In the Peacemakers Toolkit Series, William Zartman and Alvaro de Soto highlight the risks for senior mediators of being associated with sanctions. Similarly, the UN’s Guidance for Effective Mediation instructs international mediators to “avoid association with punitive measures against conflict parties” in order to maintain impartiality. The implied conclusion is clear: engaging with UN sanctions can be a liability and should be avoided.
This apprehension is understandable and forms a core part of the conventional wisdom shared by senior mediators. Yet, there are also contrasting examples of sanctions helping to advance a mediation process. For instance, Zartman and de Soto acknowledge, in the same training manual cited above, that sanctions can be used to ripen a stalemate, and that, in the case of Bosnia, “sanctions were major motivators gaining Slobodan Milosevic’s participation and agreement in the Dayton negotiations over Bosnia in 1995.” The UN’s
Guidance for Effective Mediation also recognises that the “actions of the international community, including the United Nations. . . have an impact on mediation. . . [which] can be an asset.”
The contradictions in both publications illustrate the complex relationships between sanctions and peace processes. So, which is it? Are sanctions a liability for international mediators or an asset? Or are they both?
Normally, one would seek answers within academic research or existing policy guidance. With some notable exceptions, however, both are largely silent on this issue. The gaps in both research and policy guidance are exacerbated by the fact that sanctions experts and mediation experts tend to operate in different worlds, are guided by different logics and rarely interact. To address this problem, the United Nations University, the Graduate Institute and swisspeace initiated a two-year project with support from the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ‘UN sanctions and mediation: establishing evidence to inform practice’.
We are examining six conflicts – Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen – in which mediation initiatives with UN involvement and UN sanctions have interacted in illuminating ways. The project is ongoing, and it would be premature to present general findings at this stage. Yet, several insights are emerging, which challenge some of the conventional wisdom about UN sanctions and their complex relationship with peace mediation.