Mediation as Statecraft: Reimagining India’s Diplomatic Toolkit
Hitha R
Introduction
India’s foreign policy has evolved from traditional non-alignment to a more nuanced multi-alignment strategy, which now lies at the core of its global diplomacy initiatives. In an increasingly polarised global order, India remains one of the few states capable of maintaining substantive strategic relationships with diverse and often competing actors such as the European Union, the United States, Russia, and Israel. While these partnerships may appear contradictory at first glance, they are in fact consistent with India’s broader aspiration of becoming a “vishwa mitra” , a trusted friend to the world.
This unique positioning creates a strong foundation for India to emerge as a credible mediator in the geopolitical landscape. However, to fully leverage this potential, India must institutionalise mediation within its diplomatic framework. At present, conflict resolution functions are subsumed under the Policy Planning & Research Division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which primarily focuses on strategic analysis and conflict diplomacy. What is lacking is a specialised, dedicated unit that focuses exclusively on mediation and negotiation support.
This article begins with an analysis of global mediation practices, followed by an outline of key actors who can serve as mediators in international conflicts. It then examines the major challenges and limitations of mediation. Building on this, it conceptualises mediation as a strategic tool of foreign policy and explains its advantages over coercive methods. This article concludes by advocating for the institutionalisation of mediation within India’s foreign policy framework.
Global practices
Comparative global practices highlight the value of the institutionalisation of conflict resolution bodies (specifically mediation) within foreign policy. The United States, for instance, operates the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilisation Operations (CSO), which provides targeted analytical and operational support for peace processes. Within it, the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) brings together a domain of experts who assist in complex negotiations which involve states, non-state actors, and multilateral bodies. Norway adopts a similarly structured approach, combining the efforts of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs with institutions like the Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution (NOREF) and the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), which contribute research, field insights, and operational backing. Qatar has embedded mediation directly within its foreign ministry through dedicated portfolios, envoys, and specialised officials. Meanwhile, China has taken a more ambitious route by establishing the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed), reflecting its intent to shape global dispute resolution norms and position itself as a rule-maker, particularly within the Global South.
In this context, creating a dedicated mediation and conflict resolution division within India’s MEA would not only strengthen its diplomatic toolkit but also align with its broader vision of global engagement and leadership.
Mediation
Mediation as a form of conflict management in which ultimate decision-making power remains with the disputants (Moore 1986).
International Mediation is, ‘a way of peacefully resolving international disputes which involves a third party’s direct involvement in negotiations between the parties to the dispute, with the goal of encouraging the parties make concessions, or through the use of diplomatic channels propose a plan for resolution of the conflict which the parties might take into consideration and ultimately adopt’. Luiza Barbosa and Roberto Kuster in their article on third party actors in international conflict resolution conclude that international peace mediation is up to eight times more effective than coercive sanctions.
Who can act as a mediator in an international conflict?
• Individuals: Often high-ranking officials acting in a private or non- representative capacity, though they are rarely the dominant actors.
• States: The most common mediators, typically represented by top decision-makers.
• Institutions and Organizations: This includes international organizations like the United Nations (UN) and transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Obstacles and Challenges
• Competition: Multiple actors vying for a mediation role can lead to “forum shopping,” where conflicting parties play intermediaries against each other.
• Cultural Gaps: Mediators without local knowledge may fail to decode culturally encoded messages, potentially widening the gap between parties.
• Funding and Training: Regional organizations often lack the predictable funding and professional training necessary to sustain long-term engagement.
• Recidivism: Approximately 44% of countries return to conflict within five years if mediators only address surface-level issues rather than the deep-rooted “grassroots” causes.
Mediation as foreign policy
Saadia Touval in his article on mediation and foreign policy proposes a perspective which views mediation as a form of strategic state behaviour, driven by calculated advantages (drawing from Schelling). It is shaped by: a state’s foreign policy objectives, domestic political needs and its perception of the international system. The mediator is not just a neutral facilitator, but a political actor pursuing its own interests, where conflict resolution is only one of several goals. Mediation strategies and decisions are influenced by domestic politics (e.g. elections, public opinion), geopolitical interests and alliance dynamics. An interesting example of this is the US mediation in the 1970 Egypt–Israel conflict which aimed at reducing Soviet influence during the Cold War.
Why is mediation the way to go?
1. Preservation of Party Autonomy and Flexibility
Mediation ensures that control over the outcome remains with the disputing parties. This voluntary and non-coercive nature increases compliance and satisfaction with outcomes, as parties are more likely to adhere to solutions, they have actively shaped. Unlike litigation or arbitration, mediation allows flexible, interest-based solutions rather than rigid, rights-based determinations.
2. Strategic Tool for Emerging Powers and Soft Power Projection
For emerging countries such as Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and China, mediation serves as a means of gaining international recognition and legitimacy. Acting as mediators enhances their soft power by portraying them as responsible and constructive global actors. Policies like the “zero problems with neighbours” approach strengthen their credibility, enabling them to position themselves as neutral and trusted peace brokers, thereby elevating their global status and influence.
3. Pathway to Peaceful Resolution and Greater Autonomy in International Relations
Mediation provides a diplomatic alternative to coercive or adversarial methods of dispute resolution. It allows states to resolve conflicts without external imposition, thereby preserving sovereignty and promoting peaceful coexistence. Additionally, by engaging in mediation processes either as participants or facilitator states can assert greater autonomy in shaping regional and international conflict resolution frameworks.
Conclusion
Mediation is one of several foreign policy instruments, alongside military, economic, and diplomatic tools, operating across both domestic and international spheres and often evolving from a means into an end in itself. Understanding mediation requires analysing a state’s strategic intent, political constraints, and the dynamic interplay between domestic considerations and global factors. Far from being a neutral process, it functions as a purposeful instrument of statecraft. Accordingly, mediation can serve as a powerful diplomatic tool, and India should prioritise the creation of a dedicated conflict resolution wing focused on international conflict mediation within the ministry of external affairs to advance its international diplomatic objectives.
References:
• Barbosa, L., & Kuster, R. (2019). The Coordination Between International and Regional Organizations (Third Party Actors) as an Effective Recourse for the International Conflict Resolution Through Mediation: The African Union’s Example. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, 26(1/2), 138–172. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915366
• Saadia Touval, Mediation and Foreign Policy, International Studies Review, Volume 5, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages 91–95, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1079-1760.2003.00504009.x
• Mediation as Strategy: India’s Missed Opportunity? – RSIS https://share.google/MZjI0gzRT2PrK1V0N
• (Bercovitch, J. (1985). Third Parties in Conflict Management: The Structure and Conditions of Effective Mediation in International Relations. International Journal, 40(4), 736–752. https://doi.org/10.2307/40202320) — jstor
• Bercovitch, J., & Schneider, G. (2000). Who Mediates? The Political Economy of International Conflict Management. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 145–165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/424917
• Haixia, Q. (2007). A Comparison of the Effectiveness of International Conflict Mediation Strategies. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1(4), 589–622. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48615651
• Dieckhoff, M. (2014). International Mediation: A Specific Diplomatic Tool For Emerging Countries? European Review of International Studies, 1(2), 107–124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26593338