Prof. Mari Katayanagi

HIGHLIGHTS:

Assessing the multi-dimensional aspects

"The Dayton Peace Accords can be evaluated from different angles. Different aspects. But I wouldn't say that we can do it in a continuum. I would rather say we can look at it as a radar-chart or polyhedron so that we can assess the multi-dimensional aspects of this peace accord."

Each negotiation has its own context

"We haven't been looking at [Dayton] as the negotiation model. If we look at it as the process of negotiation, it can be a blueprint for future negotiations. But, of course, each negotiation has its own context. Conflicts and stakeholders are different."

Strong leadership and negotiation style

"The shuttle diplomacy was very special. And it is said that before US really became committed to the negotiation, it didn't work well, but it's because of the US strong leadership or strong style of negotiation, it worked out."

You cannot leave until you agree

"In the end, to put all the leaders in one place, isolated place, and tell them that you cannot leave until you agree. This is a very special or unique type of negotiation model, and I wouldn't say that this works all the time in all cases. But this can be one of the blueprints for future conflict resolution or peace-making."

Dayton would be unlikely in today's climate

"It's like the second Cold War today, and it's very difficult to negotiate anything or come to a consensus among powerful countries. So, in this context, it would be very difficult to negotiate the kind of agreement we had for the Dayton Peace Accords. It's possible that we couldn't have reached the Dayton Peace Accords in the current environment."

Future conflict mediation: Regional efforts over Western mediation

"My guess is that there would be more kind of regional efforts for peace negotiation. Unfortunately, I think the Western States have lost trust from other countries or other regions. So this means that countries in different parts of the world wouldn't try to rely on Western leaders or powerful countries."

Today, the 'push' effect is missing

"The role that the Western countries and the US played in the Dayton Peace Agreement was significant in pushing the conflicting parties to sit at the table and compromise so that a peace agreement could be signed. This strong push will be absent [today]."

A deeper understanding of the local context to design the peace agreement

"I would think the future peace negotiation would be more regional based, and for that, we need it to be more based on local expertise. It's not necessarily a bad thing because, as we all know, every conflict has its own context in peace negotiation, peace agreement, or peacebuilding. We have to think about the unique context of each conflict. So, in that sense, we may rely on the local expertise."

TRANSCRIPT:

• Please explain your connection and expertise with the Dayton Peace Accords.

"I have spent about eight years in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that was a couple of years after the Dayton Peace Accords was signed. I first worked for the Japanese Embassy in Sarajevo and then later I have joined the office of the High Representative and served as a political advisor there. Mainly I have worked with the Central Election Commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina and observed and also tried to participate in the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords."

• Should we observe the Dayton Peace Accords as a continuum, whereby its positive and negative attributes change depending on the context? How do we reconcile this Success-Failure tension when discussing its future and legacy?

"Dayton Peace Accords can be evaluated from different angles, different aspects. But I wouldn't say that we can do it in continuum. I would rather say we can look at it as a radar chart or polyhedron so that we can assess the multidimensional aspects of this peace accords."

• How can we observe the Dayton Negotiations Model: as a legacy of skilful diplomacy that ended a war and kept peace for 29 years or as a blueprint for future conflict resolution?

"When we talk about a model, it's probably because of the complex content of the Peace Accords. But indeed, we haven't been looking at it as a negotiation model. If we look at it as the process of negotiation, it can be a blueprint for future negotiation. But of course, each negotiation has its own context. So the conflicts are different and also the stakeholders are different. In case of the Dayton Peace Accords negotiation, there were previous, preceding negotiations that could have given the ideas for negotiations as well. So in addition to that, of course, the shuttle diplomacy, that was very special. And it is said that before US really became committed to the negotiation, it didn't work well, but it's because of the US strong leadership or strong style of negotiation, it worked out. So shuttle negotiation is one thing, but then at the end to put all the leaders in one place, isolated place, and tell them that you cannot leave until you agree, this is a very special or unique type of negotiation model. And I wouldn't say that this works all the time in all cases, but this can be one of the blueprints for future conflict resolution or peacemaking."

• If we look at current global affairs, do you think the international consensus to end a war is weaker today than in 1995? Would the Dayton Peace Accords be successfully negotiated and signed today?

"We are in a very, very difficult time today. For example, we are questioning the legitimacy or capacity of the United Nations in case of the Dayton negotiation. Of course, UN's role was not that strong, but at least in the Security Council's functioning in the 1990s and negotiations were possible amongst powerful states. But today it's like the second Cold War and it's very, very difficult to negotiate anything or to come to a consensus among powerful countries. So in this context it would be very difficult to have the kind of negotiation which we had for the Dayton Peace Accords. When I come back to your question, indeed it could be, it's possible that we couldn't reach or we couldn't have reached the Dayton Peace Accords in the current environment."

• Finally, what do you see as the key challenges for the future of conflict mediation?

"If this political environment continues, we don't have the world leader to look up to, which means my guess is that there will be more kind of regional efforts for peace negotiation. Unfortunately, I think the Western states have lost trust from other countries or other regions. So this means that the countries in different parts of the world wouldn't try to rely on the Western leaders or powerful countries. So I think that the future peace negotiation would be more regionally based. And for that, of course, it's more based on local expertise. And it's not necessarily a bad thing because, as we all know, that every conflict has its own context. And in peace negotiation, peace agreement or peace building, we have to think about, the unique context of each conflict. So in that sense, we may rely on the local expertise with deeper understanding of the local context to design the peace agreement. However, of course, the role that the Western countries, or in the Dayton Peace Agreement U.S. has played, was really significant to push the conflicting parties to sit at the table and compromise so that the peace agreement can be signed. And this strong push will be absent. So how we can achieve that in case the regional organizations can play that role, that could be good, but it's not that easy. I would say that one strong leader may be more efficient in playing this role of pushing the stakeholders. When it comes to these regional organizations, there are several member states involved and it's difficult to achieve the consensus of this group of states. So we can expect a stronger role of regional organizations in peace negotiations. However, the effectiveness is, how can I say, there is no promise of the effectiveness of this style of negotiations."