When the argument began in the governor’s office it was small — two men on opposite sides of a wall of glass, each certain the other would blink first. In the months that followed, it grew teeth: a blockade of goods, a night raid that the newspapers called a “miscalculation,” and then the slow unravel of neighbors’ trust. Everyone who watched said the same thing in different ways: it was just two parties, and two parties were enough to make a war out of a disagreement.
Mina watched from the edge of the city. She had spent twenty years as a mediator for a regional NGO, then another decade advising diplomats on what did and didn’t work when an outsider tried to lean into a fight. She knew the mechanical rules: a conflict begins with two parties; a third party can step in. But she also knew the gnarlier lessons that textbooks sometimes leave out.
There were three obvious paths. One: a third party stronger than both could step in and simply smash the feud into submission — impose a ceasefire, occupy the contested bridge, seize control of customs. It would stop the fighting, perhaps, but it would also leave a scar: the people on either side would remember the crushing. Mina had seen it after an intervention where a powerful neighbor installed a quick, brittle order; the calm lasted only until resentment fermented into a fresh cycle of violence. The literature calls this idea “muscular mediation” — coercive leverage to force a settlement — and its promise is double-edged: speed and fragility together.
Two: a third party of roughly equal weight could step in and try to cajole, negotiate, and broker a compromise. That was the romantic image of mediation — the calm, impartial mediator guiding both sides toward a table. But Mina knew that parity can be dangerous. If the mediator has no leverage, mediation can become a stage for grandstanding, or worse: a place where one or both sides use the forum to escalate their position because the mediator cannot punish or persuade. Research into mediator selection and bias shows biased or weak mediators often end up facilitating only minimal, nonbinding fixes rather than durable agreements.
The third option — the one Mina came to believe in — was neither force nor empty ritual but timing and craft. Conflicts, Zartman taught her, become negotiable when they are “ripe”: when both parties reach a mutually hurting stalemate and can see a plausible way out. Nobody negotiates sincerely when the alternative still looks winnable; what changes behavior is the perception that continuing is costlier than talking, and that a “way out” exists. In practice, a good third party’s job is often to help create or illuminate that ripeness without turning the table into a battlefield. Mina carried Zartman’s idea in her notebook like a talisman.
So she planned not to crush and not to stand beside them on the battlefield. She began by mapping costs and incentives: which industries would collapse if the blockade continued, which neighborhoods would run out of power first, which militias would find new sponsors if the state apparatus cracked. She worked quietly — humanitarian corridors, small confidence-building measures, an anonymous human-rights report that made the toll of the stalemate visible to people who still had to vote. Above all, she created a “way out”: a technical proposal for phased trade normalization tied to independent monitoring, jobs guarantees for layoff-prone districts, and a neutral fund to underwrite infrastructure repairs. If both parties could imagine leaving the fight without losing face, they might be willing to step back from the thrill of escalation.
Mina’s plan also accounted for the hard truths of third-party action. Impartiality matters, but it is not a magic shield. Perceptions of bias — even accidental ones — can sabotage negotiations; the mediator’s reputation for fairness is part craft, part track record. International organizations like the UN still play outsized roles in these moments, but their reach has limits. Peace operations and third-party missions can stabilize agreements and monitor commitments, yet they are not immune to dysfunction: recent reporting and reviews have underscored both the value and the vulnerability of peacekeeping — including troubling misconduct that erodes local trust when it appears. Mina built transparency into every step so that oversight was continuous and allegations could be addressed quickly, because the social contract of mediation is as fragile as any treaty.
The negotiations did not look like a sudden miracle. They looked like a series of small, visible reversals: a ferry reopened to allow a doctor to cross, then a school food program resumed, then a small stream of goods moved under camera supervision. Each tiny compromise shifted the calculus just enough for the parties to calculate loss differently. When the governor’s chief of staff finally asked for a private meeting with the opposition negotiator, it was because both men could now point to the costs of not talking and to a plausible political pathway out.
Mina learned one last lesson in that room: third parties are not neutral gods; they are instruments of human judgment. Sometimes the world needs a muscular hand to stop slaughter. Sometimes it needs a quiet architect to scaffold a way out. And sometimes, it needs both — a credible promise of enforcement (so agreements will hold) paired with inducements that make bargaining attractive. The academic literature and the field both agree that mixed approaches — calibrated coercion, credible monitoring, and the conditions of ripeness — are often the only route to durable peace.
When the two men signed a fragile memorandum, it did not end the old stories people told about grudges. But it shortened them. In time, the broken markets reopened; in time, the children who had learned to whisper “them” instead of “neighbor” began to play on the same patches of asphalt again. Mina closed her notebook and left the city the way she always did: quietly, without fanfare. She carried with her the knowledge that the smallest unit of conflict is two parties — but the smallest unit of durable peace is an honest, well-timed third chair at the table.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
Trump fails to secure Ukraine ceasefire after Putin call: What’s next?
Comments