Peace Agreements and Civil Wars in Africa: Insurgent Motivations, ...

Some of the earlier literature on mediation also supports the claim that parties in the conflict will have confidence in the third party if they view it as impartial. Elmore Jackson writes that “it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a single mediator, who was distrusted by one of the parties, to carry out any useful function.”¹³ More recently, other writers have emphasized the importance of impartiality in the acceptance of mediators.¹⁴

The view that mediators need to be impartial during mediation has, however, been challenged by Touval in his book, The Peace Brokers. Touval points out that even mediators who are viewed as biased by one of the parties can still be accepted based on the context in which the acceptance takes place.¹⁵ Touval further writes that the adversaries’ decision to accept a mediator is based on other factors, rather than on the perception of the impartiality of the third party. These factors are the availability of preferable alternatives; the costs of “external disapproval”—that is, the costs associated with rejection of mediation; and the parties’ fear that the third party may participate in a coalition with the opponent.¹⁶ Although Touval’s observations are derived from great power mediation of an interstate conflict, the conclusions are equally relevant to the acceptance and effectiveness of third parties intervening in intrastate conflicts.

Strategies of Mediation

A third party can influence a mediation process and improve the likelihood of a stable agreement through three main intervention strategies. These strategies, identified by Touval and Zartman in ascending order of mediator involvement, are communication, formulation, and manipulation.¹⁷ The least active of the three is that of mediator as communicator. In this role, the mediator may perform a range of activities including facilitating communication between the parties, receiving proposals, and delivering concessions. The second role is that of mediator as formulator. This requires third parties to play more active roles such as that of redefining the issues in a conflict and finding a formula. The last role, that of mediator as manipulator, is the one closely associated with intrastate conflicts.