From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 23:44:48 EST
World Citizen: Mediation as the Third Path to Global Power
Frida Ghitis | 10 Dec 2009
Throughout history, the most transparent and blunt expression of
international power has involved the projection of military force. Over the
years, other forms of power have gained importance, with the concept of
"soft power" -- or the ability to peacefully persuade and attract other
nations to acquiesce to a country's will -- recently gaining prominence as
an alternative to traditional "hard power." But for countries without the
luxury of the large military budgets that fuel hard power or the massive
cultural and economic assets that underpin soft power, a third way has
emerged as a path to global influence. Call it "Mediating Muscle."
Mediating Muscle refers to the way in which countries that may not possess
overwhelming military force or other means to exercise power beyond their
borders can nevertheless become influential players on the global scene by
mediating international conflicts.
Mediators, especially successful ones, gain enormous prestige in the
international community. They also enhance their power, as their ability to
influence the outcome of negotiations leads other players to treat them
with more deference and try to gain favor with them.
It is no surprise, then, that the race to become the negotiator of major
international conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, has turned into a
crowded field of intense competition. The list of countries offering to
serve as mediators in the various conflicts across the region now includes
Brazil, Turkey, France and Russia, in addition to longstanding players such
as the European Union, the U.S. and the U.N., among others.
Winning the competition is no easy feat. In order to become a mediator, the
candidate -- whether a country, individual or organization -- must persuade
the sides in a conflict to agree on at least one point: that it can be
trusted as an intermediary. That can prove rather tricky, as efforts to win
the confidence of one side can undermine the trust of the other.
Consider Turkey, the country that has already served as intermediary to the
dispute between Syria and Israel. Turkey has long seen itself as a bridge
between East and West. A Muslim-majority country with a foot in
geographical Europe and a full seat at the NATO table, it enjoys many
advantages over other would-be go-betweens. Under Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan, Turkey has worked to enhance its international role, raising its
profile in the Muslim world while continuing to pursue full membership in
the European Union.
Erdogan recently offered to become a mediator between Iran and the
international community over what is one of the highest profile disputes in
today's world, the standoff over Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Ankara
has also reiterated its desire to resume its role as a mediator between
Syria and Israel.
Unfortunately for Turkey, efforts to improve its standing in the Muslim
world have eroded its credibility in the West. Gestures of friendship
towards the Iranian regime could doom Turkey's chance to become an official
mediator between Iran and its critics. On the other hand, there is still a
good chance that Turkey can maintain its status as a major player between
Israel and Syria, but that too is now far from assured.
Turkey's main competitor on the Syria-Israel front is France. This isn't
the first time that President Nicolas Sarkozy has sought to increase his
and his country's standing by playing an oversized role in resolving
disputes. When a war broke out between Russia and Georgia in the summer of
2008, the hyperkinetic Frenchman darted to the region before others had a
chance to take the lead. Sarkozy also led the push to re-engage with Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad after the Bush administration sought to isolate
his regime.
In November, Sarkozy met with Netanyahu one day and with Assad the next.
Then he offered to mediate between Damascus and Jerusalem, in what amounted
to an effort to elbow Ankara aside. Erdogan bristled at the French offer.
But Israel was no longer keen on Turkish mediation, as relations between
the two countries had deteriorated under the weight of harsh Turkish
criticism of Israel. Still, Erdogan said, France could not replace Turkey,
because Damascus would not allow Paris to mediate.
The competition between France and Turkey continues. As the prospects for a
resumption of negotiations improves, Netanyahu has expressed a preference
for French mediation. But Turkey and Israel are also trying to patch up
their differences.
Turkey -- and Erdogan -- knows that it needs good relations with Israel if
it wants to reap the power and prestige that would result from mediating
negotiations for a third peace treaty in the Middle East. The first such
treaty, between Egypt and Israel, gave President Jimmy Carter a Nobel Peace
Prize, along with a huge boost in his international standing and influence
after a poorly regarded presidency. The second treaty, between Jordan and
Israel, was largely worked out between the two principal parties, but it
solidified the role of the U.S. and President Bill Clinton as facilitators
for peace.
Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva recently suggested his own country
might serve as a potential peace negotiator. Like Turkey, Brazil sees
itself as a bridge between North and South. Lula, a leftist politician who
has proven adept at working within a free-market system, has earned respect
along all latitudes of the globe. Now he wants to try his hand at Mideast
peace. In the space of a few weeks last month, he hosted the presidents of
Iran, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Russia, too, is trying to secure a place at the negotiating table,
proposing to hold a major Mideast peace conference in Moscow.
Oddly, the U.N. has become largely irrelevant in the process. The global
organization that, in theory, could serve as an impartial forum for peace
talks, is instead viewed by Israel as irredeemably biased. Still, the U.N.
is one of the four members of the Middle East peace Quartet, along with the
U.S., Russia and the EU.
The EU has long tried to become a player, but its efforts have fallen flat.
A recent push by Sweden to put EU foreign ministers on record calling for
East Jerusalem to become part of an eventual Palestinian state angered
Israel and had to be toned down. Washington expressed its view on the
subject, saying the issue of Jerusalem should be decided by the parties to
the conflict, not by outsiders. Once again, Europe failed in its effort to
become relevant, but it is sure to try again.
For now, the one country in a position to play a key mediating role remains
the United States. But it will encounter competition. After all,
negotiations can bring the rich rewards of peace to the parties in a
dispute, but they also carry a tantalizing reward for the third country in
the peace process. The nation that brokers the deal gets to develop its
Mediating Muscle, a way to carve out for itself a path to global power.
Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World
Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen,
appears every Thursday.