PUTTING ONE'S TRUST IN A MEDIATOR

It’s often stated as an obvious premise that participants of a mediation must be able to trust the mediator. But for what reasons is such an expectation necessary? A recent article in Counterpunch by Alfred De Zayas, “A Common-Sense Approach to Mediation for Peace,” provides the following insights:

Mediators must be perceived as impartial and objective. If parties believe a mediator has preferences and prejudices, the sessions will not succeed. In international affairs, for example, the Palestinians have never accepted the United States as a middle-man because they’re convinced the U.S. is “on Israel’s side.”

To be trusted, mediators can’t have a real, or believed, stake in the outcome of a session. Another example from international affairs is the Ukraine-Russia conflict, where one could surmisae a mediator from the U.S., U.K., or Germany is unlikely to be accepted. The factor of trust helps explain why mediators from Norway have been successful in ending civil wars in Maili and Guatemala. Norway has a commitment to unbiased peace building without self-interest.

Trust also comes from demonstrated skills of listening, understanding, and commitment to helping parties develop outcomes that are favorable for all involved. In doing so, the mediator cannot argue with the beliefs of the parties, but accept their ideologies as important to each.

Finally, in order to earn trust, mediators must have a good amount of stamina, patience, and perseverance in truly believing an acceptable outcome can be reached.