Online Program Enrolling Now - Seton Hall - United Nations Institute for Training and Research
Online Program Enrolling Now - Seton Hall - United Nations Institute for Training and Research

BLUE SMOKE: A monthly column, from PassBlue and UNA–UK, spotlighting senior appointments at the UN

What Happened to the UN’s Mediation Abilities?

LEAVE A COMMENT

The UN’s mediation work is no longer in the lead on many conflicts as powerful members of the Security Council and regional bodies have seized the role in the last few decades, pushing aside UN professionals highly skilled in negotiating. Russia’s war in Ukraine, for example, above, has been an opportunity for the UN “to play the major mediating role,” the author writes, but it is “nowhere to be seen.” PRESIDENCY OF UKRAINE/TWITTER

It is no secret that United Nations mediation is in a state of decline. The UN is no longer in the lead role in conflict countries where the secretary-general and his representatives or special envoys are mandated to provide mediation and good offices. In most of these conflicts, powerful members of the Security Council, regional and subregional organizations are taking the lead, pushing the UN to the sidelines. The only two conflicts where the UN is still clearly in the lead are Cyprus and Western Sahara, and, in both countries, it has failed for decades to make any progress.

One needs only to look at the fact that many of the UN envoys cannot enter the countries where they are supposed to be mediating or they have limited access to the actors they should be engaging with. The UN has been largely sidelined in many mediation processes by parties to, or backers of, these proxy conflicts, who are ironically taking the mediation lead (for example, in Syria and Yemen). In recent years, powerful P5 countries and others have routinely interfered with the appointment of the secretary-general’s envoys, effectively imposing candidates with little relevant experience. Many envoys have been appointed to countries they have never been and whose language they do not speak.

The UN has made a great deal of effort since Kofi Annan’s In Larger Freedom reform proposals in 2005 to professionalize its mediation processes and establish a series of guidelines that place inclusion at the forefront. However, the practice continues to lag behind the new standards. The establishment of the outstanding Mediation Unit, its very useful Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisors, and High-Level Advisory Board have all been positive developments, but more needs to be done to ensure that the UN upholds its mediation standards of consent, impartiality and inclusivity, particularly in the conflicts that have come to define these past decades.

Earlier this year, the International Center for Dialogue Initiatives, which I chair, published a report titled “Libya: An Assessment of Twelve Years of UN Mediation.” It found that political dialogues facilitated by the UN lacked inclusivity and impartiality and were often undermined by the interests and interference of major powers, a pattern that analysts also see in Syria, Yemen and other political processes.

The UN is no longer seen as an impartial body with a strong and respected voice globally. People living in conflict-ridden countries are increasingly viewing the UN as promoting the interests of the West and the powerful. But this wasn’t always the case. In previous decades, the UN played a major role in facilitating peace processes in many countries and regions around the world (such as Cambodia, Namibia, Central America and Timor-Leste), and numerous dedicated UN officials have paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the pursuit of peace.

The decline of UN mediation is taking place against a backdrop of the increased polarization of global politics that can be seen in the Security Council, where Russia and China are often pitted against the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The continuing monopoly of these three countries — the US, the UK and France — over the drafting of Security Council resolutions and their undue influence in the Secretariat, where they continue to monopolize the leadership of the peace and security departments, has further eroded the UN’s credibility in mediation processes.

The tragic conflict in Ukraine should have presented an opportunity for the UN to play the major mediating role and to act as a bridge between Russia and NATO, in the same way that Dag Hammarskjold had carved space for the UN to act as a bridge between the East and West during the Cold War. Many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Türkiye and South Africa, with other African states, are all vying to play this role, but the UN is nowhere to be seen.

In this month’s edition of our newsletter, Diplomacy Now, experts and academics, some of whom have worked with or inside the UN system, weigh in on the institution’s mediation record in Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, diagnosing what they see as serious flaws and providing recommendations for future engagement. Keep in mind that the views of these authors do not necessarily reflect our own; however, we publish their essays because we believe that there must be greater reflection and open discussion on the quality of UN mediation, if it is to positively affect people whose lives have been or continue to be shaken by war. We strongly believe in a more effective UN that is fully able to address today’s global peace and security issues.

This essay originally appeared in Diplomacy Now


This is an opinion essay.

