Senior peace mediation adviser Luxshi Vimalarajah, who has spent years as a practitioner worldwide, from Myanmar to the Basque Country, here sheds light on the minuscule details that need to be taken into consideration when bringing opposing sides to the table.

Many people dream of being astronauts or musicians. How did you get into mediation?
It has a lot to do with my childhood. I grew up partly in Sri Lanka when the civil war between the state and Liberation Tigers of Tamil was in full force. Thousands were displaced and fled the country during that time. Negotiations took place periodically but they were seen as a war by other means: it was all about defeating the other side at the table or a tactical move to gain more time. I grew up watching these negotiations, which were a failure. Both sides were insisting on these maximalist goals and were unwilling to negotiate in good faith. There was also deep mistrust and huge asymmetry between the parties. The Sri Lankan state had access to the international community, to resources and to power. The other side didn’t. How can you resolve a deep-rooted conflict like that? How can you help the parties to make the shift from violent politics to non-violent? So those two questions were key for me and led me to study political science and then specialise in peace mediation. The Sri Lanka conflict helped me to understand the tool of mediation and what assets a third party brings, as a go-between and an honest broker. The third party helps to level the playing field and find common ground.

It must be so hard remaining impartial or neutral given that it is part of human nature to form opinions. How do you do it and foster that skill?
As a mediator, you are expected to be impartial: free from bias and treating all conflicting parties in an even-handed and fair manner. You are equidistant between the parties. You don’t have any stakes in the outcome of the agreement or the negotiations, and you try to provide the space for both parties to negotiate an amicable outcome. Nowadays we insist that we are not neutral third parties; we also bring our ethics, our values and how we see the world into a process. And so it’s not whatever the parties want; there are clear limitations. Some parties enter a mediation process thinking that they can negotiate blanket amnesties for the crimes committed during the war. They sometimes even make it a precondition. However, we are bound by international humanitarian law and UN mediation guidelines that prohibit amnesties for gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity. We try to be as impartial as possible but it’s not always easy. There are moments when it might be better to step out of the process and bring another third party in.

What makes a good mediator?
Sometimes parties want to have a more authoritative mediator who tells them how to manage a conflict. But in other cases, parties just want to have a space where they can explore options and be provided with ideas. For instance, [Finland’s former president] Martti Ahtisaari in the Aceh process [in Indonesia] was seen as a very authoritative figure. He structured the process and provided the space but he also made it clear from the outset that a separate state for the gam militants was off the table. You might have question marks about such an approach but sometimes parties do prefer to have that.

Are there golden rules?
Never seek to embarrass your adversary. You have to create a situation where none of the parties really lose face, particularly in an Asian or African context. It is so important that you set a framework that allows parties to retain their dignity. The golden rule in our field, just like in others, is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. So this obviously encompasses respect, fairness and engaging in negotiations in good faith. These are the golden rules that I always apply in mediation processes. Elsewhere, an approach that really helps parties to see how they can make this shift is called the Harvard Principled Negotiation. These are all about moving from positions to interests. It’s not about what you want. Usually parties are stuck with: I want independence; I want a unitary state; I want this and that. But these principles dig a bit deeper and ask the questions of why they need it. This shift from what to why is quite important. Interests lie below positions and that’s a way in which you can accompany the parties to see not just their own interests but also the ones on the other side.

This could lead to agreement through compromise?
Compromise is not a term I use. We tend to think that if parties are in conflict, they have to find a compromise. Both sides will probably not be satisfied but they have to somehow meet in the middle, right? But this isn’t something that I propagate, because neither side gets what it wants. It is a lose-lose situation. There are many ways to deal with conflict and the more prominent one is one side gets what it wants and the other doesn’t – a win-lose paradigm. But what we try to do is to find a way in which both sides may get what they want.

It is hard and it also takes a lot of time to understand how we can find a mutually agreeable solution based on these underlying interests. Do you know the story about a fight over an orange between siblings at home? There’s just one orange left and both children want it. What would a mother normally do? Cut the orange in half and give each child an equal share. That feels fair as it’s half and half. So that’s the classic compromise situation. But both children end up unhappy. And they begrudgingly accept the solution. But what could have made the situation better, do you think?

Tough one. What about giving one child an orange today and the other child another tomorrow?
It’s actually very simple. The mother should have asked why they wanted the orange. We usually assume that both want to eat the orange and so we cut the orange in half. But if she had asked the children, she could have made a better decision. Because it turned out that one wanted the orange to make juice and the other one needed the zest to bake a cake. And both would have got what they really wanted if the mother had asked the right question. 

