as the MSU’s functioning at large, reflects a comprehensive understanding of peace mediation in operational terms. It views mediation as a viable and necessary tool in all phases of conflict management, including the prevention of conflicts, reaction to conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation. The report indirectly criticises the ‘ripeness theory’ according to which conflicts are considered ‘ripe for resolution’ only when parties have reached a ‘mutually-hurting stalemate’: ‘Regrettably, this led some to conclude that the international community should wait for a “hurting stalemate” to develop before offering mediation…’36 This statement is obviously not intended as an indirect jab at the advocates of the ‘ripeness theory’ of mediation37, but it is an attempt to demonstrate the applicability of mediation throughout the conflict cycle, including conflict prevention and the post-conflict phase.
In future, the role of the MSU in developing the conceptual, normative and operational framework of mediation is likely to be accentuated, since the first-ever General Assembly resolution on mediation assigns the Secretary-General to conduct major reforms of UN peace mediation. The resolution outlines three important concrete tasks for the MSU and the UN Secretariat as a whole. Firstly, and most crucially, the resolution states that the Secretary-General should appoint women as chief or lead mediators in UN-sponsored peace processes.38 The coming years will show how the Secretary-General’s executive office, the Department of Political Affairs and the MSU will succeed in implementing this task.
Secondly, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to develop guidance for more effective peace mediation, drawing on the lessons of past and ongoing mediation processes. This recommendation is important, for it has the potential to solve the current conceptual confusion over peace mediation in the UN context, as described above. The UN and the MSU in particular should come up with a definition of mediation and encapsulate it in a single and clearly formulated sentence to be incorporated in the guidelines for UN
36 UN Doc. S/2009/189, 8 April 2009, p. 5.
37 See for example W Zartman, Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, 2008, pp. 232–233.
38 UN Doc. A/RES/65/283 (2011), 28 July 2011, p. 4.
conflict management. Moreover, the relationship of mediation with other forms of conflict management should be mapped.
Mediation does not constitute a standalone concept, simply because it is typically used in conjunction with other means of conflict management, including coercive measures and use of force. Mapping these relationships should constitute one priority area for the future research and analysis of peace mediation. More attention should be paid, for example, to the question of how mediation could be utilised effectively under the framework of Responsibility to Protect (RtoP).
The strengthening relationship between mediation and other forms of conflict management, including peace operations, is reflected in the upward trend of UN peacekeeping operations to rely on mediation and the increase in the number of Special Political Missions. In the UN system there has recently been a growing interest in the latter, non-military political missions, for example the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, which utilise mediation as their primary method of conflict management and as a flexible alternative to peacekeeping. Unlike peacekeeping operations managed by the DPKO (Department for Peacekeeping Operations), Special Political Missions are managed by the DPA (Department of Political Affairs). Richard Gowan notes that mediation is increasingly applied also in peacekeeping operations:
‘Even where large peace operations are deployed, as in Sudan, there has been a greater emphasis on mediation and preventive diplomacy instead of military means.’39 Gowan identifies a tendency of peacekeeping operations to undertake mediation tasks also in the African Union, as evidenced by the cases of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire, as well as the NATO-led operation (ISAF) in Afghanistan. These cases illustrate a need for the careful analysis of the consequences of combining mediation with military crisis management.
Thirdly, the General Assembly resolution on mediation emphasises the importance of the UN’s partnerships and cooperation with international and regional organisations and civil society.40 This network logic is already reflected in the present functions conducted by the MSU, and they could be expanded and deepened further. The
39 R Gowan, Five Paradoxes of Peace Operations, Center for International Peace Operations, September 2011, p. 3. Available at: http://www.zif-berlin.org/fileadmin/uploads/analyse/
dokumente/veroeffentlichungen/Policy_Briefing_Richard_Gowan_Sep_2011_ENG.pdf.
40 UN Doc. A/RES/65/283 (2011), 28 July 2011, p. 4.
network logic is reflected by the efforts of the MSU to strengthen the mediation capacities of regional and sub-regional organisations, as evidenced by its recently launched cooperation with the African Union, ECOWAS (
Economic Community of West African States
),Southern African Development Community, as well as various non-governmental organisations.