The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

‘THE HIGHER CAUSE OF PEACE’ 233being a party to negotiations, humanitarian assistance for confidence buildingand reconciliation, and secrecy and discretion. 52What makes Norwegian facilitation/mediation interesting is that it consists ofelements from both official mediation and track-two diplomacy. Furthermore,Norway has made this role something of a trademark in its foreign policy. InNorway, academics, NGOs and the foreign policy establishment have foundways to work together in conflict mediation. This seems to be happening less inFinland and Sweden.VIII. ConclusionsIt is argued in this chapter that adding mediation to the ESDP and adding it tothe European Union’s four priority areas of civilian crisis management—police,rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection—would help to bridgethe gap between conflict prevention and crisis management that is one of thecore features of the European Security Strategy. Mediation is a tool that can beused to bridge the gap because it can be employed at different phases of theconflict cycle. It is a flexible instrument for conflict resolution and can be usedby a variety of actors.The EU is often perceived to be a biased mediator and, therefore, is notalways accepted as a partner for political dialogue. It is internally divided andhas had difficulties in formulating shared positions on actual violent conflicts.Nor has it always had carrots to offer and sticks to use, as in cases where itmediates with a specific outcome in view. The lack of means leads easily to adeficit in its credibility, and possibly in its efficiency too. Therefore, alternativeand complementary mediation frameworks are needed to add a new element tothe ESDP.Post-Clausewitzean conflicts are often driven by such fundamental issues asthe identity of the parties and the survival of those identities, and alternativemeans for conflict resolution which are capable of tackling these ‘existential’concerns are needed. In other words, processes parallel to official diplomacyare needed because they can support official diplomacy by offering a frameworkfor the search for innovative solutions. Norway has managed to combinethe methods of alternative dispute resolution with its official diplomacy, andhas thereby brought a new and special element into small state mediation. It hasmaintained its standing as an impartial, neutral, facilitative, non-judgmental anddiagnostic third party, and its facilitation services are in demand in many differentparts of the world. It could, therefore, provide a model for Swedish andFinnish mediation within the EU context too. That would mean, however, thatthese countries should insist on adding mediation to the Union’s four priorityareas of civilian crisis management, and should be ready to work more closelywith the relevant academics and NGOs.52 Moolakkattu, J., ‘Norway’s peace facilitation in Sri Lanka’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 40, no. 4(forthcoming, 2005).