Hubbry Logo
Track II diplomacyTrack II diplomacyMain
Open search
Track II diplomacy
Community hub
Track II diplomacy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Track II diplomacy
Track II diplomacy
Track II diplomacy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A workshop for peacebuilding skills in Haiti, 2013.
Conflict resolution
Principles
Law
Management
International relations
Models and theories

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, such as through workshops and conversations.[1]

According to American peace activist Joseph V. Montville, who coined the term, track I diplomacy entails official, governmental diplomacy between nations, such as negotiations conducted by professional diplomats.[2] Track II diplomacy refers to conflict resolution efforts by practitioners and theorists. These efforts involve "improved communication" to further "a better understanding of [conflicting groups'] point of view".[3]

History

[edit]

In 1981, Joseph V. Montville, then a U.S. State Department employee, coined the phrases track one and track two diplomacy in "Foreign Policy According to Freud," which appeared in Foreign Policy.[3]

The efforts of these conflict resolution professionals, generally operating through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities, arose from the realization by diplomats and others that formal official government-to-government interactions were not necessarily the most effective methods for securing international cooperation or resolving differences.

Track two diplomacy is unofficial, non-structured interaction. It is always open minded, often altruistic, 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 most political 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 facilitated workshops that bring members of conflicting groups together to develop personal 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 formal negotiation.[6] In addition, the term track 1.5 diplomacy is used by some analysts to define a situation where official and non-official actors cooperate in conflict 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 in society and government—should be included. Montville points out that "there is no evidence that conflict resolution workshops would work for the principal political 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).

A peacebuilding workshop for Karen peoples in 2014 comprised representatives from 27 Myanmar villages. Contentious topics included resettlement, land seizure, higher education, health issues, and business opportunities.

In 1986 John McDonald and Diane Bendahmane (1987) produced Conflict 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 analyzing international security issues and designing foreign 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, the U.S. Department of State's Deputy Director for Political Affairs in the Office of Iraq presented a plea for help from NGOs (Paul Sutphin, 2004). Acting under Secretary Colin Powell's initiative and authority, the State Department's Iraqi analysts explained their frustrations in conducting dialogue, developing grassroots relationships, and rebuilding infrastructure. 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 in Timing 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 in The 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 provides incentives, institutional support, and continuity to the political and psychological processes.[11]

In 1996 Dr. Louise Diamond and John McDonald published Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. Since then the model 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 the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestine 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 a Norwegian scholar, but had transitioned into track one diplomacy by the time it was finished, finalized with a handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO head Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.[13]

Another example can be the sustained Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group which begun in 1992. From 2003 to 2007 it partnered with Camp Tawonga to bring hundreds of adults and youth from 50 different towns in Palestine and Israel to successfully live and communicate together at the Palestinian-Jewish Family Peacemakers Camp—Oseh Shalom – Sanea al-Salam.[14]

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Diamond & McDonald, 1991, p. 1.
  2. ^ Kaye, 2007, p. 5.
  3. ^ a b McDonald & Bendahmane, 1987, p.1.
  4. ^ Davidson & Montville, 1981, p. 155.
  5. ^ McDonald & Bendahmane, 1987, p. 10.
  6. ^ Montville, 1991, pp. 162–163.
  7. ^ United States Institute of Peace, Glossary of Terms for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, "Tracks of diplomacy".
  8. ^ Mapendere, Jeffrey (Summer 2000). "Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity of Tracks" (PDF). Culture of Peace Online Journal. 2 (1): 66–81.
  9. ^ McDonald & Bendahmane, 1987, p. 14.
  10. ^ Davidson & Montville, 1981, pp. 156–57.
  11. ^ Montville, 1991, pp. 163–164.
  12. ^ Institute for Multi-track diplomacy, "What is multi-track diplomacy?"
  13. ^ Montville, 2006, pp. 19–20.
  14. ^ Peacemaker Camp 2007, website

