International Mediation of the UN and the importance of the Mediation Support Unit

By Jack Prinzel

‘Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Former Joint UN–Arab League Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi meet with the five permanent members of the Security Council to discuss the second International Conference on Syria, United Nations, New York, September 27, 2013′

The purpose of this blog post is to understand more about the efforts of mediation taken by the UN in preparation for the Geneva Trip, and the visit to the UN office in Geneva, the Palais des Nations. In Geneva, I hope to learn more about the role of the Mediation Support Unit (MSU), which has expanded the UN’s efforts in mediation far beyond its original structures of the General-Secretary. Moreover, given its importance towards shaping UN mediation policy, the prevalence of thematic expertise, impact on other organisations and the assistance it provides to UN officials.  However, I also wish to ask about the obstacles the UN faces in its role to become a ‘Mediator for All’, most notably the issues of cohesion in the UNSC for delivering mandates for UN mediation intervention and the dominance of the great power states in high profile intractable conflicts.

Mediation is defined by the UN as a  “process whereby a third party assists two or more parties, with their consent, to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements” has often been overlooked in international politics and not viewed at times as a facet of foreign policy but rather an action affected by international politics. However, it is perhaps naïve to neglect mediation and the role of third parties in the studies of international politics, as it has been used as a key instrument for furthering foreign policy agendas from states and also the agendas of international inter-governmental organisations. International mediation and third-party intervention have been traditionally dominated by states, notably by the great power states, such as the U.S. and Russia.

Despite substantial increases in efforts and resources across all levels right from the Secretary-General’s Office to the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), the notion that the UN is a ‘Mediator for all’ has rarely taken the centre stage in prolonged high profile intractable conflicts. Instead, that role has mostly been taken up by  ‘Great Power’ states (notably the permanent members of the UNSC), whose third-party intervention agendas are often out of national security and hegemonic interests.

However, the role of the UN in international mediation has progressed significantly since the end of the Cold War, as it has become increasingly difficult for states embroiled in conflicts to refuse intervention from the international community. The UN’s unique global legitimacy grants it a special status to intervene in conflicts (both inter-state and intra-state) and serve as an impartial and inclusive that can fairly satisfy warring parties. Opposing parties can often be anxious about agreeing to a state (particularly a great power) or a regional organisation mediator who might have an agenda or bias rather than the UN whose interests are subject to its member states.

The UN has put mediation at the forefront of its practices in its tools for preventing, managing and resolving conflicts, believing it to be one of the most effective methods. The UN identifies it as an essential component of international peacekeeping based upon the UN Charter’s emphasis on the peaceful settlement of disputes in its article 6 and article 33 which outlines that parties entangled in conflicts that are likely to affect international peace and security, should seek a solution by  “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”.

Furthermore, the UN has expanded far beyond its original structure of the good offices of the Secretary-General, as it has seen the development of mediation expertise compared to states in the UN with the inception of the Mediation Support Unit (MSU). Proponents of UN mediation believe there was a significant lack of mediation expertise, negating key issues in preventative diplomacy and mediation at both state and international level prior to the establishment of the MSU, and also MSU’s Standby Team of Mediation Experts (SBT) which was established in 2008.

With the creation of the MSU in 2006 following the 2005 World Summit, the UN has extended its mediation capabilities beyond just the offices of the General-Secretary and the DPPA. The MSU is part of the DPPA organ and solely focuses on mediation and preventative diplomacy efforts of the UN. Prior to this, UN mediation was viewed in a diplomatic framework rather than its own speciality, and mediation efforts were conducted through the offices of the DPPA (established in 1992) and the Secretary-General which was devoid of substantial field support and expert advice.

‘Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addresses the World Summit in 2005‘

The MSU provides operational and technical support to peace processes, develops mediation policy and it also advises all those engaged in mediation including regional organisations and states. The MSU’s main source of mediation guidance has been the 2012 ‘UN Guidance for Effective Mediation’ paper which has shaped the UN mediation for the last decade. Importantly the UN mediation guidelines are set out universally,  therefore, they are applicable to any third party, as shown below in figure 1.

Figure 1. ‘8 UN Mediation Principles’

The MSU’s impact on mediation has extended far beyond the offices of the General-Secretary. It has had a major impact on regional organisations as since its inception the European Union, OSCE, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development have all established their own mediation support offices.

The UN through the establishment of the MSU has put the development of mediation expertise at the forefront of its efforts to improve its capacity to broker lasting peace agreements, focusing closely on mediation training, and evaluating previous mediation attempts of both the UN and sovereign states. Laurie Nathan, a former senior mediation advisor to the UN argues that given the immense impact mediators can have on conflicts and also the possibility of substantial resolutions, mediation ought to be viewed as a ‘specialised activity’ and MSU has ‘led the way’ in developing mediation approaches via the UN’s ‘Guidance for Effective Mediation’. This is matched by the current Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, who stated that the MSU has been vital in developing the UN’s mediation policy as “it seeks to get the right expertise to the right places at the right time, both by deploying personnel and providing remote analytical support”.

