2023-09-10 17:29:35
Advisor to the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue, one of the main organizations for mediating armed conflicts, Pierre Hazan publishes a book* in which he shows all the complexity of the art of negotiation. How to compromise without giving in to compromise? Should we negotiate with criminal regimes or terrorist organizations? In a world in full reorganization, there is no shortage of partners who cannot be approached, but, according to him, we must continue to leave the path to dialogue open. However, he believes that the time for negotiation has not yet come in the case of the Ukrainian conflict.
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia continues with no end in sight. Lately, the subject of negotiation has come back to the table. Is this the time to negotiate, in your opinion?
If there is negotiation, it must take place between the belligerents. And they have to want it. However, at present, this is not the case. On the one hand, there is Russia which has annexed certain territories of Ukraine, on the other hand, there is Ukraine which wants to recover its territorial integrity. As long as this equation does not change, the two parties cannot enter into a dialogue.
Can certain international actors influence the conflict?
The question is: what do they want? What is their influence capacity and to what extent are they prepared to use this influence? On the one hand, there is The Western world – the United States, mainly -, which currently provides most of the weapons to the Ukrainians and, on the other hand, there are the Bricsespecially China.
Many peace processes begin with negotiations on limited issues.
In the United States, future elections might obviously change the current course. For its part, China, like India, has clearly indicated to Putin that the use of nuclear weapons is the red line that must not be crossed. But for now, the belligerents consider that the battlefield has not spoken enough. Each belligerent thinks it has no interest in stopping the war now. If President Zelensky suspended the Ukrainian counter-offensive to negotiate, he would not be supported by his population.
In this context, can Turkey play a role? Erdogan and Putin met once more recently…
Indeed, we can clearly see that there are discussions underway, in particular to relaunch the “grain deal”. Basically, there is no peace process yet, but we nevertheless observe that, concerning certain specific issues, there is progress: the agreement on export of cereals and Ukrainian wheat, signed by each belligerent under the aegis of the UN and Turkey; the presence of inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, occupied by the Russians or even Saudi Arabia which played a role in the release of nearly 300 prisoners last September.
What might ultimately lead to the development of a peace process?
Many peace processes begin with negotiations on limited issues…
Some believe that a military defeat of Russia must first be achieved before negotiations can begin. What do you think?
As I said before, it seems to me that the battlefield has not finished talking. What will the situation on the ground be in six months? A breakthrough in the south for the Ukrainians? The Russians who manage to conquer territories in the North? Nor should we exclude – even if it does not really have the right to be cited – a evolution of Russian society and Western public opinions. I think we should be careful not to use peremptory formulas. Discussion channels should be kept open. How can we ethically manage borderline situations as least poorly as possible? That’s the whole question.
We must therefore increase attempts at mediation even if the fighting continues?
We must try toidentify topics in which progress can be mades: limiting the suffering of the population, the exchange of prisoners, the protection of civilians, the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons, etc. It is on these questions that we must work as a priority.
Mediation can achieve important results regardless of continued fighting. With the return of war to Europe, in a world now multipolar and faced with global challenges, mediation is of paramount importance. Mediation in armed conflicts has never been so essential, even if they often require us to confront moral dilemmas extremely complex and cruel.
Negotiation involves compromise, but the line between compromise and compromise is sometimes thin…
When you try to set up mediation in the context of a conflict, the challenge is not to choose your interlocutors, but to understand the nature of the dialogue that is established. We must determine whether the negotiation that is being developed between the parties is an illusion – as was the case in 1938 in Munich, for example – or whether it can make it possible to change the situation positively, by relieving the populations who are suffering. .
War criminals must be held accountable. But the ICC must intervene as a last resort, when a country is unable to prosecute.
The search for compromise should not lead to compromise, which is why we must move forward with caution, avoiding the many pitfalls along the way. Place yourself in this position of mediator does not mean being naive, nor idealistic, even less cynical or excessively pragmatic. There is an ethic of responsibility of the mediator who must try to equip himself with a moral compass in order to seek peace, or at least, to reduce the suffering of the populations.
But should we talk with war criminals or terrorist organizations? We often talk regarding this limit…
Refusing dialogue with leaders responsible for serious crimes or terrorist organizations has gradually become the rule. The International Criminal Court (ICC) states thatwe cannot negotiate with war criminals, or under very strict conditions. But this position has its limits. There exists a permanent tension between the construction of peace and the search for justice. International criminal justice is essential to combat impunity for war crimes and ensure lasting peace, but it must not become an obstacle to the construction of peace.
In your book, you criticize the ICC. “The International Criminal Court seems to become the legal arm of NATO,” you write. So it constitutes an obstacle in the context of the current conflict in Ukraine? Shouldn’t she have issued an arrest warrant once morest Putin?
Let us be clear: war criminals must be held accountable. But the ICC must intervene as a last resort, when a country is unable to prosecute. However, Ukraine has a court of justice and judicial processes. Why then furniture the ICC? What will she do? Send gendarmes from The Hague to arrest Putin in the Kremlin? How effective is this measure? People will answer me that it is symbolic, but it seems to me above all discredit the Courtwhich would do better to be more effective and faster in the context of less visible conflicts.
We are entering a world of limited partnership, of one-off agreements, often very fragile.
We should also rethink the role of the UN, in your opinion?
The role of the secretary general is weak, his authority has been considerably reduced. But the UN nevertheless remains an important forum, particularly for taking the temperature of international power relations. In a multipolar world, it might play an increasingly important role.
How do you interpret the rise of the BRICS?
We are moving from a world marked by Western hegemony to one multipolar world in which the Brics are strengthening. However, we should not ignore the divisions within the Brics, between China and India in particular. They would like us to believe that we are returning to the Bandung conference in 1955, but it is not the great movement of the non-aligned which is emerging.
This is not a simple North/South confrontation. What is at stake is more complex. For now, unity in the Ukrainian conflict rests on this observation: no one is applying sanctions once morest Russia. But being neutral towards Russia does not mean having an agenda and a program. We are entering a world of limited partnership, of one-off agreements, often very fragile. Some actors are adopting a new role: China is positioning itself as mediator between Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example. This is indicative of the new international situation. The rules of the game are being fundamentally redrawn.
Is the situation in West Africa also representative of this change?
Yes, the movement started in the Central African Republic, then spread to Mali, Burkina Faso and now Niger. The Russians bring their weapons and their military know-how, while the Chinese bring the economic power. These coups are not Russia’s doing, but they benefit Russians. The French precarret practically no longer exists and the Americans have been very absent in recent years. Hence the embarrassment of Westerners regarding the situation in Niger. But this embarrassment is also shared by Nigeria or Senegal, who are worried regarding the increase in coups d’état In the region.
Pierre Hazan will speak on September 14, 2023 at the Domaine de la Gaichel for the 37th edition of the “Strategic Meetings of the BSPK Manager”
*Negotiating with the devil: mediation in armed conflicts, Pierre Hazan, Editions Textuel, 160 p., €17.90
1694389070
#Pierre #Hazan #mediation #armed #conflicts #essential