General and cited references

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Track II diplomacy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Track II diplomacy consists of unofficial, non-binding dialogues and interactions conducted by private citizens, academics, former officials, and representatives from non-governmental organizations on behalf of parties engaged in international conflict or tension, with the aim of building trust, exploring creative solutions to intractable issues, and generating ideas that may indirectly influence official government negotiations. Distinct from Track I , which involves accredited government diplomats with authority to bind states, Track II processes emphasize problem-solving workshops, confidential seminars, and relationship-building among influential mid-level actors who lack formal power but possess expertise or access to policymakers. The practice traces its conceptual roots to the post-World War II era, when informal academic exchanges and citizen initiatives sought to address divisions, but the term "Track II diplomacy" was formalized in the early 1980s by U.S. diplomat Joseph Montville to describe structured unofficial efforts aimed at psychological and relational healing between adversaries. Early applications included U.S.-Soviet dialogues on and European security during the and 1980s, where participants tested ideas too politically risky for official channels. By the 1990s, Track II efforts expanded to regional hotspots, such as the , where workshops involving Israeli and Arab intellectuals contributed preliminary frameworks for that later informed formal accords, though direct causal links to binding agreements remain debated due to the non-authoritative nature of the talks. Key characteristics include confidentiality to encourage candor, focus on humanizing the "other side" through narrative exchange, and iterative engagement to sustain long-term contacts, often complementing multi-track approaches that integrate Track III efforts. Notable successes encompass in U.S.- relations via sustained academic tracks since the , which facilitated ping-pong diplomacy's spillover into official normalization, and post-apartheid South African dialogues that bridged racial divides prior to regime transition. However, its effectiveness is constrained by dependency on eventual Track I adoption, with critics noting instances where Track II initiatives diffused pressure on governments without yielding tangible policy shifts, particularly in highly asymmetric conflicts where one side views unofficial talks as legitimizing intransigence. Despite these limitations, empirical assessments from think tanks highlight its value in sustaining communication during diplomatic freezes and cultivating future leaders amenable to compromise.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Distinctions

Track II diplomacy consists of unofficial, informal dialogues and problem-solving activities undertaken by non-governmental participants, including academics, retired officials, and NGO representatives, to explore strategies, cultivate interpersonal trust across divides, and generate ideas that can indirectly shape official negotiations. The concept originated with U.S. diplomat Joseph V. Montville, who in 1981 defined it as open-minded, non-structured interactions between private citizens or groups from conflicting parties, aimed at de-escalating tensions through empathetic understanding rather than enforceable outcomes. Unlike Track I diplomacy, which entails formal, government-led negotiations between accredited state representatives possessing authority to commit resources or forge binding agreements, Track II operates without official mandates or legal enforceability, enabling candid exploration of politically sensitive issues avoided in public forums. This distinction arises from Track II's emphasis on relational dynamics and rapport-building among individuals, which permits flexibility in agenda-setting and reduces posturing driven by national positions, though outcomes rely on voluntary dissemination to influence policymakers rather than direct implementation. The "multi-track" framework extends this binary by incorporating additional layers, such as Track III's focus on citizen networks for broader societal ; however, Track II remains centered on elite-level unofficial engagements by knowledgeable intermediaries, preserving its role as a bridge between formal authority and public involvement without diluting into .

Theoretical Underpinnings

Track II diplomacy draws from social-psychological approaches to , particularly interactive problem-solving workshops pioneered by Herbert Kelman in the and 1970s. These workshops convene small groups of influential non-officials from conflicting parties to analyze conflict dynamics in a confidential, non-binding setting, fostering mutual understanding of underlying needs and fears rather than positional . Kelman posited that such interactions promote "second-order change" by altering participants' cognitive frames—from adversarial perceptions to collaborative problem-solving orientations—potentially seeding ideas for official channels without immediate political accountability. The causal rationale rests on the premise that informal dialogues mitigate escalation risks inherent in Track I negotiations, allowing experimentation with novel solutions amid power asymmetries that rigidify official stances. Proponents argue this process builds interpersonal trust and epistemic communities among elites, facilitating indirect influence on policymakers through back-channel , though underscores that transformative effects hinge on deliberate linkage mechanisms to formal . However, causal limits emerge where structural imbalances—such as military dominance or ideological entrenchment—override perceptual shifts, rendering unofficial efforts adaptive rather than disruptive. Realist perspectives counter that Track II's emphasis on undervalues material power determinants of conflict, positing unofficial initiatives as potentially counterproductive by signaling diplomatic pliancy or enabling adversarial manipulation absent enforceable commitments. Critics contend that without integration into coercive Track I frameworks, such efforts yield illusory rapport, vulnerable to bad-faith exploitation, as interpersonal bonds falter against strategic intransigence or veto power disparities. This view aligns with empirical assessments revealing uneven transfer of insights to , where ideational influence proves subordinate to geopolitical realities.

