Understanding Track Ii Diplomacy: An Alternative Approach

Track II diplomacy is a form of unofficial conflict resolution that brings together non-state actors from conflicting groups to improve communication and understanding through informal dialogues. It aims to reduce anger, fear, and tension by facilitating workshops and conversations that help develop personal relationships and explore solutions from different perspectives. Track II diplomacy, often referred to as back-channel diplomacy, complements traditional Track I diplomacy by providing a flexible environment for testing ideas, building trust, and fostering relationships. While it does not carry the official weight of government-to-government negotiations, it can be a valuable tool for addressing intra-state conflicts and complex global challenges.

Explore related products

Track Two Diplomacy in Theory and Practice

$20.99 $28

Track-Two Diplomacy Toward an Israeli-Palestinian Solution, 1978-2014

$47

Scientists, Engineers, and Track-Two Diplomacy: A Half-Century of U.S.-Russian Interacademy Cooperation

$53

Track Two Diplomacy and Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Old City Initiative (UCLA Center for Middle East Development (CMED))

$52.2 $59.99

Track Two Diplomacy Between India and Pakistan: Peace Negotiations and Initiatives (Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics)

$52.99

Unsilencing the Past: Track-Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation

$12 $135

Track II diplomacy is a form of unofficial, non-structured interaction

Track II diplomacy is the practice of non-state actors using conflict 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. It is a form of diplomacy that occurs when private individuals meet unofficially and find common ground that official negotiators cannot.

Track II diplomacy is distinct from Track I diplomacy, which entails official, governmental diplomacy between nations, such as negotiations conducted by professional diplomats. Track II diplomacy refers to conflict resolution efforts by practitioners and theorists, involving "improved communication" to further "a better understanding of [conflicting groups'] point of view". While Track I diplomacy is a power-based, formal, and often rigid form of official interaction between instructed representatives of sovereign nations, Track II diplomacy is a nongovernmental, informal, and unofficial form of conflict resolution between citizen groups.

Track II diplomacy has been employed in various contexts, including the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, where several Track II initiatives have aimed to resolve or alleviate conflicts. It has also been used to promote unofficial citizen exchanges, such as the sustained Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, which began in 1992, and the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

It is always open-minded, altruistic, and strategically optimistic

Track II diplomacy is always open-minded, altruistic, and strategically optimistic. This means that it is based on the belief that conflicts can be resolved or eased by appealing to common human capabilities to respond to goodwill and reasonableness. This form of diplomacy is unofficial and unstructured, allowing for flexibility and creativity in the conflict resolution process.

The open-mindedness of Track II diplomacy stems from its recognition that private individuals, meeting unofficially, can often find common ground that official negotiators cannot. This is because unofficial interactions provide a safe and neutral space for individuals to build trust, hold difficult conversations, and discuss potential solutions without the constraints of formal negotiations. This openness also extends to the range of participants involved, which can include academics, religious leaders, retired senior officials, and NGO officials, bringing diverse perspectives and expertise to the dialogue.

The altruism in Track II diplomacy is evident in the assumption that conflict resolution can be achieved through appealing to the inherent goodness and reasonableness of human nature. This approach prioritizes the well-being of all parties involved and seeks to find mutually beneficial solutions. Additionally, the altruistic nature of Track II diplomacy is reflected in the willingness of participants to engage in difficult conversations and to explore alternative ideas for the greater good.

Strategic optimism is a key characteristic of Track II diplomacy. It involves a hopeful and positive mindset, believing that conflict resolution is possible and that progress can be made through improved communication and understanding. This optimism is strategic because it is based on a best-case analysis, recognizing that while challenges may exist, there is always potential for improvement and positive change. This optimism is essential to sustain the motivation and resilience needed to persevere through difficult conversations and negotiations.

Track II diplomacy's open-minded, altruistic, and strategically optimistic nature has been demonstrated in various successful initiatives. For example, the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began as Track II diplomacy and achieved significant breakthroughs. Additionally, the sustained Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, which began in 1992, is another example of the long-term commitment and optimism inherent in Track II diplomacy.

It is not a substitute for Track I diplomacy, but assists official actors in managing and resolving conflicts

Track II diplomacy is a form of unofficial, non-structured interaction that aims to resolve or ease conflicts by appealing to common human capabilities to respond to goodwill and reasonableness. It is often referred to as "back-channel diplomacy" and involves informal dialogues between various participants, such as academics, religious leaders, retired senior officials, and NGO officials. While it is not a substitute for Track I diplomacy, it assists official actors in managing and resolving conflicts by exploring possible solutions without the constraints of formal negotiations.

Track II diplomacy was first conceptualized in the 1970s by academics, free-thinking state department bureaucrats, and public intellectuals. It grew out of the observation that private individuals, meeting unofficially, can sometimes find common ground that official negotiators cannot. This type of diplomacy is based on the idea that citizens can take action and are not merely bystanders while governments negotiate. Initially, governments viewed Track II diplomacy with skepticism, considering it either a feel-good exercise or a threat to traditional diplomacy.

