Diego García Pérez.

Conflict Management

Salvadorian Civil War and Mediation

In the text “Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts” by Wallensteen
and Svenson, offers a theoretical approach to the armed conflict mediation by
providing key concepts, definitions and concepts to understand the conditions under
which mediation process help bring armed conflicts to peaceful ends. In this fashion,
the aim of this paper is to apply the theoretical background provided by the authors
to the particular case of the Civil War of El Salvador.
This civil war was an internal armed conflict that occurred in the Central American
country in which the Armed Forces confronted the insurgent forces of the Farabundo
Martí Front for the National Liberation. The conflict was never officially declared, but
it is usually accepted to have developed between 1980 and 1992. The number of
victims of this armed confrontation has been estimated in more than 70,000 dead
and 8,000 disappeared. The conflict ended, after a process of dialogue between the
parties, with the signing of a peace agreement, which allowed the demobilization of
the guerrilla forces and their incorporation into the political life of the country.
According to Peter Wallensteen & Isak Svensson the international mediation in
armed conflicts, is a process of conflict where the disputants seek the assistance of,
or accept an offer of help from a third party to settle their conflict or resolve their
differences without resorting to physical violence. In the Salvadorian civil war this
role was played by the special representative of the Secretary General of the UN,
the Peruvian diplomat Álvaro de Soto, as an outsider actor he had no authority to
impose any kind of outcome but the capacity to facilitate the dialogue between the
Government and the Farabundo Marti Front.

Another third party involved in this conflict was the CONTADORA group, a
multilateral initiative created in 1983 by Mexico, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela
and, in this particular case, Spain; were an important actor which facilitated the
approach between the contending parties which led to the peace treaties. As Greig
& Regan assert, there are factors that could determine the involvement of the
mediator such as being a neighboring state to the country in conflict, prior
involvement in the dispute, a shared defense pact and a former colonial tie. In my
opinion, the advantage of a multilateral group over an individual as a mediator is that
the risk of a bias mediation is lower,

In my perspective, due to the fact that the armed conflicts vary from each other and
respond to different causes there are different approaches to tackle them, therefore
in order to find the most suitable one is necessary to consider the historical context
and the ideological background which led to the conflict. In this regard, some authors
such as Touval and Zartman (1985) and Bercovitch have distinguish in their work
three different mediation strategies, the formulative (procedural), facilitative
(communicative) and manipulative (directive). In my opinion, in the afore mentioned
conflict a communicative strategy was applied, this is because in the case the
mediator was the key element which facilitated the dialogue between the disputant
parties. It was through successive rounds between the government and the FMLN
in San José (1990), New York (1991) and Mexico City (1991) how small
commitments in terms of human rights, security, justice, truth, reparation, land
ownership and the progressive ceasefire were achieved.

All these agreements would lead to the signing of peace in Chapultepec (Mexico) in
1992, which contemplated a general amnesty, a comprehensive reform of the armed
forces, civilian police, justice system, electoral system, economic and social
arrangemetns, land property issues. The agreement also includes provisions for the
political participation of the FMLN and for a final ceasefire with the disbarment,
demobilization and reintegration of the armed groups

REFERENCES
Touval, Saadia & I William Zartman (2007) International mediation in the post-Cold
War era. In: Chester A Crocker, Fen Osier Hampson & Pamela Aall (eds) Leashing
the dogs of war: Conflict Management In a Divided World. Washing ton, DC:
United States Institute of Peace, 437-454