Historical Evolution

Origins and Early Applications

The concept of Track II diplomacy took shape amid tensions, where official negotiations between the and the stalled amid fears of nuclear escalation and ideological deadlock. Early precursors appeared in the late 1950s, such as the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, launched in 1957 by British philosopher and American scientists to enable unofficial discussions on among experts from opposing blocs. These meetings, involving over 200 participants from 50 countries by the 1960s, focused on technical disarmament issues like nuclear testing bans, fostering trust and idea generation that indirectly informed treaties such as the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, though direct causal links remain debated due to parallel official efforts. Systematic U.S.-Soviet academic and citizen exchanges further exemplified proto-Track II approaches in the 1960s. The , convened starting in October 1960 at President Dwight D. Eisenhower's behest through intermediary , brought together private citizens, intellectuals, and former officials for annual dialogues on bilateral relations, continuing for over 29 years and emphasizing rapport-building over binding agreements. Similarly, Soviet-American Studies (SADS) groups emerged around 1964, comprising scholars probing amid the 1962 aftermath, with exchanges under the 1958 Lacy-Zarubin Agreement facilitating over 600 academic visits by 1975 despite suspicions of espionage. These initiatives yielded interpersonal connections and preliminary , but empirical reviews indicate modest policy influence, constrained by state-level geopolitical priorities and verification challenges in attributing outcomes to unofficial channels. The term "Track II diplomacy" was coined in 1981 by U.S. State Department strategist Joseph V. Montville, alongside co-author Evian Davidson, in an article critiquing psychoanalytic approaches to while advocating unofficial, psychology-informed dialogues to address perceptual gaps in intractable conflicts. Montville's framework, developed in a U.S. government context, distinguished these non-binding, expert-led interactions from official Track I processes, with initial applications targeting the . For instance, Harold Saunders-led workshops in the early 1980s gathered Israeli, Egyptian, and Palestinian academics and ex-officials to explore post-Camp David Accord dynamics, achieving documented rapport among participants—such as shared narratives reducing demonization—but producing negligible direct policy shifts absent alignment with elite interests, as evidenced by stalled implementation amid official asymmetries. This pattern underscored that early Track II efforts excelled in exploratory probing yet faltered without governmental receptivity, with participation limited to roughly 20-30 per session and outcomes tracked via qualitative feedback rather than quantifiable metrics.

Expansion During and After the Cold War

During the 1980s, Track II diplomacy expanded significantly as non-governmental actors sought to mitigate U.S.-Soviet tensions through informal , particularly in the years preceding Mikhail Gorbachev's leadership. The initiated a foundational weeklong meeting in 1980, organized by Michael and Dulce Murphy, which launched the Soviet-American Exchange Program; this facilitated citizen-to-citizen interactions, including pioneering "spacebridges" via satellite for live dialogues and alliances between American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts. These efforts, conducted amid severed official ties and heightened nuclear risks, emphasized psychological and perceptual shifts over policy concessions, yielding informal networks that influenced subsequent Track I channels by fostering reciprocal invitations and reduced hostility perceptions among participants. Concurrently, the —established in 1960 as the longest-running U.S.-Soviet bilateral Track II forum—convened regular sessions through the decade, enabling intellectuals and former officials to explore security dilemmas and mutual threat assessments outside governmental constraints. Think tanks and citizen groups amplified this proliferation, with over a dozen U.S.-based initiatives emerging by mid-decade to bridge the despite skepticism from security hardliners who viewed such contacts as potentially compromising Western interests. Empirical outcomes included documented decreases in elite-level misperceptions, as evidenced by participant surveys from Esalen exchanges showing improved for counterpart incentives, though causal attribution remains contested due to concurrent official signals. After the Soviet Union's dissolution in December 1991, Track II applications shifted from bipolar superpower rivalry to intra-state ethnic disputes, exemplified by workshops addressing Balkan conflicts amid Yugoslavia's fragmentation. In the early , initiatives like intergroup problem-solving sessions in and church-based mediations in involved local leaders and diaspora representatives to dissect identity-based grievances, achieving short-term reductions in intercommunal distrust as measured by post-session evaluations indicating 20-30% shifts in attribution of hostile intent. However, these efforts frequently underemphasized structural power imbalances, such as territorial control and economic stakes, which state actors exploited to instrumentalize unofficial dialogues for or delay tactics, thereby constraining broader . This pivot revealed Track II's limitations in contexts where non-state channels could be co-opted by governments pursuing zero-sum objectives, as seen in cases where workshop insights were selectively leaked to bolster hardline positions without reciprocal concessions.

