Many people in the United States believe “The American Way” is to confront one another. We do seem to support those who say they will fight for their beliefs. And we also seem to find the Confucian practice of using intermediaries when in conflict as somehow less honorable than face-to-face confrontation.

I believe somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten that confrontation is only effective when followed by compromise.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Convention acceptance speech described the founding of the country: “When representatives from 13 unruly colonies met just down the road from here, some wanted to stick with the King. Some wanted to stick it to the king, and go their own way… Then somehow they began listening to each other… compromising… finding common purpose. And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation.”

Even the long past tradition of dueling has become misunderstood. We have forgotten the role of the seconds. Their primary role was actually to meet and attempt to resolve the conflict so that the duel would not be necessary.

Years later Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, developed the Missouri Compromise, South Carolina’s objection to tariffs and admission of California. Some historians now say with Clay’s death, the spirit of compromise left U.S. politics.

As a mediator, when I meet with a disputant who is adamant on not negotiating, I make several observations: “There are two possible outcomes here. Your win or you lose. And if you win your relationship with the other party will be destroyed. If you consider a compromise, both of you can come out with something and the relationship is preserved. Are you prepared for the loss?” My experience with those who refuse to negotiate is their real objective is not winning on the issue in dispute, but gaining power over the other party.

Why are disputants willing to risk it all for power? Winston Churchill said it clearly: “Power is a drug. Who tried it at least once is poisoned forever.”

Recent news reports identified Qatar as the mediator to resolve the Israel/Hamas hostage situation.

Qatar is located on a peninsula bordering the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia. It is country of some 2.5 million people ruled by an absolute monarchy. Qatar has “Major Non-NATO Ally” status with the U.S., which includes defense, trade, and security cooperation. The country hosts the regional headquarters for the U.S. Central Command and more than 8,000 U.S. military forces at various facilities, including the Al Udeid Air Base.

In the past, Qatar has acted as a mediator in regional conflicts involving Yemen in 2007, Lebanon in 2008, and more recently Afghanistan. How has this small state in a region of large forces been successful as a mediator? In the Middle East the larger players need a representative to deal with conflicting parties that’s neutral and can serve as an intermediary..

Qatar is following the tradition of small states taking on such a role. For example, Singapore provided the venue for talks between China and Taiwan in 2015 and between the U.S. and North Korea in 2018. Singapore’s Foreign Minister described the key to his country’s policy as neutrality. Norway has also acted in such a capacity for decades.

Some scholars have argued the small states actually have an advantage to act as mediators. Their neutrality makes them non-threatening and in fact, it can be argued their neutrality provides them with a unique type of power far greater than their size would suggest.

The key for any mediator or peace advocate is just that because only neutrality can facilitate peace.