You must have to be fastidiously aware of every tiny detail when bringing opposing sides together.
Tiny details matter a lot. When you come into a process and the parties have not met you but might have heard a lot, the perceived weaker side always assumes that you will most probably privilege the stronger party, which is usually the state. Without even knowing how you conduct the process, they always assume that you are biased towards the state. And so these assumptions drive the way they behave at the table. The first two or three rounds are always a testing phase. Who does she shake hands with first? Is it the state or us? How does she sit? Does she frown when we speak or just when the other side speaks? Why is she shaking her head? Every minor, non-verbal expression from your side is observed. My formal sessions always start with an informal moment, checking all these details, from seating plans to how I’m going to address them. Do they have a preference to speak first, or can we let the other side speak? So it’s a major drama. One process I was involved with almost broke down because we hadn’t checked all these details. It’s exhausting but I always say that preparation is everything. My rule of thumb is: if you have a two-day session, you need to take four days to prepare for that.

I see you are currently involved in ‘discreet’ mediation in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Can you shed more light on these processes?
I mean, they’re discreet, so I can’t say anything! Perhaps the most successful mediation processes are those we don’t get to really hear about, because they happen long before any conflict breaks out. We know mediation as a tool to resolve conflict but we hardly pay any attention to its preventive function. It’s not widely covered but it is powerful to really prevent the outbreak of conflict and violence in the first place. A lot of mediation happens behind the scenes and when parties are ready to explore other options, because they know that if they don’t, they’ll end up in a violent conflict.

Do you have a most memorable moment from your time in the field?
One was in 2008 when members of the Basque movement approached the Berghof Foundation and asked whether we could assist eta [an armed separatist group] and the wider Basque movement to transition away from violent politics. eta was banned in those days as a proscribed terrorist organisation, yet it was willing to consider laying down arms – but only in a dignified way. It wanted to have a negotiation process and a plan for demobilisation. The Spanish state insisted that if eta wanted to demobilise, it should lay down arms, and it resisted negotiating with eta. For us, it was a very unusual process accompanying an armed movement but it was an important one, because we were fearing what would happen to the weapons, to the people in exile and on the run, to the active militants and the wider Basque community. How could we encourage more inclusive processes so that the Basque community itself was involved in such a transition and not simply a bystander? How could we prevent further radicalisation and polarisation in a situation where there was no negotiation process with the Spanish state? Over two years, I was engaged in a quiet process with several sections of the Basque movement, facilitating their internal strategy-building process. I brought them together with movements that have undergone a transition process successfully – such as Sinn Féin and South Africa’s African National Congress – to learn from them. We gave negotiation training to the Basque political arm known as Abertzale Left, and helped to provide options for the inclusion of civil society in the peace process. We were involved behind the scenes throughout the whole process, from the initial cessation of hostilities to eta’s eventual demobilisation.

How do you convince two people who don’t want to be in a room together to actually sit down in a room together?
I’m always asked this question these days in relation to Ukraine and Russia. I always say that mediation is a voluntary process. It’s also not a silver bullet. We have to have certain conditions in place for it to work. One of those is a willingness from both sides to settle the conflict and the realisation that continuing the struggle will be more costly than ending the conflict. There often needs to be what we call the mutually hurting stalemate: a situation where neither side can really win the conflict, leading to a situation of lose-lose. Only when parties see that – and want to have a different way of engaging with each other – is the time right for mediation.

Your orange story earlier makes me think about mediation in a domestic setting. What are the lessons that we can apply to avoid arguing with our partners or children this Christmas?
Mediation is all about communication. It’s important to ask the right questions and not jump to assumptions. Avoid “yes” or “no” questions and leading ones such as: “Do you think he was right when he said X or Y?” That puts people off. Instead, be curious and try to understand the other person. So, “Can you tell me more about what triggered this reaction of yours?” Dig deeper, put yourself in the shoes of the other person and try to understand what makes them uncomfortable. My second point is the need to listen actively. We don’t listen and instead are constantly thinking about what we are going to say next while our counterpart is talking. This means we don’t pay attention to what he or she says and that can be detrimental. You have to seek understanding before being understood. So listen attentively and actively to the other side before you start to talk yourself.

Do you find yourself using professional mediation skills that you’ve acquired during your career with your own family? Or do you sometimes throw that orange against the wall?
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine. I was telling her that all my knowledge about mediation doesn’t work in this context. You also have limitations, particularly when you are a conflict party. You can end up resorting to the sorts of tactics that a conflict party uses in such a situation. So, it’s sometimes difficult to restrain. And then you have to reflect. It’s not easy but you can also learn that way. When I teach mediation to my diplomat students, I always tell them that they can go and practise in their personal life, because we’re constantly negotiating with our children, with ourselves, with our employers or employees. When we use mediation very consciously, it really helps to have a better relationship with the people around us.