Developments in the Post-Cold War Era

Following the end of the in 1991, Track II diplomacy expanded to address intra-state conflicts, ethnic tensions, and asymmetric threats amid globalization's facilitation of cross-border networks and non-state actors. This shift reflected a move from bipolar superpower dynamics to multifaceted disputes requiring unofficial channels to bypass stalled official talks, with nongovernmental organizations playing a central role in institutionalizing processes. The Carter Center, founded in 1982 but active post-1991, exemplified this by conducting unofficial mediations, such as its 1994 intervention in to de-escalate nuclear tensions through backchannel dialogues involving former President . Similarly, professionalized NGOs increasingly brokered settlements in armed conflicts, leveraging expertise in problem-solving workshops to explore options unavailable in formal settings. In Europe, Track II efforts contributed to de-escalation in during the 1990s. Informal mediations, including secret talks facilitated by Father Alec Reid between leader and leader starting in 1988 and intensifying pre-1998, built interpersonal trust and clarified positions, indirectly supporting the momentum toward the signed on April 10, 1998. These unofficial civic leader engagements complemented official ceasefires, such as the Provisional IRA's 1994 halt, by addressing community divisions outside government constraints. In Africa, Track II processes aided South Africa's transition from apartheid, with initiatives from the mid-1980s involving dialogues between white liberals and black activists, including the 1987 Dakar Conference where Afrikaner figures met exiles. These meetings shifted risk perceptions and incentives, fostering elite buy-in that influenced the 1990 unbanning of opposition groups and the 1994 democratic elections, though their impact was indirect and intertwined with broader pressures. Outcomes varied, however; in cases like , where unofficial efforts were minimal amid elite polarization, exclusion of key factions contributed to negotiation breakdowns, as seen in the failed 1993-1994 Accords, underscoring Track II's limitations without inclusive representation. Asia-Pacific applications grew, particularly in U.S.- dialogues post-1991, with Track II forums addressing dilemmas in multilateral settings. Early initiatives, such as those under the and later expanded by think tanks, enabled discussions on nuclear stability and regional tensions, blossoming after 's 1996 participation in dialogues; by the , these comprised over two-thirds of U.S.- non-official exchanges on strategic issues. Empirical evaluations, including those from the , highlight mixed causal influence, with Track II aiding rapport-building in protracted asymmetric conflicts but facing verification hurdles due to secrecy and parallel official efforts. In select ethnonational cases, unofficial processes influenced 10-20% of breakthroughs by clarifying red lines, yet broader transformation often faltered without elite commitment, as confidentiality obscured attribution and exclusion amplified failures.

Operational Methods and Processes

Participant Selection and Roles

Participants in Track II diplomacy are typically unofficial actors such as subject-matter experts, retired diplomats, academics, NGO leaders, religious figures, and journalists, chosen for their personal influence, professional networks, and potential access to official policymakers rather than demographic representativeness or credentials. Selection processes prioritize politically involved individuals capable of bridging divides informally, often without rigid eligibility criteria, to enable candid exploration of ideas that official channels might constrain. This approach stems from the recognition that causal impact on conflicts requires proximity to decision-makers, as broader societal inclusion could dilute focus and efficacy. These participants fulfill roles as rapport-builders to foster trust across conflict lines, idea-generators to propose novel solutions unencumbered by official positions, and informal advisors who relay insights to Track I actors without binding commitments. Their functions emphasize long-term relationship cultivation over immediate outcomes, leveraging expertise to test hypotheses about conflict dynamics that governments might overlook. Critiques of participant selection underscore risks of and , where reliance on established networks often excludes dissenting or non-elite voices, potentially creating echo chambers that reinforce prevailing ideologies at the expense of causal realism in addressing root conflicts. Many initiatives, funded predominantly by Western foundations and institutions, face accusations of embedding donor preferences, such as consensus-oriented approaches, which may marginalize skeptics prioritizing national or realist constraints over multilateral harmony. To mitigate these biases—exacerbated by systemic tendencies in academic and NGO circles toward ideologically uniform participant pools—effective Track II efforts necessitate deliberate inclusion of ideologically diverse figures, including those advocating hard-nosed calculations, to ensure robust testing of ideas against empirical realities.

Techniques and Formats Employed

Problem-solving workshops constitute a primary technique in Track II diplomacy, involving small groups of 12 to 20 unofficial participants in structured, multi-phase sessions typically lasting three days to a week. These phases include initial presentations of conflicting perspectives, joint analysis facilitated by neutral panelists, and collaborative exploration of potential solutions, conducted in neutral academic settings to minimize political sensitivities. Such workshops prioritize informal, non-binding over , aiming to reframe perceptions and generate de-escalatory ideas that unofficial actors can relay to official channels. Other formats encompass off-the-record seminars and joint research projects, which foster sustained interaction through shared analysis of conflict dynamics or collaborative studies on technical issues like . Confidentiality rules, such as the Chatham House Rule—permitting use of discussed information without attribution to speakers—underpin these efforts to encourage candor absent in public forums. Techniques within these include to elicit underlying interests and emotions, distinguishing Track II from Track I diplomacy's focus on enforceable treaties by emphasizing perceptual shifts to cultivate "," or mutual recognition of stalemated costs, for future official engagement. Empirical reviews of these methods reveal short-term attitude changes, such as reduced intergroup and heightened via mechanisms like the , as observed in dialogues between Georgian and Abkhaz representatives. However, meta-syntheses indicate rare translation to long-term alterations, with sustained trust often confined to participants and reversible amid ongoing hostilities, underscoring causal limitations absent aligned incentives or structural reforms. Over 30% of examined U.S. Institute of Peace projects yielded outcome-oriented results, yet transfer to broader negotiations hinges on contextual readiness, critiquing an overreliance on micro-level rapport that neglects adversarial incentives driving entrenched conflicts.

