Media Home
UN Web TV
UN Audiovisual Library
UN PhotoSecurity Council
8334th Security Council Meeting: Maintenance of International Peace and Security Part 1
With conflicts taking on transnational dimensions, peace agreements growing more elusive and political will waning, the United Nations must be “bold and creative” in harnessing the avenues and capacities available for mediation, Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council today in an open debate on the topic.
“We must make prevention our priority,” he said, by investing in mediation, peacebuilding and sustainable development. The United Nations has various resources it deploys, including the Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers, whose members are providing guidance in the Central African Republic on transitional justice and assisting in the design of a mediation process in Yemen, among its many efforts around the world.
Discreet engagement also plays a role, he said, noting that talks with the Taliban, “away from the glare of publicity”, has allowed positions to be clarified, while broader work with non-governmental organizations — which often have greater freedom to establish contacts and foster dialogue with armed groups — has been instrumental to success. “I urge you to commit to more effective use of mediation,” he stressed.
Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, said mediation is only effective in the context of reconciliation. Communities must come to terms with history and learn to “disagree well”. As a member of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation, he advocated for a cross‑agency, cross‑departmental reconciliation strategy to be put in place. The time has come for the United Nations to move beyond fragmented work and place reconciliation at the core of its partnerships with faith communities, he asserted.
In such work, said Mossarat Qadeem, Executive Director of PAIMAN Alumni Trust, women have been excluded, stressing that, despite the rhetoric of support, “we as women remain largely outside the door”. There is a misconception about the role of mediator, who is seen in terms that are inherently masculine. Sharing her experience of negotiating with the Taliban in Pakistan, she asked: “How much longer can the world really afford to exclude those of us who are making peace at the front lines?”. The newly established Commonwealth Network of Women Mediators will provide patronage and structural support for women to serve as mediation mentors and advisers.
Women’s involvement in mediation was a theme that reverberated throughout the open debate, which heard some 70 delegates take the floor. Several — notably from the United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Netherlands and Brazil — called on the United Nations to ensure that women are involved meaningfully and equally, as leaders and decision‑makers, from national to local levels. Their participation is not “a box that can be ticked” by adding one or two women to negotiating teams, said Sweden’s delegate.
“Women should be involved before, during and especially following negotiations,” said Colombia’s delegate, who was one of several describing her country’s success in ending conflict. Ireland’s delegate, noting that women comprised just 2 per cent of mediators in major peace processes between 1990 and 2017, recognized the critical work of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition in achieving the Good Friday Agreement, which celebrates its twentieth anniversary this year.
Others focused on the Council’s need to support the greater use of mediation, with Kuwait’s delegate lamenting that the United Nations spent billions on managing conflicts when it could more wisely prioritize peaceful dispute settlement. He pressed the Council to give more responsibility to regional and subregional organizations.
On that point, Equatorial Guinea’s delegate, on behalf of Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia, said the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) have all played a key role, as seen recently in the Gambia and Guinea‑Bissau. Further, 20 African Union special envoys and mediators are deployed around the continent.
Underscoring the need to select mediators who are acceptable to all parties, Egypt’s delegate pressed the Council to consider the specific circumstances of each conflict. “We need to be flexible,” he said. The representative of the Russian Federation similarly cited knowledge of historic and cultural specificities as particularly useful and advocated using both objective criteria and geographic balance when selecting mediators.
Still others weighed the benefits and appropriate timelines for mediation. Even the world’s greatest mediators “cannot compel anyone to do anything”, said the United States delegate. The missing ingredient is often the Council’s own unwillingness to see a peace process succeed. In South Sudan, it waited years amid a bloody conflict before imposing sanctions and an arms embargo just last month. He supported the imposition of real consequences when parties are not willing to negotiate.
For Libya, its years-long internal dispute is due to political differences, said that country’s delegate. While he welcomed any United Nations mediation effort, the peace process must be Libyan-owned, as foreign intervention will only obstruct success.
Timing is important, said Switzerland’s delegate. Mediation must be attempted “when the time is right for settlement”. The Council is well positioned to influence and deliver the necessary conditions, as was the case in Yemen, when its mention of possible sanctions helped a mediator persuade belligerents.
Inevitably, said India’s delegate, the “torturous” decision-making within the United Nations, imbued with political trade-offs, saps the Organization of the dynamism and flexibility needed to pursue mediation. In every circumstance, mediation is a task the United Nations is not geared to fulfil. Rather than saddle it with activities, it is ill-suited to perform, and he advised exploring alternatives which use its competencies more judiciously.
Also speaking were representatives of Bolivia, Poland, France, Peru, China, Russian Federation, Turkey (on behalf of the Group of Friends of Mediation), Pakistan, Philippines, Lithuania, Iran, Liechtenstein, Canada, Jordan, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Guatemala, Ukraine, Argentina, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Japan, Georgia, Portugal, Sudan, Romania, Estonia, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Djibouti, Morocco, Belgium, Italy, Bangladesh, Venezuela (on behalf of the Non‑Aligned Movement), Kenya, Malaysia, Slovenia, Maldives, South Africa, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Viet Nam, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Haiti, Armenia, Fiji, Bahrain, Oman and Indonesia, as well as the European Union and the Holy See.
The meeting began at 10:06 a.m. and ended at 5 p.m.