‘Director of UN Mediation Support briefed on review of UN-AU cooperation on mediation’

Furthermore, perhaps the main contribution of the MSU’s support capacity has been the application of the SBT. The SBT was established in 2008 and has been a vital resource for UN-backed peace processes. The MSU manages the SBT which is a group of experts in the field of mediation and preventative diplomacy who can be deployed on missions within 72 hours, and at present, there are 8 SBT experts who are all experienced in mediation issues and focus on a specific array of concerns, see figure 2 below. The primary purpose of the SBT is to utilise the expertise of the group and advise UN officials on a series of wide-ranging issues that present significant difficulties towards mediation efforts. For instance, gender issues in conflict have been a significant problem for reaching agreements, yet in response, under the ‘mediation fundamentals’ in the 2012 ‘UN Guidance for Effective Mediation’ paper, the UN in its guidelines for effective mediation asserts that whilst all mediators bring their own thematic expertise yet all mediators (including the SBT) must understand the gender dimension, making it a vital area of concern.

Figure 2. ‘SBT and MSU Areas of Expertise’.

For example, in the 2015 Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)-led mediation in South Sudan, a report by the office of the General-Secretary concluded that the MSU proved critical in counselling the UN personnel, but more importantly, the UN Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan on topics relating to ‘justice, accountability, reconciliation’. At the time sexual violence in South Sudan presented a major stumbling block for an agreement. However, due to the expertise of the SBT and the guidance given to the Special Envoy and the IGAD mediators, ‘appropriate language’ was used in the agreement to substantially cover sexual violence issues caused by the intra-state conflict following the 2014 commitment by Riek Machar,  leader of the rebel forces in South Sudan to proactively address sexual violence crimes. Yet despite the UN’s use of the SBT for the IGAD-led mediation (which helped achieve an agreement between both political rivals, President Salva Kiir and Riek Machar), in advising on matters concerning sexual violence, between 2015-2016, Amnesty International reported that “gender-based violence increased by 61%”.

Despite the acceleration of the UN’s mediation efforts with the establishment of the MSU, conflict mediation has been on the decline, as in the last 15 years as two-thirds of armed conflicts did not receive mediation. One reason for this is that the UN struggles with attaining mediation mandates from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which limits the effectiveness of the MSU, as UN personnel are not ‘free agents’. Cohesion issues (mainly between the Permanent five members) at the UNSC have restricted the ability of the Secretary-General to gain a resolution to give the green light to the MSU’s SBT as the SBT are only deployable with the approval of the UNSC.

For instance, attaining mediation mandates was especially difficult for the Syrian Civil War due to the conflict of interests among UNSC members and their power of veto on resolutions. Whilst, the South Sudanese civil war and the 2015 IGAD-led mediation received substantial support from the UN with the deployment of the SBT, this was attainable perhaps because South Sudan does not present as much geopolitical importance for the UNSC members. On the contrary, Syria has been a key geopolitical concern for the UNSC members, such as Russia, who value Syria greatly given its close ties to the Assad regime. During the height of the conflict, former UN and Arab League Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan believed the geopolitical divisions among the UNSC significantly hindered his mediation efforts, and his successor also highlighted this issue too, “they are asking me to do this job. If they don’t support me, there is no job“.

Therefore, when you consider the high profile cases of intractable conflicts such as in Ukraine, Israel-Palestine and Syria, due to the geopolitical interests of the great powers in the UNSC of these conflicts it limits the notion that the UN is really a mediator for all, and it can only exercise the use the MSU and effectively deploy the SBT in less high profile conflicts that do not concern the great power states’ geopolitical interests. Thus, although the MSU is incredibly important in developing mediation expertise and utilising thematic expertise to assist mediators via the SBT, the UN can perhaps be dubbed a quixotic actor in international mediation due to the dominance of the great power states in international mediation, particularly in high profile intractable conflicts.

‘Palais des Nations, Geneva‘

In regards to the upcoming Geneva Trip, but specifically the visit to the UN office in Geneva, the Palais des Nations, I hope I will be able to discuss the intricacies of the UN’s role in international mediation and importantly, the role of the MSU. However, whilst I understand the difficulty in speaking to a member of the MSU or the SBT given the MSU is based in New York and the team of experts are not based in a single location, I would welcome a general insight vis-à-vis UN mediation and how the MSU operates on a day-to-day basis within the structures of the DPPA.

Whilst I have thought about pursuing a career in the UN, my interests in preventative diplomacy and mediation have been more towards the role of states, particularly the great powers in international mediation which is also what my dissertation is focusing on, however, I am looking forward to the invaluable and rare experience of visiting a UN office, which I believe will be greatly beneficial for my future career path. Nevertheless, I hope to explore the current opportunities there are for students interested in careers within the DPPA relating to preventative diplomacy and mediation, but to also ask general questions to the staff there if possible about what the organisation is like to work for and what steps they took to get to the position they are in now, but also what are their future ambitions are within the UN.