Key Examples and Case Studies

Applications in Middle Eastern Conflicts

Track II diplomacy has been prominently applied in the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly through problem-solving workshops facilitated by American academics. Beginning in the , Harvard Herbert Kelman organized a series of private dialogues involving Israeli and Palestinian influencers, such as academics and former officials, aimed at exploring mutual perceptions and generating conflict resolution ideas. These efforts continued into the and , with over 79 documented Israeli-Palestinian Track II projects occurring between and the early , often building on Kelman's model to foster interpersonal trust and conceptual breakthroughs like the . These workshops contributed informal precursors to the 1993 by establishing communications and normalizing discussions on territorial compromises, with participants crediting the process for seeding ideas that influenced official negotiators. However, empirical assessments indicate that Track II's causal impact remained secondary to geopolitical shifts, such as the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse, which reduced external support for rejectionist factions and pressured Track I concessions; Palestinian insistence on maximalist demands and subsequent violence, including the 2000 , underscored limitations arising from unresolved security imperatives and ideological intransigence on both sides. In the Egypt-Israel context, Track II initiatives followed the 1979 peace treaty—formalized after the 1978 —and focused on like joint academic seminars and professional exchanges to sustain bilateral ties amid regional tensions. These efforts, including the establishment of the Cairo Peace Society in 1998 by Egyptian intellectuals, helped mitigate public hostility and facilitated technical cooperation in areas like water management, though their role was marginal compared to enforced treaty mechanisms and military deterrence. More recent Track II applications have involved -related dialogues, such as U.S.- exchanges from 2002 to 2008, which sought to address nuclear concerns and regional through unofficial discussions among experts. These yielded modest gains in mutual understanding but demonstrated mixed outcomes, constrained by 's ideological commitment to anti-Western rhetoric and proxy conflicts, with studies noting that such forums rarely alter entrenched state behaviors without aligned power incentives. Overall, Middle Eastern Track II efforts have empirically prioritized relationship-building over transformative agreements, succeeding in niche interpersonal networks but faltering where core asymmetries in resolve and capabilities persist.

Cases from Other Regions

In Asia, Track II diplomacy emerged on the Korean Peninsula in the early 1990s through forums like the Northeast Asia Economic Forum (NEAEF), founded in 1991 to convene non-official actors from , , and regional powers for discussions on and security challenges. These initiatives, involving scholars, ex-officials, and policy experts, sustained low-level exchanges during official standoffs, generating and policy ideas that indirectly influenced the June 2000 inter-Korean summit between South Korean President and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, as well as later dialogues. Organizations such as the National Committee on North Korea and the hosted workshops from the mid-1990s onward, including U.S.-North Korean Track II meetings in 2005 and 2008, which complemented stalled by preserving back-channel insights amid nuclear tensions. Yet, these efforts have repeatedly faltered, as 's regime, driven by imperatives of self-preservation and nuclear deterrence, has withdrawn from collaborative frameworks when they conflict with state-directed priorities, limiting Track II to marginal influence absent alignment with Pyongyang's core incentives. In , Track II workshops during the of the early sought to bridge divides among Serb, Croat, Bosniak, and other ethnic representatives through unofficial seminars on and federal alternatives, often facilitated by Western NGOs and academics amid rising hostilities from 1991 to 1995. These dialogues, emphasizing mutual understanding of grievances, yielded exploratory ideas for power-sharing but registered limited practical success, overshadowed by militarized nationalism, atrocities like the in July 1995 (claiming over 8,000 Bosniak lives), and the dominance of coercive Track I interventions such as airstrikes. The 1995 Dayton Accords, negotiated officially under U.S. pressure, formalized Bosnia's partition into entities but bypassed most Track II inputs, underscoring how unofficial processes amplify only when synchronized with prevailing state power dynamics and military realities, otherwise remaining peripheral to conflict trajectories. In , Track II efforts contributed indirectly to Sudan's 2005 (CPA), which ended the Second (1983–2005) and paved the way for South Sudan's 2011 independence referendum. The Carter Center, under former U.S. President , organized mediations from 1989, including a failed 1989 truce attempt and a 1995 six-month ceasefire for Guinea worm eradication that fostered trust between Khartoum's government and the /Army (SPLM/A) leaders like . From 1999, Concordis International ran 13 nationwide consultations with Sudanese politicians, religious figures, militias, and academics to dissect conflict roots, producing reports that informed inclusivity in talks and supported the Eastern Front's 2006 peace deal, thereby bolstering the 's viability through broadened stakeholder buy-in. Such initiatives, as documented in analyses, excelled in relational groundwork—e.g., sustaining dialogues during official impasses—but derived outsized effects primarily when dovetailing with governmental commitments, as in the CPA's IGAD-brokered framework, rather than supplanting state-led resolve.

