| Conflict resolution |
|---|
| Principles |
| Law |
| Management |
| International relations |
| Models and theories |
Track II diplomacy is the practice ofnon-state actors usingconflict resolution tactics (such as workshops and conversations) to "[lower] the anger or tension or fear that exists" between conflicting groups.
These "non-governmental, informal and unofficial contacts" host activities to improve communication and understanding between citizens, such as through workshops and conversations.[1]
According to American peace activist Joseph V. Montville, who coined the term, track I diplomacy entails official, governmentaldiplomacy between nations, such asnegotiations conducted by professionaldiplomats.[2] Track II diplomacy refers to conflict resolution efforts by practitioners and theorists. These efforts involve "improvedcommunication" to further "a better understanding of [conflicting groups'] point of view".[3]
In 1981, Joseph V. Montville, then aU.S. State Department employee, coined the phrases track one and track two diplomacy in "Foreign Policy According to Freud," which appeared inForeign Policy.[3]
The efforts of these conflict resolution professionals, generally operating throughnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) anduniversities, arose from the realization by diplomats and others that formal official government-to-government interactions were not necessarily the most effective methods for securinginternational cooperation or resolving differences.
Track two diplomacy is unofficial, non-structured interaction. It is always open minded, oftenaltruistic, and ... strategically optimistic, based on best case analysis. Its underlying assumption is that actual or potential conflict can be resolved or eased by appealing to common human capabilities to respond to good will and reasonableness. Scientific and cultural exchanges are examples of track two diplomacy. The problem mostpolitical liberals fail to recognize is that reasonable and altruistic interaction with foreign countries cannot be an alternative to traditional track one diplomacy, with its official posturing and its underlying threat of the use of force. Both tracks are necessary for psychological reasons and both need each other.[4]
Montville (Davidson & Montville, 1981) maintains that there are two basic processes in track two diplomacy. The first consists of facilitatedworkshops that bring members of conflicting groups together to developpersonal relationships, understand the conflict from the perspective of others, and develop joint strategies for solving the conflict. The second process involves working to shift public opinion: "Here the task is a psychological one which consists of reducing the sense of victim hood of the parties and rehumanizing the image of the adversary."[5]
Montville emphasized that Track Two Diplomacy is not a substitute for Track One Diplomacy, but compensates for the constraints imposed on leaders by their people's psychological expectations. However, track two diplomacy is not a replacement for track one diplomacy. Rather, it is there to assist official actors to manage and resolve conflicts by exploring possible solutions derived from the public view, without the requirements of formalnegotiation.[6] In addition, the termtrack 1.5 diplomacy is used by some analysts to define a situation where official and non-official actors cooperate inconflict resolution.[7] Most important, Track Two Diplomacy is intended to provide a bridge or complement official Track One negotiations.[8]
Methods for conducting these activities are still evolving as is the thinking around which individuals—representing various roles and functions insociety and government—should be included. Montville points out that "there is no evidence that conflict resolution workshops would work for the principalpolitical leaders themselves—perhaps because they are too tough or even impervious to the humanizing process."[9] John McDonald (Sep 2003–Aug 2004) seconds this assumption but feels that it is merely because the leaders are stuck in rigid roles and politically have less access to fluidity than individuals further removed from the top echelon of government (McDonald, Sep 2003–Aug 2004).
.jpg)
In 1986 John McDonald and Diane Bendahmane (1987) producedConflict Resolution: Track Two Diplomacy, a book that compiled the thoughts of several Track One and Track Two professionals confirming the need for government to support, encourage, and work with Track Two. The Department of State refused to print the book for eighteen months because the Department has a strong defensiveness regarding its right, ability, and authority to conduct conflict resolution. The book was finally published in 1987 and states that
The official government apparatus for analyzinginternational security issues and designingforeign policy has to equip itself to support and benefit from track two diplomacy. As part of the process,government analysts must improve their capabilities to understand how history, society, culture, and psychology interact.[10]
At a special briefing for representatives of non-governmental organizations, theU.S. Department of State's Deputy Director for Political Affairs in the Office ofIraq presented a plea for help from NGOs (Paul Sutphin, 2004). Acting underSecretary Colin Powell's initiative and authority, the State Department's Iraqi analysts explained their frustrations in conducting dialogue, developinggrassroots relationships, and rebuildinginfrastructure. Far from admitting that the State Department was limited in its right, ability, and authority to conduct conflict resolution, they admitted that they couldn't build relationships or spend money fast enough to rebuild Iraq in time to appease the Iraqis and needed help to do it. This may not be the ideal situation in terms of NGO and State Department cooperation.
"Further Exploration of Track Two Diplomacy" was published in 1991 as an Occasional Paper (McDonald), and as a chapter inTiming the De-Escalation of International Conflicts (Kriesberg & Thorson, 1991). Moreover, in the same year, "The Arrow and the Olive Branch," which was written as an article inThe Psychodynamics of International Relations, Montville adds the third process in track two diplomacy. Aside from previous two processes of facilitating small workshops and influencing public opinion, he claims that the third process is cooperative economic development. Although it may not seem essential to conflict resolution, it is meaningful in the sense that it providesincentives, institutional support, and continuity to the political and psychological processes.[11]
In 1996 Dr. Louise Diamond and John McDonald publishedMulti-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. Since then themodel has been more robustly developed and the original second track has been expanded into nine tracks: peacemaking through diplomacy, conflict resolution,commerce, personal involvement, learning, advocacy,religion, funding, information.[12]
One of the successful track two dialogue processes can be theOslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which achieved some remarkable breakthroughs in the Israeli–Palestinian relationship. The contacts began as a track two diplomacy, with an unofficial initiative by aNorwegianscholar, but had transitioned into track one diplomacy by the time it was finished, finalized with a handshake between IsraeliPrime MinisterYitzhak Rabin and PLO headYasser Arafat on theWhite House lawn.[13]
Another example can be the sustainedJewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group which begun in 1992. From 2003 to 2007 it partnered withCamp Tawonga to bring hundreds of adults and youth from 50 different towns inPalestine andIsrael to successfully live and communicate together at the Palestinian-Jewish Family Peacemakers Camp—Oseh Shalom – Sanea al-Salam.[14]
| Roles |
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offices | |||||||||||||||||
| Types | |||||||||||||||||
| Topics | |||||||||||||||||
| Documents | |||||||||||||||||
| Other topics | |||||||||||||||||
