After having come across the roles and contributions of transnational organizations, presented by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, in international relations, Lilach Gilady and Bruce Russett have introduced yet another important player in international relations: the mediators. Their main purpose of writing this article, Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, was to discuss the literature of peacemaking and the roles played by the mediators in international relations. Now in my view, the jigsaw puzzle of international relations is complete: we have states, ideologies, transnational organizations and now the mediators. The authors have taken a great initiative in shedding light on the literature of mediation because I believe that it is also one important aspect of international relations and just like with transnational relations, I believe that the international relations' scholars have also not given desired attention to the study of mediation.
Different thinkers have different perceptions and understandings about mediation. Gilady and Russett presented, on page 512 on the 2002 Carlsnaes Risse and Simmons' Handbook of IR, two definitions from other authors to explain mediation. According to Bercovitch and Housten's definition, "process of conflict management, related to but distinct from parties' own efforts, whereby the disputing parties or their representatives seek the assistance, or accept an offer of help from an individual, group, state or organization to change, affect or influence their perceptions or behaviour, without resorting to physical force, or invoking the authority of law" (Bercovitch and Housten 171). On the other hand, the definition presented by Touval and Zartman states that "...mediation is concerned with helping the adversaries communicate, and like conciliation it emphasizes changing the parties' images and attitudes toward one another- but it also performs additional functions. Mediators suggest ideas for a compromise and they negotiate and bargain directly with the adversaries...mediation is basically a political process without advance commitment of the parties to accept the mediators ideas" (Touvel and Zartman 177). The variables for mediation which Gilady and Russett have included in their article are: "the effects and characteristics of mediation strategies, the mediator's minimal required level of leverage and power, the effects of impartiality vs partiality of the mediator, and the effects of asymmetry in the balance of power between adversaries" (Gilady and Russett 513).
This article encouraged me to research about the mediation roles which Pope Francis and Vatican have played, since coming into power. One of the biggest achievements of Pope Francis which I believe was his involvement in bringing the US and Cuba together ( Voice of America) for the first time after fifty years and helping the two countries in improving their relations with each other. Imagine after 50 years the heads of two states decide to let bygones be bygones and shake hands, which was also considered to be a historical handshake. For me honestly, it was a hard pill to swallow because I wasn't expecting this development to come along especially when the Congress was not in the favour of Obama meeting Castro and a week before this historical handshake the Congress also imposed embargoes on Venezuela. The Vatican correspondent of Voice of America, Philip Pullella, has reported that in his article explaining how the Vatican managed to pull off such an achievement: "The Vatican used its position, having very good relations with both countries as a kind of neutral broker. On the one side the Cubans trusted the Vatican because the Vatican had always opposed the US embargo against Cuba, on the other side the Vatican has very good relations with the United States. It has been involved in other similar mediations at a much lower level. So it was a trusted party and that is why things were able to move ahead" (Voice of America).
However, one must not also forget that the Vatican's efforts in bringing Israel and Palestine together didn't bear any fruits at all, despite of been trusted by both countries and their heads being invited to the beautiful gardens of the Vatican along with their religious leaders. The Gaza bombardment carried out by Israeli forces does symbolize the mediating efforts made by the Vatican as useless. Over here I suppose that the argument made by Barbara Walter is valid which is that "biased interveners may sometimes be better positioned to help mitigate commitment problems than impartial ones, especially when they are biased in favour of the weaker party" (Schmidt 4). Perhaps Pope Francis should have been a biased mediator and favoured Palestine which was the weakest of the two.
Bibliography:
Link for Voice of America's report: http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-vatican-mediation-in-us-cuba-relations-applauded/2564401.html
Schmidt, Holger. "Biased for Peace: Commitment Problems, Impartiality, and Success of Third-Party Intervention," Yale University (2008): 1-42.