Assessments of Effectiveness

Evidence of Positive Outcomes

Track II efforts in during the 1980s facilitated key interactions between apartheid-era stakeholders and anti-apartheid leaders, contributing to the of violence and preparation for formal negotiations. The 1987 Dakar meeting, organized by the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa (IDASA), brought into dialogue with (ANC) exiles, desensitizing domestic audiences to such contacts and reducing media backlash compared to earlier initiatives. Follow-up engagements by IDASA participants, including public advocacy, helped normalize cross-constituency communication, fostering pragmatic alignments around shared economic interests that eased the transition to in 1994. In U.S.-Soviet relations, the , initiated in 1960 as a sustained Track II channel, generated ideas on and that informed official Track I processes, including adopted in subsequent treaties. These unofficial exchanges built epistemic communities among experts, promoting shared understandings of mutual security interests that paralleled the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by emphasizing verifiable reductions over ideological confrontation. Empirical assessments attribute such outcomes to interest-based reasoning, where participants identified reciprocal benefits in , rather than appeals to moral imperatives. Broader studies document Track II's role in policy transfer, as seen in South Asian nuclear risk reduction workshops where unofficial proposals for verification protocols and hotlines entered official India-Pakistan dialogues. In intergroup settings, randomized evaluations of dialogues, such as those in , show measurable reductions in and support for , with sustained trust-building linked to pragmatic problem-solving on . While causal attribution remains challenging due to concurrent Track I efforts, these cases highlight Track II's value in cultivating expert networks that leak practical ideas into formal channels, often succeeding when aligned with realist incentives like security reciprocity.

Challenges in Measuring Impact

Assessing the impact of encounters profound methodological obstacles, chiefly the attribution problem, wherein unofficial initiatives' contributions are inextricably intertwined with concurrent official Track I diplomacy and extraneous geopolitical factors, rendering causal isolation elusive. For instance, positive developments in conflict dynamics may stem from formal negotiations or unrelated events, as practitioners acknowledge that "any observed positive outcome may be attributable to something other than Track II." This confounding persists across cases, exacerbated by the informal, non-binding nature of Track II, which lacks the structured benchmarks of state-led processes. Confidentiality protocols, vital for fostering trust and shielding participants from reprisals, impose severe restrictions, curtailing access to transcripts, participant interactions, and longitudinal essential for scrutiny. Without such transparency, evaluations devolve into anecdotal retrospectives, while the absence of randomized control groups or viable counterfactuals precludes falsifiable testing, mirroring broader hurdles in non-experimental social interventions. Self-reported metrics, drawn from participant surveys or interviews, further skew assessments toward overestimation, as organizers and attendees harbor incentives to highlight perceived breakthroughs absent verifiable externalities. Efforts to mitigate these via empirical instruments, including pre- and post-intervention surveys tracking attitudinal shifts and network analyses mapping participant linkages to decision-makers, disclose predominantly modest outcomes, such as transient reductions that frequently dissipate without broader dissemination. Reviews by the , synthesizing over 100 projects, underscore that while relational trust may accrue, direct causation to policy alterations remains exceptional, with transfer to official channels hinging on rare alignments like mediator . Rigorous appraisal thus demands tangible proxies—such as enacted policy variances or behavioral metrics—over subjective "mindset" transformations, exposing deficiencies in practitioner-driven prone to unsubstantiated for intangible gains.

Criticisms, Limitations, and Controversies

Practical and Structural Weaknesses

Track II diplomacy's informal structure inherently lacks enforcement mechanisms, as agreements reached in unofficial settings carry no legal binding force and depend entirely on the subsequent willingness of state actors to implement them. This reliance on voluntary goodwill exposes initiatives to disruption by shifting political priorities or power imbalances, often resulting in outcomes that evaporate without institutional safeguards. For instance, back-channel negotiations, a form of Track II, frequently fail to produce enforceable commitments due to the absence of processes or penalties for non-compliance, mirroring broader challenges in non-state-mediated dialogues. A primary operational flaw is the frequent failure to translate workshop outputs into actionable policy, with many Track II efforts generating reports or recommendations that states disregard amid competing official agendas. In the Oslo peace process, which incorporated Track II elements to foster trust between Israeli and Palestinian non-officials, initial breakthroughs in informal settings did not endure, as domestic spoilers and enforcement gaps led to the accords' collapse by the early , underscoring how unofficial proposals often overlook entrenched power asymmetries. Similarly, Track II interventions in protracted conflicts like the Democratic Republic of Congo have supplemented official efforts but struggled to yield sustained policy shifts, as non-state actors' ideas remain disconnected from governmental implementation capacities. This pattern reflects principal-agent misalignments, where unofficial participants—lacking direct accountability to decision-makers—advance proposals that appear innovative in insulated dialogues but prove naive or unfeasible when confronting state incentives and resource constraints. Structural dependencies exacerbate these issues, including vulnerability to funding volatility from private foundations and NGOs, which can terminate initiatives abruptly and prevent long-term follow-through. Efforts like regional security dialogues in the have highlighted elite disconnects, where participants—often retired officials or academics—socialize ideas effectively among themselves but fail to bridge to active policymakers, leading to proposals sidelined by domestic political volatilities or state-level obstructions. Without mechanisms to ensure participant alignment with principals' interests, Track II risks perpetuating power vacuums, as goodwill-driven processes collapse when external support wanes or when unofficial actors' incentives diverge from those of accountable governments.

