Political scientist Magnus Lundgren: ‘The UN has partly lost its role as a conflict mediator, but maybe that's not so bad’

The UN seems to be losing ground to individual nation states as mediators. Is that a worrying evolution?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘As a former UN employee, I tend to defend the organisation. The UN is special because it is the only organisation with members from all over the world. This is especially important for conflicts between states. The UN mainly provides legitimacy, transparency and stability, which is crucial for lasting peace.’

‘Still, I recognise its limitations. The UN is sometimes slow, bureaucratic and vulnerable to political pressure. But while the UN has lost legitimacy in some countries, it still retains it to a large extent in many parts of the world. It is therefore important that they continue to play their role, just as other large, multilateral organisations should continue to do.’

‘On the other hand, the emergence of new mediators also shows the adaptability of the system. Now I am not necessarily talking about the US and other big countries. Those will always be there and, for that matter, have always been there. NGOs, smaller countries and emerging states like Qatar are also playing a growing role. A system in which multiple actors can play a mediating role does not necessarily strike me as a bad system. In principle, as long as the goal – peace – is achieved, it does not really matter who leads the mediation. It simply has to be perceived as legitimate. So we need not be overly pessimistic either.'

So is this waning legitimacy of the UN mainly a political problem?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘Absolutely. The UN is not so much struggling with bureaucratic inefficiency as with political blockages. Especially in the UN Security Council, permanent members such as the US, China and Russia can thwart each other with veto rights. That division makes joint action difficult.’

‘There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the UN, let that be clear, but they have greater expertise than ever. They combine their great organisational capacity with decades of experience and a broad network of local actors.’

‘The biggest problem is indeed the political side of things. Security Council members have more interests than ever in today's conflicts. Moreover, they simply cannot agree on the UN's role to be fulfilled in terms of mediation.’

Does social media, and the accompanying visibility of conflict, affect mediation?

Magnus Lundgren: 'Certainly, although only limited research has been conducted on this. Social media make it more difficult to conduct secret negotiations, but they do not seem to me to be a fundamental obstacle, they also offer opportunities. After all, mediators can gather and disseminate information more quickly. It is a double-edged sword.'

Does conflict mediation need to change fundamentally to be future-proof?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘Over the past decades, we have become accustomed to what we call in this domain a "standard treatment": lasting peace is negotiated, the resulting – temporary – peace agreements are enforced by peacekeeping forces, often from different countries, and development assistance and a process of transitional justice round things off. That standard formula is working less and less well and it is clear that it needs to evolve.’

‘That may mean reforming the UN, but it may also mean giving a greater role to local mediators. NGOs, smaller states and CSOs can be more responsive to the fragmentation of modern conflicts.’

‘Yet I firmly believe that traditional methods and means are not yet played out. Bringing parties together, exchanging information, proposing agreements and applying pressure yourself: those basic ingredients remain necessary.’

With peacekeeping, however, things don't really want to go smoothly anymore either.

Magnus Lundgren: ‘Indeed. Peacekeeping, too, is in crisis. There have been no new UN peacekeeping missions for years, and this vacuum is partly filled by private military groups. The controversial Wagner group in Mali, for example, was brought in by the government, but they do not offer the same benefits. Such groups seem to fill the UN's usual role, but do not quite succeed. The question is then how to proceed.’

‘Then again, the actors doing peacekeeping might well change, but there are fundamentally few alternatives to the time-honoured properties of mediation.’

Does the complexity of contemporary conflicts call for a tougher style of negotiation, like Donald Trump's?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘Trump's approach – quick, direct and without regard to preconditions – can be effective in achieving short-term results. If you don't deal with human rights violations, transitional justice and development aid, you get things done faster. That approach is then "more efficient" in the sense that it focuses purely on some kind of transaction, on a quick deal. But that approach rarely provides sustainable solutions.’

In your work on Syria, you emphasised the importance of regional power relations in mediation. How important are they today?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘Extremely important. Mediation often works better when each side has a strong ally at the negotiating table. Colleague Isak Svensson and myself were able to demonstrate this in a 2014 study. So it's about both sides in a conflict. The temporary pause in fighting in Gaza a few weeks ago is a good example. There we saw the US applying pressure on Israel, while Egypt and Qatar did the same to Hamas. This kind of “duo mediation” increases the chances of a breakthrough, albeit in this case only temporarily.’

‘We also saw an example of it in Syria. Russia supported the regime, while Western countries supported the opposition. Although the conflict was not fully resolved, that pressure did lead to some agreements.’

‘So, in principle, for an effective peace process in Ukraine, important, regional, partners from both sides should also be represented within a mediation team. For now, that is not the case.’

Do you see a way out of the current impasse in conflict mediation?

Magnus Lundgren: ‘It is tempting to be pessimistic. The rise of autocracies and geopolitical divisions complicates mediation. So the causes of the current crisis do not seem to be going away. The number of conflicts and their complexity are not decreasing.’

‘But history shows that such periods are not permanent. The Cold War was an era when mediation was almost impossible due to tight, bipolar rivalries on the world stage. The Cold War was followed by a period of intensive conflict mediation, when geopolitical conditions were quite favourable. That period lasted almost twenty-five years. The current downward trend now lasts five to 10 years, but that does not mean it is permanent.’

‘Things will get worse before they get better, but with political and organisational innovation we can break this deadlock. New actors, technologies and approaches will shape the future of conflict mediation. The motivation to do so is far from lost. So there is certainly reason for cautious hope.’

This article was translated from Dutch by kompreno, which provides high-quality, distraction-free journalism in five languages. Partner of the European Press Prize, kompreno curates top stories from 30+ sources across 15 European countries. Join here to support independent journalism.