| Summary/Abstract |
This article questions the appropriateness of third parties' interventions seeking to foster political reconciliation. The analysis is divided into three parts. The first stresses a widely accepted premise in the field of conflict resolution, namely that mediation oriented towards reconciliation is inherently positive. The second part questions this moralistic perspective. It emphasizes the limits of specific mediation processes designed to transform the relationships between former enemies. The third part concentrates on the ‘pragmatics’ of mediation. It highlights the tensions, contradictions, and dilemmas faced by third parties eager to favour a rapprochement between parties. The intention of the article is to be neither cynical nor euphoric about calls for reconciliation coming from third parties. It explores the notion of failure, considering three main variables: the actors' intentions, timing, and the effects on the most affected populations (survivors and families of victims). From a practical perspective, a better understanding of the issue is a sine qua non condition for more efficient interventions. From an ethical perspective, it is crucial to consider whether calls for reconciliation coming from outside might paradoxically contribute to new patterns of exclusion.
|