The term "Track II diplomacy" was first coined by Joseph V. Montville, a former Foreign Service officer, in an article published in 1981. Montville emphasized that Track II diplomacy is not meant to replace Track I diplomacy but to compensate for the constraints imposed on leaders by their people's psychological expectations. Track I diplomacy, or traditional diplomacy, refers to official, governmental negotiations between nations conducted by professional diplomats.

Track II diplomacy has since been employed in various initiatives, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, to resolve or alleviate conflicts. These initiatives often involve facilitated workshops that bring members of conflicting groups together to develop personal relationships, understand each other's perspectives, and create joint strategies for conflict resolution. While the effectiveness of Track II diplomacy is debated, it provides a flexible setting to test ideas, build relationships, and explore solutions when official channels may be limited or stuck.

In conclusion, Track II diplomacy is a valuable tool that assists official actors in managing and resolving conflicts. It provides an unofficial, open environment for individuals to build trust, hold conversations, and discuss solutions that may be difficult for official representatives. By involving various stakeholders and exploring multiple tracks, diplomats can address complex global challenges more effectively and find unconventional solutions when traditional methods fall short.

Explore related products

Track Two Diplomacy In India-Pakistan Relations

$64

Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia

$25

Conducting Track II Peacemaking (Peacemaker's Toolkit Book 3)

$10

Maya and Two Kinds of Diplomacy

$1.29

Scenarios for the Future of U.S.-Russia Strategic Stability and Arms Control (Rand Conference Proceedings)

$13.68 $15

The Heybeliada Talks: Two Years of Public Diplomacy on Cyprus

$0.99

It is an alternative to Western-led mediation, which often focuses on short-term conflict resolution

Track II diplomacy is an alternative to Western-led mediation, which often focuses on short-term conflict resolution. It is a form of unofficial, non-structured interaction that is open-minded, altruistic, and strategically optimistic. The underlying assumption of Track II diplomacy is that conflicts can be resolved or eased by appealing to common human capabilities to respond to goodwill and reasonableness. This type of diplomacy focuses on improving communication and understanding between citizens through workshops, conversations, and other activities.

Track II diplomacy was first conceptualized in the 1970s by a group of academics, free-thinking state department bureaucrats, and public intellectuals. The term "Track II diplomacy" was coined by American peace activist and former Foreign Service officer Joseph V. Montville in his 1981 article "Foreign Policy According to Freud." Montville's idea built upon earlier efforts, such as the gathering of unofficial American and Soviet delegations at Dartmouth College convened by President Dwight Eisenhower's friend Norman Cousins in the 1950s, and the Arab-Israeli meetings supported by groups like the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the 1970s.

One of the key strengths of Track II diplomacy is its ability to address historical and complex grievances and contentions, contributing to a more sustainable resolution. This is because it focuses on (re)building relationships and improving mutual understanding, rather than solely on short-term conflict resolution. Native-language speakers who understand the cultural codes of those involved are essential to the success of Track II mediation efforts.

Track II diplomacy has been particularly prominent in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, with the aim of resolving or alleviating conflicts. One successful example is the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which began as a Track II initiative with an unofficial dialogue facilitated by a Norwegian scholar. Over time, this initiative transitioned into Track I diplomacy, culminating in a handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO head Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.

While Track II diplomacy offers unique advantages, it is important to recognize that it is not a substitute for traditional Track I diplomacy. Instead, it serves as a complementary approach, assisting official actors in managing and resolving conflicts. Track II processes can help explore possible solutions derived from the public view, without the constraints of formal negotiation. However, it is important to note that Track II diplomacy is not a panacea, and debates persist about its effectiveness, limitations, and how it fits within the wider context of conflict resolution.

It can be used as a forum for discussing tough policy issues that two or more countries are trying to address

Track II diplomacy is a form of unofficial, non-structured interaction between conflicting groups. It is a process that is always open-minded, often altruistic, and strategically optimistic, based on a best-case analysis. It is a form of conflict resolution that aims to improve communication and mutual understanding between citizens of conflicting groups.

Track II diplomacy can be used as a forum for discussing tough policy issues that two or more countries are trying to address. It provides a private, open, and flexible environment for individuals to build trust and hold conversations that their official counterparts cannot or will not engage in. This form of diplomacy is particularly useful when official channels of communication are not functioning or when negotiations have reached an impasse. It can also help incorporate grassroots and civil society participation when these groups have been excluded from the official process.

An example of Track II diplomacy is the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which began as an unofficial initiative by a Norwegian scholar. This process achieved significant breakthroughs in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, and by the time it was finished, it had transitioned into official Track I diplomacy, culminating in a handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO head Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.

Another example of Track II diplomacy is the sustained Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, which began in 1992. This initiative brought together members of conflicting groups to develop personal relationships, understand each other's perspectives, and work towards joint strategies for conflict resolution.

Track II diplomacy has been particularly effective in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, where it has helped to resolve or alleviate conflicts. Academic institutions have played a crucial role in providing neutral sites for these dialogues, and native-language speakers have facilitated mediation by understanding the cultural codes of those involved.

Frequently asked questions