Getting In: Mediators’ Entry into the Settlement of African Conflicts (review)

Getting In examines the conditions for successful initiation of mediation in violent conflicts. It seeks to explain the motives of prospective mediators and the objectives of the parties in consenting to mediation and accepting particular mediators. The study focuses on the following questions: Why is mediation entry considered? Why do prospective mediators propose themselves? How do the parties choose a mediator? When is entry attempted and how is entry initiated? Successful entry is defined as a process through which a prospective mediator gains access to a conflict.

The research questions are investigated through six African case studies: Rwanda from 1990 to 1992; Burundi from 1993 to 1998; Congo (Braz-zaville) from 1991 to 1999; Sudan from 1983 to 1993; Liberia from 1989 to 1996; and Ethiopia-Eritrea from 1998 to 1999. With the exception of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border war, these cases entail domestic conflicts that pit rebels against the government.

The study of mediation entry is important for several reasons. First, the manner in which a mediation is initiated, the choice of the mediator, and the mediator’s first set of actions have profound effects on the eventual success or failure of the effort. Second, deep-rooted internal conflicts have enormous humanitarian and social costs but tend to be intractable, resistant to external efforts at resolution through negotiations. Third, much less research has been done on the entry phase than on the substantive process of mediation and negotiations.

The central thesis of the book is that mediation entry is “dependent on consent or acceptability, involving the self-interests of the parties as well as those of the prospective mediators. Prospective mediators are motivated by their own self-interests in either initiating entry or accepting an invitation to mediate and parties to a conflict are equally motivated by self-interests in accepting mediation and entry of a particular mediator” (75). The concluding chapter of the book draws on the case studies and explores various dimensions of this thesis. For example, there are interesting observations about the importance of the prospective or actual mediator’s definition of the conflict. That definition will influence the mediator’s acceptability to the various parties and their allies, the strategies and tactics of the mediation, and its eventual outcome.

The book’s theoretical emphasis on the self-interests of mediators and parties derives from a “realist interpretive framework of international relations whose notions of interests, power, and rationality are relevant to the analysis of entry” (12). I believe that this framework is inappropriate and limits the research perspective. The realist model is intended to explain the behavior of states and relations among states in an international system characterized by structural anarchy. It does not purport to explain the behavior of nonstate actors, the features of internal conflict, and rebellions aimed at capturing the state or, in the case of secessionist struggles, breaking free of the state and creating a new one. A theoretical orientation based on an international relations model inhibits a full and nuanced investigation of the dynamics and passions of internal conflicts and the reasons for their intractability.

Nevertheless, Getting In contains rich theoretical insights and excellent case studies, making it a significant contribution to our understanding of the elusive quest for sustainable peace through mediation of civil conflicts.