It’s Not Wrong to Get Along: How Governments Can Mediate Foreign Conflicts

The United State’s role in ending the politically-motivated violence in Northern Ireland was successful due to its foundations in inclusivity, neutrality, and the promotion of democratic solutions (Alashqar 68). Beginning in the 1960s, Northern Ireland was faced with a problem: was Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom, or seek independence? This question led to clashes between Irish Nationalists and Irish Unionists, leading to the intervention of the United States. The United States, under President Bill Clinton, communicated with both Northern Ireland and The United Kingdom in order to maintain positive relationships with each party. The United States also remained neutral during talks and negotiations; the US allowed the countries to figure out the solutions by themselves in the presence of the mediator. The US also pushed for legitimate, democratic solutions to the conflict, which in turn created a tangible solution to the fighting. It is only with fair and legitimate solutions and documents that conflicts like these can be solved.

To contrast, the United States did not follow the same precedent they set in the Northern Ireland-UK talks in the attempted resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US has neglected to portray a sense of neutrality, inclusivity, and has failed to create or embrace democratic solutions. The United States considers Israel a strategic ally, and often favors Israel during negotiations between Israel and Palestine (Alashqar 71). This one-sidedness and exclusivity has likely made the situation in Palestine worse, exacerbating the conflict. The US also does not allow other countries to negotiate with Israel and Palestine, trapping Palestine into either fighting or resigning. This lack of fair, legitimate, and unbiased mediation has failed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Given that fair mediation is provided, the conflict between China and Taiwan as well as the fight for Kashmir could be solved. China and Taiwan have been in conflict for over 60 years due to the exile of the old Chinese government in 1949, when Mao Zedong took over China. This lead Chiang Kai-shek to start a new nation on the island of Taiwan, claiming to be the only “real China” (Great Brawl 23) Even now as both parties have agreed to disagree on the matter of which country is the real China, there are still tensions between Taiwan and China. China is prepared to go to war if Taiwan attempts independence, but war could lead to bigger conflicts as the United States, as per the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, is obligated to help Taiwan against China’s forces should need be. A mediator from an outside country would likely help deescalate the situation. The fight for Kashmir between India and Pakistan, dating back to the late 1940s, has been an occasionally violent conflict, originating when the prince of Pakistan decided to remain neutral from India and Pakistan (Kashmir Conflict). A mediator would likely deescalate the stakes here too, and prevent further violence.

In times of conflict, a country striving to be a mediator must embrace neutrality, legitimacy, and inclusivity in order to maintain a peaceful and beneficial relationship between both countries. When done correctly, mediation results in a tangible solution that maintains prosperity, but when done carelessly, can result in further conflict.

Works Cited

Alashqar, Yaser. “Comparative Perspective: The United States and Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, vol. 22, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 68-75. EBSCOhost. Accessed 19 May 2017.

“A Brief History of the Kashmir Conflict.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 24 Sept. 2001, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html. Accessed 22 May 2017.

“The Great Brawl of China.” The Economist, vol. 422, no. 9031, 17 Mar. 2017, pp. 23-26.