Negotiating with the Devil: Inside the World of Armed Conflict Mediation

by Pierre Hazan

After many years in the little-known world of back- channel mediation, helping sworn adversaries to prevent, manage or resolve conflict, Pierre Hazan felt compelled to re-examine the acute practical and ethical dilemmas that affected his work in Bosnia, Ukraine, the Sahel and the Central African Republic. What is the mediator’s responsibility when two belligerents conclude a peace agreement to the detriment of a third? Should mediators never be party to ‘ethnic cleansing’, even if it saves lives? Is a fragile peace worth sacrificing justice for—or will that sacrifice fuel another cycle of violence?  In an increasingly dystopian world, Negotiating with the Devil offers both practical guidelines and a moral compass for mediators whose field of action has transformed dramatically. We have gone from soft to hard power; from ‘peace dividends’ to war in Europe; from the end of one Cold War to a new East–West confrontation in Ukraine; from Pax Americana to a multipolar world; from the dream of an all-powerful UN to the organisation’s marginalisation. Against this tapestry, Hazan sheds light on the complex work of those steering peace negotiations, blending vivid first-hand observation with sharp insights into the psychology of compromise as a first step towards peace.

Genres: Nonfiction

179 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 2, 2024

Reviews

[Steffi · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Negotiating with the Devil: Inside the World of Armed Conflict Mediation" by Pierre Hazan. I have been somewhat waiting for this (slim and modest) book which just came out in February 2024. So hot off the press that it managed to add a foreword on Gaza (and the initial mediation undertaken by Qatar) post 7 October before going into print.

First of all, I appreciated this unpacking of moral complexity, dilemmas and impossible choices. When does mediation prolong a conflict, when does compromise become complicity? Is a peace deal capitulation? Can/ must we negotiate with the devil to save lives? There really are no easy answers and I am very suspicious of anyone who's offering one. I believe there are situations where we can and must negotiate with war criminals as, and this point is made somewhere in the book, there can be a hierarchy of rights, justice can be postponed, but the right to life can't. Etc, a lot.

So, this book offers some very interesting insider reflections and real life dilemmas around the role of mediation and humanitarian dialogue in armed conflicts with examples from Bosnia, Rwanda, Syria and Sahel Region.

The book also provides a good overview of the changing context for armed conflict mediation over the past three decades - it's brief heyday post Cold War under the unipolar world order (Pax Americana), followed by the global war on terror and anti-terror legislation that made it impossible for the UN and member states to negotiate with many belligerents now labeled 'terrorist' (and gave a greater role to private/ NGO mediation organizations such as the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue). As has been said elsewhere and cannot be overstated: The attacks of 11 September 2001, the launch of the ‘war on terror’ and American-led military interventions in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya undermined the liberal international order. Ostensibly launched to export democracy and stability, they instead brought greater chaos and misery to the Middle East and Central Asia, and drastically reduced the space for authorised official mediation efforts. Military operations paved the way for the deregulation of force, to the benefit of authoritarian regimes.

This was followed by a third and current phase: the erosion of American power, and of American hegemony and the emergence of a new international equation, with Russia and the United States at loggerheads while China and other regional powers grew in strength. As we can see these days, in this multipolar world there are all sorts of transactional deals and alliances, including among actors otherwise at war (eg Turkey brokered grain deal between Ukraine and Russia). While the demise of American hegemony has been gradual, NATO's regime change in Libya in 2011 under the pretext of the responsibility to protect is probably a good turning point.

I am sure the next edition will include its own chapters on Ukraine and Gaza where we collectively stand by as tens of thousands of trapped civilians get killed, starved and I guess soon cleansed from their home land (Gaza). The international order, if this existed, has broken down to a point of paralysis and I don't even know anymore what's the point of the UN if it cannot bring about an end to systematic killing of civilians in broad daylight.

But that's for another day.

[Largo Vanderkelen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zeer goed boek.
Hazan beschrijft aan de hand van enkele casussen de complexe situaties waarin politici, onderhandelaars en bemiddelaars zich kunnen bevinden.
Moeten we onderhandelen met 'terroristen'? Wat doen we met fake news en desinformatie?

Misschien de meest intrigerende vraag die Hazan opwerpt, is: "Wat is neutraliteit?" En hoe verschilt dat van onpartijdigheid?

Ik vind het een zeer goed geschreven boek: helder, to the point, en tegelijk genuanceerd.
De thematiek is bijzonder actueel in het licht van conflicten zoals Israël-Palestina, Israël-Iran en Rusland-Oekraïne.

Het boek roept terecht de vraag op of we in de internationale politiek de kunst van bemiddeling en onderhandeling niet stilaan aan het verleren zijn.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly interesting book

[Lefteris Hazapis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for current and future diplomats who want to defend human rights, equality, justice and civil society.