The difficulties inherent in mediation are well illustrated by a story about the attempt Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, made to mediate the Iranian hostage crisis. When he arrived at the airport in Tehran, a large crowd was there to receive him. He stood at the microphone with his translator and said, "I've come here to mediate a compromise in this difficult controversy between your country and the United States." Well, it turns out that in Farsi, "mediate" means "meddle" and "compromise" is the worst of words, meaning to violate one's principles! There is not much doubt that at the time "United States" translated into the "Arm of Satan," thus it is not surprising to learn that Waldheim's stay in Tehran was quite short.

Skepticism about bringing an outsider into a dispute—although perhaps not to the degree in the situation above—is healthy and sometimes justified. A mediator is not needed if the parties can negotiate effectively on their own. The parties to some kinds of environmental disputes, however, often do not negotiate with each other effectively or even at all. Thus, the fact that mediators have been employed successfully over the past 10 years in helping the parties negotiate settlements of scores of complex environmental disputes is encouraging.¹