Peace talks elicit a lot of attention. People want to see conflicting belligerents sit down together and negotiate a way out of war. Unfortunately, the majority of these conferences are not serious attempts to end hostilities, but rather public relations events to reassure benefactors that mediators and the belligerents themselves are working toward an end to the fighting.
Talks between government and armed non-state actors have gained prominence recently as the preferred method of bringing peace to troubled places. However, the challenge of re-constructing social fabric between or within states, especially when it involves state building and nation-building, is a formidable one that goes well beyond negotiating a political settlement in a negotiation room.
Despite their short duration, the latest round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine offered some signs of potential progress. Ukrainian delegation leader Rustem Umerov and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Medinsky, agreed to continue the talks and meet regularly for the next six months.
Both leaders indicated a willingness to work on specific humanitarian issues, particularly the return of Russian-occupied territories such as the towns of Luhansk and Donetsk. They also discussed the possibility of a prisoner exchange.
Mediators have a powerful influence in the peace process and their impartiality can make or break a dialogue. They are not, however, infallible and can be biased in ways that may harm the outcome. For example, in 2007 Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore mediated between the government of Côte d’Ivoire and its rebellious Forces Nouvelles, overtly supporting the latter.
About the Author
