Mediation is a dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party assists
the participants to reach a voluntary and informed settlement. Mediation and
diplomacy have both been used more and more frequently after the Second World
War in order to prevent such a tragedy from reoccurring. Diplomacy can be used
in several ways, but not all are considered orthodox although they can
contribute to peaceful resolutions of problems. Certain countries like the
United States are extremely advanced in almost all areas of technology,
industry, militia and economy, therefore controlling the upper hand in most
situations. The U.S. has a tendency to help other nations only if it will
benefit from the outcome. The United States often contributes to the resolving
of a conflict by sending spokespersons to represent the interests of their
country, which usually signifies large profits and also by sending troops to
ensure that no aggression is taken during the peace talks. Other countries such
as Canada have specialized peacekeeping troops to aid the citizens of a
discontent region repair damage that might have been caused or more often
prevent any aggression that might occur before a settlement is reached. In
history, it has been observed that Canada does not have as much of a hunger for
profit in aiding other countries as the United States, which is apparent in
Canada’s reputation. This Alternative Dispute Resolution has provided an
option for many countries to deal with international conflicts and disputes
rather than immediately resorting to violence. Nevertheless, there are always
exceptions to the rule and not all problems can be resolved peacefully and
without bloodshed. These exceptions must be recognized early enough so that the
proper measures can be taken to immediately settle the conflict. However, not
all attempts at resolving problems using diplomacy are successful and military
intervention is required. These situations are identifiable if the first
attempts at mediation or diplomacy result in continued aggression. During the
Second World War, England and France continually tried to prevent war with
Germany by using appeasement and creating several treaties like the Lend –
Lease agreement but all to no avail. It was apparent after the annexation of
Czechoslovakia and the distribution of Poland between Germany and Russia that
the conflict between Europe and Germany was not to be resolved using diplomacy.
Therefore, it must be recognized that diplomacy and mediation are excellent
first means of resolving any conflict, but if any dangerous incidents arise
during negotiations, such as invasion of nations, aggression towards any group
of people or mass death, other methods of dispute resolution should be used. In
August 1997, President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan, a former republic of the
Soviet Union, was received at the White House with full honors for an official
working visit with President Bill Clinton. Vice President Al Gore, Speaker Newt
Gingrich and Defense Secretary William Cohen also met with Mr. Aliyev. The White
House used the occasion to announce several economic assistance packages while
President Aliyev signed a new Amoco exploration deal. Of course, Mr. Aliyev’s
reception at the White House was only one step in an elaborate Clinton
administration policy in the pursuit of what it considers a U.S. national
interest: ensuring the potentially lucrative oil reserves in Azerbaijan and
adjoining energy fields in the Caspian Sea flow through pipelines in a westward
direction to the markets of Turkey and Western Europe. In order to achieve this
goal, the administration has actively engaged the government of Azerbaijan with
public and private diplomacy, offered the prospect of closer defense
cooperation, provided commercial incentives to boost investment in Azerbaijan,
and pressed Congress to lift sanctions imposed for its conflict with Armenia. In
fashioning a policy of active engagement with both Azerbaijan and its Central
Asian neighbors, the Clinton administration relied mostly on public displays of
partnership, including frequent visits by senior U.S. officials to the region
and public statements on U.S. hopes for the region. In its initial contacts with
the Central Asian governments, the administration often depended on the use of
non-official personages to break the ice. Washington foreign policy chiefs such
as Henry Kissinger, General Brent Scowcroft, and Zbiginiew Brzezinski were
active in the region, having served as consultants to the involved American oil
companies. But, in several cases, they also served as back-channel contacts,
which the administration used to signal support or discontent with a particular
idea. Despite heavy criticism from democratization advocates concerning U.S.
legitimization of an autocratic dictator and charges of favoritism from
Armenian-Americans, President Aliyev met with the President, Vice-President,
Cabinet secretaries Albright, Cohen and Pena, and CIA Director George Tenet.
Subjects for discussion included the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
Azerbaijan’s record on political pluralism and economic liberalization in
addition to the pipelines issue. When President Clinton intervened with
President Aliyev in the fall of 1995 to lobby Azerbaijan to accept the
construction of a second medium-term pipeline to Supsa, Georgia, he offered to
have the U.S. government engage more actively in peace efforts. Subsequently, in
early 1997, the U.S. took a more direct role by assuming co-chairmanship of the
OSCE peace process on this dispute, along with Russia and France. In the end of
the negotiations, a multiple of oil pipelines ran through U.S. allied states
towards Europe and avoided transit through Russia and Iran, as planned by the
American administration. Here is it shown that diplomacy resolved a potential
conflict between Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan concerning the newly found oil in
the Caspian Sea region. By using peaceful negotiations and the obvious strong
persuasion of the smallest force by the largest force, the United States was
able to fully utilize diplomacy to solve a conflict and benefit from it largely.
The U.S. saw no need to bring in military forces and therefore proceeded to
apply diplomacy to the fullest extent successfully without any negative
consequences.