'Can compromises for peace justify sacrifices in justice, or do they risk inciting further violence?' Photo: Book cover of Negotiating With the Devil: Inside the world of armed conflict mediation, by Pierre Hazan
Negotiating With the Devil: Inside the world of armed conflict mediation, by Pierre Hazan
Author: Pierre Hazan. Review by Eamonn Gearon
Winston Churchill is not the first person to come to mind when one thinks of a mediator. But something he said came to mind while reading this book.
It is relatively short, 155 pages, but it is well-written and thought-provoking, with a carefully-constructed central argument. It considers the decline in the power of mediation over the past twenty-plus years, why this came about, and possible remedies to reverse this dangerous drift.
Central to Pierre Hazan’s argument is that international mediators like him have been at a disadvantage since the rules of engagement were radically rewritten in the wake of the 11 September attacks. Talking to all sides was no longer seen as a virtue; instead it was declared a crime to talk to any parties deemed terrorists.
Hazan has advised NGOs, governments and armed groups on justice, amnesty, reparation, truth commissions, international humanitarian law and human rights. He comes across as an informed and intelligent guide to the complex world of international mediation. Unflinchingly honest, what comes through most is his deep-rooted humanity.
The text is divided in two parts. Part one, ‘In the Fog of the Peace Process’, lays out the author’s argument about the decline in the power of mediation, while part two, ‘In Search of the Lesser Evil’, offers a number of case studies that reinforce or otherwise tease out the ideas from Part One. These include chapter titles such as ‘Should We Negotiate with the Devil?’, ‘From Morality to Hubris’, and ‘To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate?’.
Part two opens with ‘From Compromise to Complicity’, which considers the term ‘neutrality’ and how it is understood, and how it might go wrong. He draws here on the case of neutrality as interpreted by the Red Cross in the face of evidence of the holocaust. From here, it is an obvious step to a discussion on ‘Neutrality in the Face of Genocide’; and examples from ‘Bosnia: Farewell to Neutrality’, and the contemporary war in Syria, ‘Mission Impossible.’
It might be going too far to say the book ends on a happy note, but the final example, ‘The Sahel: Talking with Jihadists’, gives grounds for cautious optimism, in spite of the seemingly overwhelming odds.
At the heart of the book is the tension between the pursuit of peace and the paramountcy of justice. Can compromises for peace justify sacrifices in justice, or do they risk inciting further violence?
This may be something of an insider’s account, but one that deserves the widest possible readership.
To end with our beginning, Churchill’s oft-misquoted line is ‘Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war’. Or as Hazan puts it, ‘You need to deal with everyone – including the really bad guys.’
