Talking of mediation: who could it be?

Vladimir Putin's Pandora's box

Victor Angelo

 

The last two years have been exceptional times of great concern at the global level. The truth is that we were not prepared to face challenges of this magnitude and that were added to the very complex - and vital - problem of climate change.

First was the pandemic, which remains a huge challenge, especially for countries with fewer resources and extremely fragile public health systems.

With this backdrop still part of our horizon, a second factor of enormous instability has now emerged and which, like Covid-19, should contribute to reconfiguring the future of our societies and international relations. This factor has its point of origin in Vladimir Putin's inexplicable, anachronistic, and illegal decision to declare war on the people of Ukraine.

The Russian dictator has opened a Pandora's box. One must be aware of this. And now even hope seems to have come out of the box and to be drifting. Russia's own foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, who is now visibly behaving like a lackey of his master, has himself added fuel to the collective sense of anxiety. On Wednesday, speaking of the sanctions that have been imposed on his country, the minister said that the response could be a third world war. And he stressed that it would be "a devastating nuclear war".

Many will think that this is just talk, to raise the stakes, that is, to get Ukraine destroyed and guard the rubble, put pressure on the West, gain strategic weight and avoid a new wave of sanctions.

I for one am one of those who take these bravadoes very seriously. The measures taken against Putin and the circles that support his power are extraordinarily far-reaching, close to a declaration of hostilities. The impact in the areas of the economy, finance and domestic policy will be enormous. In the face of this, the Kremlin's response may be economic, beyond bans on the use of airspace, the transit of goods from China, visas, etc. But I fear that Putin does not consider such retaliation sufficient. He may want to show that Russia is not playing softly, that it is neither Iran nor Venezuela.

As I have written here before, we have reached a very dangerous turning point.

The only reasonable solution would be a diplomatic effort of good offices - understanding that a solution needs to be found that guarantees Ukraine's independence, but also accepting that there is much more at stake than that. The UN and its Secretary-General should be the key players in this initiative. It is part of their remit, and they should dare. But I don't see a chance, Putin would not accept such mediation. For him, the UN is just a secretariat, a structure at the service of the states, but without equal status and below them. And Guterres is now presented in Moscow as an agent of the Americans. 

Mediation would have to be undertaken by a state accepted by all the parties. If the issue were only between Russia and Ukraine, I think the possibility that China could play that role should not be ruled out. Even taking into account that the Chinese anti-American rhetoric has escalated in the last two or three days. Today, given the complexity of the crisis, it would be preferable for mediation to be done by a tandem, or even a triumvirate, of countries. For example, China, France and another country that has the confidence of Europeans and Americans but is independent from NATO and outside the European arena. What might that be?

Having said this, I would like to make it clear that I do not have much faith in the possibility of mediation. I would prefer a palace coup. That might be the solution. But officially we must insist on the diplomatic route. The crossroads we are at is very clear: either there is diplomacy or there is a strong possibility of large-scale confrontation, suffering and chaos. It is up to each one to take responsibility for their choice and, in the end, to pay the bill, starting with Vladimir Putin.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 March 2022)

 

 

 

Reflections on political mediation

More and better mediation in times of conflict

Victor Angelo

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century. He was also one of the most progressive of his time, one of the first to fight for the institution of a universal minimum income or for the decriminalization of homosexual relations. A profound political analyst, he stressed in 1950, when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, that "the love of power is, in fact, the strongest motive in the lives of important men. He added that many leaders do not mind impoverishing - and sinking the nation - if they can thereby bring their rivals to ruin. This is still the case in certain parts of the globe.

It was this blind passion for power, a central theme in Russell's work, that served as the starting point for my talk yesterday about conflict mediation. I was participating, by videoconference, in a colloquium of the US Institute of Peace, an independent Washington-based organization dedicated to parallel diplomacy and political negotiations. The challenge was to identify new ways of approaching national crisis resolution, to be shared with the United Nations and other partners active in this area of international politics.

Political intervention, in any society, requires a keen understanding of context and power relations. It is necessary to assess the relative strength of the main leaders, what their power is based on, and what their vulnerabilities are.

In democratic societies, this analysis is easier to do, even taking into account the opacity of certain secret associations, pressure groups and manipulation of social networks. Elections are held regularly, there are visible party structures and an active media. There, credibility is built on electoral legitimacy combined with the projection of a positive public image.

In countries where the abuse of force is the source and instrument of authority, the issue is more complicated. The apparent, institutional system is often deceptive. What counts is the informal web and its hierarchies. The real power is tied to traditional leaders, ethnic affiliations, religious networks, superstitions, or even criminal organizations in the field of drugs or the illegal trade in natural resources.

Throughout my life I have seen many examples of informal power. In Zimbabwe, it was easier to reach Robert Mugabe through the UN representative's driver than through the head of the presidential office. The driver was the first-born son of a tribal chief of the ethnic group to which Mugabe belonged. In Senegambia, a small number of marabouts had more political influence, regionally and nationally, than most ministers in the different governments.

Conflict mediation only works if you negotiate with those in power. The others, ministers and so on, are often mere figureheads or simple stooges of the boss. To get to the decision-maker, you often have to go beyond the formal system of governance.

Another critical aspect concerns the authority of the mediator. Credibility in politics results from the combination of four primary characteristics: a spirit of mission, political realism, balance of opinion, and self-confidence. Several mediators appointed in recent years by the United Nations have been shown to lack this set of qualities. New York tends to pay more attention to regional games, to winning political support in certain quarters, in the Security Council or from influential heads of state in the region concerned, than to the experience and personality of the appointees. The result is a certain marginalization of the UN and a blurring of its image.  During his second term, António Guterres should strive to address this weakness. The strengthening of the mediation capacity should be one of the priority areas in a time that promises to be fertile in conflicts. This is what many millions of people, victims of political violence or on the verge of the ravine, are crying out for every day.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 October 2021)

France and Turkey

The hostility between France and Turkey reached a new level today. For now, it is just a war of words. But words matter a lot, in diplomacy and conflict. I would be very prudent. If I were in a position of international visibility I would advise both sides to moderate their statements and I would offer my good offices for a mediation effort. I would not shy away from my responsibilities. I would be very clear in expressing my deepest concerns.  

Maduro and Guaidó must accept mediation

Venezuela remains at the top of today’s international agenda. People on both sides of the conflict are convinced that the solution to the current national crisis must come out of an open confrontation. That’s where we are now. It would be a serious mistake. The country is deeply divided. Violence can only lead to death and destruction. It will not address the deep causes of conflict.

I continue to insist on dialogue through mediation. Both leaders must accept this approach. The work of the international community should focus on convincing Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaidó to accept an agenda for dialogue. This is an urgent task to be accomplished.

Unfortunately, the UN is not in a position to play a role, for reasons that I mentioned in my previous post. The UN Secretariat is afraid of Donald Trump. It is paralysed. It cannot master the courage to tell President Trump that there is no other way out but through a conflict resolution process. Through peace.

The European Union has excluded itself from the solution. It has taken sides.

The Latin American States have also aligned themselves with one position or the other. They are too close to the conflict to be impartial.

The only Latin American country that has remained neutral is Mexico. It could be part of an international mediation group. The other two States I see as able of mediating and facilitating are Switzerland and the Vatican.

My proposal is to encourage the Swiss to take the lead and get the other two countries on board. They would approach Maduro and Guaidó to obtain their commitment to the process. They could get it. Particularly if the mediation is accompanied by a serious effort to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Venezuela. True humanitarian aid, of course.

Venezuela: mediation, mediation, mediation

Today’s situation in Venezuela moved a step closer to national tragedy.

Very concerned, the UN Secretary-General called for both Government and opposition forces to exercise “maximum restraint”. That is a necessary call.

But certainly not enough.

It is a passive reaction to a major development in the Venezuelan crisis. Antonio Guterres should also be offering his mediation authority. Mediation between both sides remains the only peaceful opening, the only hope to avoid additional loss of life and humanitarian suffering.

 I know the big bosses in Washington do not want to hear that word, mediation. They are simply betting on Maduro’s total defeat. But the Secretary-General cannot just pay attention to Washington. He is the voice of the world and the standard-bearer of common sense. His duty is to be at the service of peace. For that, he must underline in very clear terms that the UN good offices are the most reasonable way forward as far as Venezuela’s future is concerned.  

Venezuela today: deeper into crisis

The complex crisis Venezuela is going through today has reached a new level of perilousness. Taking into consideration what I have seen in comparable situations – comparable, true, but I know that every crisis has its unique features – we are now closer to an open clash between the two camps.

It is obvious we do not know what is going on in the planning rooms, and what kind of bridging initiatives might be under way. The impression is that there has been a lot of secret planning and no real effort to bridge the opposing parties. It is also palpable that both sides might still be betting on an escalation. They seem to have reached that stage in a confrontation when leaders think that it is time to defeat the other side. To use force. 

That’s why it is now important to express extreme apprehension and add to that a call for mediation by those who are still able to play such a role. An urgent call.

Venezuela needs a credible mediation process

There are a few crisis situations in the world that must be seen as requiring urgent attention. Venezuela is certainly one of them. And, in terms of response, mediation is the word. It is necessary to find a mediation mechanism that could be accepted by both sides, meaning the Maduro camp and the Guaidó supporters.

Nicolás Maduro has asked the Pope to lead such mediation. It is true that the Catholic Church could play a facilitating role. But the other side has not expressed the same kind of appeal. Basically, they believe that Maduro´s presidency is not legitimate and, therefore, he must go without any concession being made. That position should be helped to evolve as rapidly as possible.

The United Nations could also be approached. Yet, I think Maduro sees the UN as too close to the Western interests. In the circumstances, the UN Secretary-General should take the initiative and be in personal contact with both leaders. The UN has a lot of experienced people in the field of mediation. And it could also work closely with the Vatican and offer a join platform for negotiations. Countries in the EU should send a message about the UN’s potential.

It’s equally critical that Maduro understands that there is a way forward for him and his family. The other side must leave a gate open for a dignified solution. It’s a mistake to try to push Maduro and his camp against the wall. That would make any bridging effort fail and it could easily bring mass violence instead a negotiated solution.

The mediation agenda would be defined by the parties. That’s how it should be. But I can guess it would certainly include issues such as the shape of the political transition, who would chair it, the organization of credible elections, the role of the armed forces and the police, as well as amnesty matters.

UN cannot be missing in action

The agreement reached between the two presidential candidates is key for the stability and security of Afghanistan. Ashraf Ghani, the future president, and Abdullah Abdullah,  who will have his nominees in key positions within the new Cabinet and as governors of some provinces, are both top politicians and very reasonable, experienced individuals. They are among the best in the country´s political class. But they represent different domestic interests as their tribal links are based on geography and ethnic politics. The agreement between them should therefore be seen as a balancing act between the tribes from the North, closer to Abdullah, and the South that basically supports Ghani.

The balance was struck thanks to the continued efforts of John Kerry and the US ambassador in Kabul. The US made the agreement possible.

This has shown, as it is nowadays happening quite often, that the UN mission in the country has not been able to play the mediation role they should have. This is no good news. Particularly because the same weak role is now the trademark of the UN in some other conflicts around the world.

It might be the moment to raise one or two questions about the current state of affairs of the UN´s peace-making efforts.

Fortunately, on the same day the deal was announced in Kabul, the UN envoy in Yemen was in a position to convince the warring parties in that collapsing country to sign a ceasefire accord. That´s a bit of good news about the UN. But it is not enough.