(the name of the journal is not provided for this previous citation)
Different thinkers have different perceptions and understandings about mediation. Gilady and Russett presented, on page 512 on the 2002 Carlsnaes Risse and Simmons' Handbook of IR, two definitions from other authors to explain mediation. According to Bercovitch and Housten's definition, "process of conflict management, related to but distinct from parties' own efforts, whereby the disputing parties or their representatives seek the assistance, or accept an offer of help from an individual, group, state or organization to change, affect or influence their perceptions or behaviour, without resorting to physical force, or invoking the authority of law" (Bercovitch and Housten 171). On the other hand, the definition presented by Touval and Zartman states that "...mediation is concerned with helping the adversaries communicate, and like conciliation it emphasizes changing the parties' images and attitudes toward one another- but it also performs additional functions. Mediators suggest ideas for a compromise and they negotiate and bargain directly with the adversaries...mediation is basically a political process without advance commitment of the parties to accept the mediators ideas" (Touvel and Zartman 177). The variables for mediation which Gilady and Russett have included in their article are: "the effects and characteristics of mediation strategies, the mediator's minimal required level of leverage and power, the effects of impartiality vs partiality of the mediator, and the effects of asymmetry in the balance of power between adversaries" (Gilady and Russett 513).
This article encouraged me to research about the mediation roles which Pope Francis and Vatican have played, since coming into power. One of the biggest achievements of Pope Francis which I believe was his involvement in bringing the US and Cuba together ( Voice of America) for the first time after fifty years and helping the two countries in improving their relations with each other. Imagine after 50 years the heads of two states decide to let bygones be bygones and shake hands, which was also considered to be a historical handshake. For me honestly, it was a hard pill to swallow because I wasn't expecting this development to come along especially when the Congress was not in the favour of Obama meeting Castro and a week before this historical handshake the Congress also imposed embargoes on Venezuela. The Vatican correspondent of Voice of America, Philip Pullella, has reported that in his article explaining how the Vatican managed to pull off such an achievement: "The Vatican used its position, having very good relations with both countries as a kind of neutral broker. On the one side the Cubans trusted the Vatican because the Vatican had always opposed the US embargo against Cuba, on the other side the Vatican has very good relations with the United States. It has been involved in other similar mediations at a much lower level. So it was a trusted party and that is why things were able to move ahead" (Voice of America).
However, one must not also forget that the Vatican's efforts in bringing Israel and Palestine together didn't bear any fruits at all, despite of been trusted by both countries and their heads being invited to the beautiful gardens of the Vatican along with their religious leaders. The Gaza bombardment carried out by Israeli forces does symbolize the mediating efforts made by the Vatican as useless. Over here I suppose that the argument made by Barbara Walter is valid which is that "biased interveners may sometimes be better positioned to help mitigate commitment problems than impartial ones, especially when they are biased in favour of the weaker party" (Schmidt 4). Perhaps Pope Francis should have been a biased mediator and favoured Palestine which was the weakest of the two.
Bibliography:
Link for Voice of America's report: http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-vatican-mediation-in-us-cuba-relations-applauded/2564401.html
Schmidt, Holger. "Biased for Peace: Commitment Problems, Impartiality, and Success of Third-Party Intervention," Yale University (2008): 1-42.
(the name of the journal is not provided for this previous citation)
Mediation efforts are always important. The fact that the Vatican helped mediate between the US and Cuba is an excellent demonstration of why mediation is important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment on Israel-Palestine. The Vatican should have supported the weaker party. But the Palestinian conflict is far more intractable than the US-Cuba dispute.
Btw, in a completely unrelated note, I was reading about how India had collaborated with Israel in the 1980s to potentially attack Pakistan's nuclear installations. Although the Israeli-Indian attack never occurred, it just goes to show you the nefarious hand of Israel across the Muslim world.
Exactly, apart from what has happened in Gaza, Israeli offensive is like a ghost. They have the ability to secretly pinch anyone, especially the Muslims, without letting everyone know about their actions.When they or their secret agency are accused, they would come out with charming innocent faces and deny the responsibility in a way that would make the entire world, especially the west, regret for accusing "innocent and peace loving nation" in the first place
ReplyDelete