Dealing with Biased Meditation: Lessons from the Malaysian and Libyan Mediation in the Philippines

Abstract

States intervene as mediators in pursuit of national or foreign policy interests. The prospective state mediator may be too closely aligned to one party or too directly involved in the conflict to be capable of meeting the minimum conditions of a sustainable agreement. The literature on mediation argues that neutrality serves as a necessary condition if a sustainable outcome is to be reached. Conflict of interests of mediators may further contribute to the intractability of the conflict. For instance, the unresolved conflict in Mindanao is increasingly seen as beneficial for Malaysia to detract the Philippine government in pursuing its claims over Sabah. Nevertheless, as the case of the Libyan and Malaysian mediation efforts in Southern Philippines shows, biased states as mediators can still manifest impartiality when they have stakes in being impartial. The condition of bias may actually promote the negotiation process by providing necessary political leverage towards the conflicting parties to recognize the “ripeness” for an agreement. A comparison of the Libyan and Malaysian mediation efforts in the Philippines shows two different directions: while Libya has remained biased to the benefit of the Muslim rebel groups, Malaysia has increasingly evolved from a biased to a genuinely neutral mediator.