Charles Crawford, a former British ambassador, wrote a blog entitled "What is a 'mediator'? Just the useless tool of politicians determined to be seen to be doing something" (published on July 10th, 2012 on the website of The Telegraph). Below are a few paragraphs from the article, which is very thought provoking and interesting to read...

UN former Secretary-General Kofi Annan battles on in his role as ‘mediator’ in the Syrian problem. But what exactly is a mediator in such a context? Mediation has a long history, but the core idea is neutrality. You have no credibility if you look as if you are favouring one side, or have a preconceived idea as to what should happen with the conflict.

This is where international mediation efforts often runs into trouble. The more influential and well-known a mediator, the more likely it is that he comes with some sort of other agenda. Not least preserving the mediator’s own reputation.

...

many high-profile international mediation efforts are nothing of the sort, but rather international power-plays that manage to lurch the issue in a different direction and maybe calm it down, but without solving it.

...

what gives the mediator the right to define the process like that? Does it suit the parties? Has anyone asked them? By the way, who are the parties? Conclusion?

...

ill-conceived outside meddling may simply prolong the agony or even make the conflict worse. Would a busy earnest League of Nations mediator shuttling to and fro between Churchill, Hitler and Stalin have been useful?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/charlescrawford/100169870/what-is...