Ideological and Bias Concerns

Participant selection in Track II diplomacy often draws from academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and retired officials, environments where left-leaning perspectives favoring and conflict de-escalation predominate, potentially marginalizing realist or nationalist viewpoints that emphasize power balances and threats. This skew arises not solely from organizer intent but also self-selection, as individuals aligned with cooperative paradigms are more likely to engage, fostering dialogues that underrepresent conservative or hawkish analyses of ideological conflicts. Such imbalances contribute to echo chambers, where reinforces preconceived notions of dialogue's neutralizing effect without addressing underlying causal drivers like regime intransigence or asymmetric commitments. Empirical analysis of Track II processes reveals sustains controversial positions, diminishing the robustness of proposed solutions by excluding dissenting scrutiny. Critics argue this dynamic risks enabling appeasement-oriented outcomes, as seen in accusations that certain initiatives overlook persistent threats from adversarial , prioritizing relational building over verifiable concessions. To mitigate these vulnerabilities, Track II efforts require deliberate inclusion of ideologically diverse participants, ensuring exposure to counterarguments that test assumptions of mutual goodwill. Without such balance, outcomes may reflect institutional biases rather than empirically grounded realism, underscoring the need for transparency in selection criteria to enhance causal validity in .

Potential for Undermining Official Diplomacy

Poor coordination between Track II initiatives and official Track I diplomacy can generate mixed signals, confusing adversaries and diluting the coherence of state negotiating positions. For instance, unofficial dialogues that explore concessions without governmental endorsement may preempt formal bargaining strategies, effectively weakening official leverage by publicizing exploratory positions as indicative of state intent. Structural vulnerabilities exacerbate these risks, as Track II participants—often lacking official authority—can inadvertently leak sensitive information or foster forum-shopping, where conflict parties divert attention from official tables to more accommodating unofficial venues. This competition not only drains resources from Track I efforts but also fragments international responses, potentially eroding the unified front essential for effective state diplomacy. Diplomats have expressed concerns that such dynamics disrespect official roles and introduce internal factionalism via back channels, where unofficial actors advance divergent agendas that undermine governmental control. Critiques grounded in state-centric analyses highlight how Track II's bypass of official channels dilutes , as non-state interventions create illusions of hybrid efficacy while causally subordinating over to private initiatives. In cases of misalignment, such as uncoordinated efforts in protracted conflicts, these processes have disrupted sensitive official discussions by acting as distractions or alternatives, thereby reducing incentives for parties to engage constructively at the governmental level.

Contemporary Relevance and Future Directions

Recent Initiatives and Adaptations

In the , the Middle East Council on Global Affairs published a report in September 2022 advocating for enhanced Track II diplomacy to address definitional ambiguities, mediator roles, and , emphasizing relational networks to tackle historical grievances amid ongoing conflicts. This initiative highlighted the need for Track II processes to rebuild trust in protracted disputes, such as those involving and Arab states, though empirical evaluations noted persistent challenges in translating unofficial dialogues into policy shifts without official endorsement. Following Russia's full-scale invasion of in February 2022, Track II efforts persisted through think tank-facilitated indirect talks, including workshops exploring despite severed official channels, demonstrating resilience in sustaining low-level communication amid acute hostilities. However, these dialogues faced inherent limits, as participants reported difficulties in influencing battlefield dynamics or securing buy-in from warring parties, underscoring Track II's supplementary role rather than standalone efficacy in high-intensity wars. In U.S.-China great-power competition, Track II dialogues proliferated from to 2024, with RAND identifying nearly two dozen ongoing lower-level engagements by late 2024 focused on issues like scholarly exchanges and climate cooperation, aiming to mitigate escalation risks amid and frictions. Reports from organizations such as the documented expert-level Track II forums between U.S. and Chinese counterparts on energy and environmental challenges, reflecting increased reliance on unofficial channels as official summits grew adversarial. Yet, analyses cautioned that such initiatives yield limited strategic impact absent alignment with state power structures, with measurable outcomes confined to niche areas like technical collaboration rather than broader rivalry resolution. Post-2020 adaptations incorporated hybrid and virtual formats in response to disruptions and travel restrictions, enabling continued Track II engagement through webinars and online consultations, as seen in the Wilson Center's Track II Dialogues Initiative combining in-person and virtual sessions under rules. These digital shifts expanded access for geographically dispersed participants but introduced verification challenges, including difficulties in authenticating identities and fostering trust equivalent to face-to-face interactions, potentially diluting the relational depth central to Track II's design. By 2023-2024, hybrid models became standard in great-power contexts, balancing inclusivity with security concerns, though evaluations emphasized the need for robust protocols to mitigate misinformation risks in virtual settings.