We welcome your comments on this article.  What are your thoughts on the state of UN mediation?

Jamal Benomar is the chair of the International Center for Dialogue Initiatives, based in New York City. He is a pro-democracy activist, human rights defender, diplomat and international mediator. His international career spans across 35 years, including 25 years at the United Nations, where he rose to the rank of Under-Secretary General in recognition of his achievements.

We would love your thoughts. Please comment:

What Happened to the UN’s Mediation Abilities?
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Waly Ndiaye (Retired UN PDA)
Waly Ndiaye (Retired UN PDA)
24 days ago

Cette analyse aurait été plus intéressante si elle distinguait les situations de médiation des conflits où l’une (ou quelques unes) des grandes puissances prenait le lead des situations où des organisations régionales ou inter-étatiques jouaient le premier rôle dans la médiation et ceci, au nom du principe de subsidiarité, fondé d’abord sur une certaine primauté de la légitimité à agir, qui doit être reconnue à ces organisations du fait de protocoles entre les États où du simple fait même de la proximité géographique qui va souvent avec une certaine imbrication des intérêts et des risques.

Ce que les NU devraient mieux faire, c’est la diplomatie préventive domaine dans lequel ils ont plus d’avantages compétitifs, du fait d’abord de leur présence effective et permanente dans les pays via les UNCTs et les Coordonnateurs Résidents qui les dirigent. Souvent dotés de capacités analytiques par la présence de Peace and Development Advisers, les RCs devraient pouvoir prendre très tôt des initiatives préventives, en collaboration avec les organisations régionales, à travers les Envoyés spéciaux et les SRSGs dans les pays où ils existent. Bien sûr que cette approche ne peut donner de bons résultats qu’à 2 conditions: qu’aucun membre du Conseil de Sécurité ne fasse délibérément obstacle à de telles initiatives et que le Secrétaire Général des NU ainsi que le leadership de l’organisation régionales impliquée assurent un soutien et protège d’une certaine manière les fonctionnaires qui sont en première ligne, savoir le RC, le SRSG ou l’Envoyé Spécial.

Ceci me semble une direction vers laquelle pourrait aller la réflexion pour une politique globale de prévention et de médiation de conflit dans le monde.

English translation via Google–Editors

This analysis would have been more interesting if it distinguished situations of conflict mediation where one (or a few) of the great powers took the lead from situations where regional or inter-state organizations played the leading role in mediation and this, in the name of the principle of subsidiarity, founded first of all on a certain primacy of the legitimacy to act, which must be recognized for these organizations because of protocols between the States or simply because of the geographical proximity which often goes with a certain intertwining of interests and risks.

What the UN should do better is preventive diplomacy, an area in which they have more competitive advantages, firstly because of their effective and permanent presence in the countries via the UNCTs and the Resident Coordinators who lead them. Often endowed with analytical capacities by the presence of Peace and Development Advisers, RCs should be able to take preventive initiatives very early on, in collaboration with regional organizations, through Special Envoys and SRSGs in the countries where they exist. Of course, this approach can only give good results on two conditions: that no member of the Security Council deliberately obstructs such initiatives and that the UN Secretary General and the leadership of the regional organization involved provide support and in some way protect the civil servants who are on the front line, namely the RC, the SRSG or the Special Envoy.

This seems to me a direction in which reflection could go for a global policy of conflict prevention and mediation in the world.

Arthur Tauder
25 days ago

The Ukraine Conflict provides an excellent opportunity for the UN to reverse its declining role in conflict resolution. Third party attempts to initiate a peace process have been mostly political grandstanding marked by obvious self-interest. This Ukraine Conflict is incredibly complex and only the UN has the charter, expertise and resources to initiate the peace process and carry through in the implementation.
September 21, UN International Peace Day, is the perfect timing for Secretary General Guterres to express a willingness for UN involvement in initiating an unbiased peace process. CodeBlue Ukraine is urging Sec. Gen. Guterres to lead the way on September 21.

Related Posts
UNGA78: A quiz from PassBlue
Online Program Enrolling Now - Seton Hall - United Nations Institute for Training and Research

THIS WEEK'S MOST POPULAR

Don't Miss a Story:

Subscribe to PassBlue

Sign up to get the smartest news on the UN by email, joining readers across the globe.​

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously​