Alvaro De Soto

Full article

On April 2, 2008, at the Lyceum Kennedy International School at 225 East 43rd Street, Dr. Alvaro De Soto spoke on the topic of “Mediation for Peace.”

Dr. De Soto is a former UN Special Envoy who has served in such diverse regions as the Middle East, Myanmar, Cyprus and Central America.

The evening’s presentation outlined a brief history of mediation in the process of conflict resolution beginning in the early 1980s to the present day. This process has gone through much evolution, from Dag Hammarskjold’s efforts at diffusing difficulties, to pursuing legal proceedings of closure after periods of war and resulting war crimes. In fact, one might even say that the process of conflict resolution has come full circle, with the current climate at the height of conflict in the face of the so called “war on terror,” which may well be at a turning point. Global support for these particular hostilities only awaits a definitive mark of waning, perhaps to be seen after the change in Western leadership to take place in November of this year.

The reception received by representatives of the United Nations insofar as their roles in the process of conflict resolution ranges from apparent disdain to veritable hubris, or excess of reliance on the perceived power of this international body as an instrument of peace.

In 1982 the ineffectiveness of international bodies allowed Israel to advance as far as Beirut, in neighboring Lebanon. At the same time, the inaction of the international community in the face of the conflicting claims to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, by Argentina and Great Britain gave way to a new lack of cohesion in subsequent years. This lack of cohesiveness on the part of the international community also saw pragmatic Soviets advancing upon Afghanistan, while a lengthy and bitter conflict brewed between Iran and Iraq. On a more positive note, this same climate also hosted the independence of the new southwest African nation of Namibia, although to its north, tragedy was well under way in Rwanda.

Such was the climate of passivity in the international community at its low point. As we looked toward the end of the century, member states had begun to withhold their contributions, as birth pangs of a reform movement were felt.

The resurgence of the concept of “good offices” and impartiality gave the parties to the various conflicts a standing they might not have had. Under the aegis of the United Nations, the Secretary General began to be seen as more of a normative mediator by those parties desiring to smooth the friction between elements of conflict, although, the idea was also seen as intrusive or unwelcome by others.

Nonetheless, the Department of Political Affairs was born of the former Department of Peace and Security, and the international community sought to rely upon certain articles of the Charter in support of intervention by a “new” United Nations seeking to reassert its legitimacy.

Ironically, conflict did flourish in this environment, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, although this only underscored the need for preventive diplomacy and peace-making, as opposed to peace-keeping. Indeed, the international community was called upon not only to bring about a cease-fire, but also to extinguish the sparks causing greater conflict.

Rather than allowing parties to seek all methods of addressing grievances, including the horrors of war, a climate of Freedom of Conversation, with and among belligerents, would be the motto of this new global age.

By Ms. Jeanne-Catherine Ellis