Peace Mediation Could Be Japan's Next Big Diplomatic Tool 

このページを で読む

Last October, the Liberal Democratic Party and Nippon Ishin no Kai signed a coalition agreement committing to establish a peace mediation division within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Five months later, in March of this year, the ministry followed through, creating its International Peace Mediation Unit within the Foreign Policy Bureau.

Around the same time, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation launched its own Center for Mediation Support. At the heart of both developments is Akiko Horiba, the center's director, who helped drive this series of changes and holds an extensive global network in the field.

She sat down with The Sankei Shimbun to discuss why Japan is uniquely positioned to play a larger role in resolving the world's conflicts—and why it's in the country's interest to do so. 

A Path Into the Field

What drew you to this field?

It started in childhood, watching news coverage of the Yugoslav Wars. Seeing what were called "religious wars," I thought: mediation is something only Japan can do. That conviction led me to study religion—and then to Indonesia's Maluku province, where I spent two years living inside both Christian and Muslim communities to research a conflict firsthand.

Were you accepted by both sides?

Being Japanese opened doors. In Muslim areas where local extremists were present, I introduced myself as a student of Islam and was welcomed. My accommodation was right in front of one of their bases, and sometimes they'd even give me motorcycle rides while I was doing my research. The same openness met me in Christian communities. The reason I could hear the honest views of both sides was that I'm Japanese. Being a woman probably helped too.

Does religion actually cause war?

Religion is not the cause of war. What happens is that politics exploits religion—drawing on identity, customs, and the forms that faith takes. But the root cause lies elsewhere.

What Peace Mediation Is—and Isn't

Japan now has dedicated peace mediation structures in both government and civil society. What changed? 

While wars between major powers dominate the headlines, there is a quieter but growing category of conflict that rarely makes the news — tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Cambodia and Thailand, for instance. 

The Sasakawa Peace Foundation has long been involved in conflicts that rarely become international issues, including in Myanmar and southern Thailand. With the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now also establishing a peace mediation division, Japan is well positioned to demonstrate a public-private commitment to engagement.

What does peace mediation actually involve?

Peace mediation is the work of supporting dialogue between parties in conflict. Mediators serve as behind-the-scenes facilitators—a kind of invisible bridge-builder—who build trust and support communication beneath the surface. Training conflict parties to recognize alternatives to the use of armed force is equally important.

In Thailand's deep south [Pattani], violent incidents have recently been rising, yet deaths from armed group violence have remained rare. The armed groups underwent training and became conscious of the need to avoid casualties.

Once peace dialogue begins, violence generally decreases. And while the classic image of peace mediation is a dramatic signing ceremony, that's increasingly giving way to small, incremental agreements on local security, freedom of movement, and economic activity. 

What matters most is the dialogue process itself. When parties continue to engage and maintain their relationship, it becomes possible to prevent tensions from rising and violence from escalating.

How central is trust-building?

Without trust, you can't see the real information or what people truly think. Speaking the local language helps enormously. So does a clear division of roles: civil society lays the groundwork for dialogue, while governments provide the final push.

The Countries That Got There First

What have Qatar and Switzerland gotten right?

Both have made peace mediation a constitutional diplomatic principle. Qatar hosts offices for both the Taliban and Hamas—controversial, but strategically significant. As a result, the international community can negotiate with both through Qatar, making it a vital diplomatic channel. Through decades of commitment, Switzerland has earned the trust of key decision-makers in world capitals. Peace mediation not only contributes to conflict resolution—it also enhances a country's voice and diplomatic presence on the world stage.

Oman also played a quiet role in the 2023 Saudi-Iranian normalization. Is that a model?

Oman is understated about it, but peace mediation is something it pursues for its own security and the region's—it's a national strategy. The UK and Germany have also recently created dedicated conflict resolution divisions within their foreign ministries. Seeing this trend was part of what convinced me that Japan needed to follow suit.

Is this national interest dressed up as idealism? 

No country does this purely out of idealism about peace. When the parties to a conflict reach an agreement, they think to themselves, "Thank you, Japan." The sense that Japan helped them get where they are, and that they can turn to Japan when needed—that is Japan's real strength. The vision I hold is of a mature, self-reliant country that others turn to for help.

Japan's Opportunity

Could this become a new pillar of Japanese diplomacy?

Expectations for Japan are high, particularly in the Middle East. Japan has relatively few historical entanglements in the region, and unlike China, its strategic intentions aren't too visible, so trust in Japan remains high. But that goodwill won't last forever. Trust doesn't sustain itself indefinitely if nothing is done with it.

Japan doesn't need to reinvent its diplomacy—peace mediation should be a natural extension of what it already does well. There's also a connection to economic security: many resource-rich regions are also conflict zones. Building trust and networks with conflict parties and regional stakeholders serves both as a contribution to peace and as a genuine national interest.

Japan need not go it alone, either. It can work in partnership with countries that already have extensive experience, like Switzerland and Norway. Simply offering Japan as a venue for dialogue carries real weight. The trust built there becomes an important asset for the future—and among those who gather, there may well be future leaders of their countries and regions.

Is this kind of work expensive?

It takes time, but it doesn't require the kind of budget that ODA does. A British NGO-supported peace process in Ethiopia's Ogaden region took over six years to reach agreement—and the cost, it's said, was about half the price of a single tank. With Japan's defense budget now significantly expanded, some of that investment could go toward peace mediation, which helps improve the security environment.

RELATED:

Achieving Peace in Myanmar, a Quest In Need of More International Support

(Read the article in Japanese.)

Author: Makiko Takita, The Sankei Shimbun

このページを で読む