What Norway has quietly learned about mediation

For a country of 5.5 million people, Norway has been involved as a discreet mediator in an outsized number of peace processes: the Oslo Accords, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Sudan, Mali and the Philippines, among others. Some succeeded, others did not. The model is worth examining.

The "Norwegian approach"

The defining traits, as analyzed by researchers like Hilde Henriksen Waage and Kristian Berg Harpviken: (1) no colonial history with the parties, (2) a small permanent network of seasoned diplomats and academics who specialize in mediation, (3) willingness to facilitate quietly without claiming credit, (4) close partnership with local civil society — usually a Norwegian NGO present on the ground for years before formal talks begin.

What works

The Colombian peace process is the strongest example: years of confidential back-channel work in Havana, Norwegian and Cuban facilitation, careful sequencing of substantive issues. Result: the FARC demobilized in 2016 and the country, while still grappling with implementation gaps, has not returned to large-scale armed conflict.

What doesn't

The Oslo Accords are widely studied as a mediation success that became a political failure — not because of the mediator, but because subsequent implementation collapsed under pressure from rejectionist forces on both sides. The Sri Lanka mediation similarly broke down when one party (the LTTE) was militarily defeated rather than negotiated with.

The lesson

Mediation is necessary but not sufficient. Without political will from the parties and credible international guarantees, the best mediator in the world cannot save a process. Norway's contribution is to maximize the chance that, when political will exists, a credible channel is already in place.