Written by: Arushi Singh
There are two models of third party mediation which have resulted in sustainable negotiations. These efforts encompass mediation by superpowers and small states. Notably, the Middle East has seen the emergence of both these kinds of mediators in recent years whose efforts remain contingent on the timing of mediation, leverage, and vested interests. Notably, experts state that mediation by small states benefits from the countries’ ability to be perceived as non-threatening while large states can exercise their capacity to wield leverage effectively and ascend as guarantors of agreements. Nevertheless, mediation remains “an interest-driven act” and an apparatus for foreign policy that provides small states with “greater visibility than their size warrants.”
Notably, the Middle East has seen the emergence of both these kinds of mediators in recent years
Qatar
This has been exemplified by the efforts of Qatar which has emerged as an indispensable mediator during the ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas. However, Qatar is currently facing scrutiny due to its ties with Hamas. Qatar has hosted Hamas’s political wing since 2012 and has reportedly provided financial support, including public-sector salaries and development funds to the group. Qatar solidified its role as an intermediary for the US with extremist groups and pariah states. While this approach has positioned Qatar as a diplomatic powerbroker, it has also faced allegations of supporting terrorism due to its willingness to engage with extremist groups. Despite this, Doha has highlighted the high risks associated with diplomatic engagement and defended its efforts.
For instance, Qatar played a crucial role in negotiating the release of five US citizens in exchange for five Iranian citizens, along with the unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian assets. Furthermore, Qatari authorities played an important part in finalizing essential terms for a ceasefire that endured for seven days in Gaza and facilitated the liberation of hostages held in Gaza in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Additionally, the ceasefire enabled the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip. In the same month, six Ukrainian children, who were taken by Russia following Moscow’s invasion, were united with their families through mediation efforts by Qatar which had also led to the return of three Ukrainian children in October 2023. This further illustrates that Qatar has retained its diplomatic prowess to mediate conflicts and ease tensions in the Middle East and beyond despite the 2017 blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
UAE
Meanwhile, the UAE’s Foreign Ministry announced the release of 100 Russian prisoners in exchange for 100 Ukrainian prisoners in February 2024. This followed similar agreements concerning UAE- Russia and Ukraine in January 2024 and between the US and Russia in December 2022. Additionally, Abu Dhabi played a considerable part in negotiating the evacuation of Egyptian soldiers from Sudan during the civil war outbreak in April 2023. These diplomatic achievements highlight Abu Dhabi’s ability to leverage its relationships with various parties to mediate and de-escalate conflicts. Particularly, while addressing criticism from the US over its relations with Russia which is perceived as undermining Western efforts to pressure Moscow regarding its military campaign in Ukraine. Notably, the UAE aims to maintain its role as a key mediator in major conflicts by utilizing its independent relationships with diverse actors.
Turkey
In May 2023, Turkey mediated the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Following this, in December 2023, Ankara secured the release of the four individuals affiliated with Hamas from Libyan custody. They were initially detained in Libya in 2016 for arms trafficking to the Gaza Strip. After their release, the Hamas members reportedly traveled to Turkey with plans to eventually reach Qatar, where the group is based. Subsequently, Turkey has been skillfully navigating its position amidst the conflict initiated by Hamas against Israel on October 7, 2023. This has led to speculation that Ankara could emerge as a possible mediator. Consequently, Turkey’s mediation efforts in the conflict have focused on the release of hostages, preventing a humanitarian crisis, regionalizing the conflict, and reviving the two-state solution process. However, Turkey’s halting trade with Israel over domestic concerns could limit Ankara’s mediating potential.
The success of these mediators also depends on the regional context. Scholars propound that unlike the Western approach, where mediators maintain neutrality and facilitate discussions for parties to find solutions independently, Arab/Islamic mediation emphasizes the mediator’s status and reputation, along with the expectation that the mediator possesses comprehensive solutions. The mediator actively engages as a factfinder and evaluator rather than remaining neutral. Moreover, while Western mediators focus on understanding legal procedures, Middle Eastern mediators are compelled to prioritize knowledge about the conflict’s history and specifics. Furthermore, unlike Western mediation, which typically substitutes formal legal proceedings, mediation in the Middle East often occurs concurrently with such procedures.
The success of these mediators also depends on the regional context...
Notably, despite the presence of multiple regional states that could have acted as mediators, China successfully mediated the restoration of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This marked a significant development given the longstanding rivalry and severed relations between the two countries for multiple years. It also underscores the ongoing capability of states, classified as “near peer competitors” to the sole superpower, such as China to mediate longstanding regional conflicts.
In this context, the current world order’s shift from unipolar to multipolar has provided opportunities for various powers that are not perceived to be too keenly affiliated with any one state to advance their influence and attain leverage on the global stage by facilitating contentious negotiations. However, this enhanced relations of non-traditional mediators with violent non-state actors that stretch into economic and political support which is likely to be detrimental to the long-term stability of the region. Additionally, traditional mediators such as the US’s ability to mediate has been hindered by the perception of closeness with established regional powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Washington’s actions have resulted in a regional interpretation of the US’s prioritization of alignment with one party in particular regional conflicts which has diminished its capacity to function as a peacemaker and provided the space for non-traditional mediators to emerge.
Disclaimer
This content is part of ISI Commentaries to serve the latest comprehensive and reliable analysis on International Relations, security, politics, and social-cultural in Indo-Pacific Region. Read more how to to submit it: https://www.isi-indonesia.com/write-for-us
About the Writer
Arushi Singh has a master's in Geopolitics and International Relations. She has domain experience in the geopolitics of West Asia, the geopolitical implications of great power competition in Africa, Russia’s foreign policy orientations, and emerging technologies. She currently serves as a researcher at the Consortium of Indo-Pacific Researchers and a geopolitical risk analyst for a private consulting firm based in the Middle East.
Email: arushi4525@gmail.com
Comentários