Prospects Amid Geopolitical Shifts

In the shift toward a multipolar world order characterized by assertive great powers, Track II diplomacy encounters diminished prospects due to entrenched and autocratic structures that restrict unofficial elite access and influence. Regimes in and , for instance, have increasingly centralized control over external engagements, rendering Track II participants—often retired officials or academics—marginalized or co-opted to serve state agendas rather than facilitate genuine exploration of alternatives. Following 's 2022 invasion of , multiple Track II forums, including those on cooperation, were paused or curtailed as imposed severe penalties for perceived collaboration with adversaries, limiting the pool of willing intermediaries. Similarly, Beijing's oversight ensures Track II dialogues reinforce official positions, such as the principle, with little tolerance for deviation. Emerging digital and AI tools present a double-edged prospect, potentially enabling virtual dialogues to bypass physical barriers but amplifying vulnerabilities to manipulation and . Platforms for remote Track II interactions proliferated during the era, yet autocratic states leverage them for monitoring participants and injecting state-approved narratives, eroding confidentiality essential to unofficial processes. AI-driven analysis could forecast geopolitical trends or simulate scenarios, as explored in U.S.- Track II on applications, but risks include algorithmic biases favoring perspectives and generative tools fabricating consensus, further complicating causal attribution of any diplomatic breakthroughs. Opportunities remain confined to niche domains like hybrid threats, where Track II might illuminate non-kinetic coercion tactics blending information operations and economic pressure, potentially identifying aligned interests in deterrence without formal concessions. However, assessments emphasize resilience-building over unofficial talks, with scant empirical data linking Track II to measurable reductions in such threats, underscoring the need for reforms mandating explicit coordination with Track I channels to ground efforts in state-verified priorities. Overly optimistic endorsements from globalist-oriented think tanks often overlook these structural barriers, prioritizing endless forums that dilute focus on tangible imperatives.

References

  1. https://www.usip.org/publications/2019/07/primer-multi-track-diplomacy-how-does-it-work
  2. https://spia.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/591d%20WWS%20Track%20Two%20Diplomacy%20Report_Final_MARCH%205.pdf
  3. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PMT_Burgess_Conducting%20Track%20II.pdf
  4. https://blogs.shu.edu/journalofdiplomacy/files/archives/03Montville.pdf
  5. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/track-ii-diplomacy-a-short-history/
  6. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG592.pdf
  7. https://mecouncil.org/publication/trackii-diplomacy-how-can-it-be-more-effective/
  8. https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2024/can-track-2-discussions-help-stem-the-decline-in-us-china-relations.html
  9. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/37/4/427/121492/Toward-a-Normative-Turn-in-Track-Two-Diplomacy-A
  10. https://www.portsmouthpeacetreaty.org/path-to-peace-diagram.html
  11. https://www.nti.org/risky-business/multi-track-diplomacy-explained/
  12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002234337601300201
  13. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/problem-solving-workshops
  14. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/36/4/441/121537/Transfer-Effects-from-Problem-Solving-Workshops-to
  15. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Track-2-Dialogues-Evidence-Review-Paper.epub
  16. https://pugwash.org/
  17. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-12135-7
  18. https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/mcdonald-further
  19. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10888/chapter/2
  20. https://www.esalen.org/post/track-ii-diplomacy-the-citizens-response-when-leaders-falter
  21. https://sustaineddialogue.org/the-dartmouth-conference-1960-2015/
  22. https://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/BotcharovaTrackTwoDiplomacyChapter.pdf
  23. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/track2_diplomacy
  24. https://ottawadialogue.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Policy-Brief-1-Palmiano-Federer_FINAL-1.pdf
  25. https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/track-two-diplomacy/
  26. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17502977.2024.2365512
  27. https://www.prio.org/publications/2771
  28. https://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/50189764.pdf
  29. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2800/RRA2850-1/RAND_RRA2850-1.pdf
  30. https://www.apln.network/projects/asia-dialogue-on-china-us-relations/track-2-and-track-1-5-us-china-strategic-nuclear-dialogues-lessons-learned-and-the-way-forward
  31. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Track-2-Dialogues-Evidence-Review-Paper.pdf
  32. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/doi/10.1162/ngtn_a_00021/128699/How-It-Helped-The-Role-of-Track-Two-in-Protracted
  33. https://jordanrussiacenter.org/blog/how-track-2-diplomacy-might-help-ease-russian-ukraine-tension
  34. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/98727/ssoar-perspol-2024-1-2-akindoyin-International_Relations_in_the_21st.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  35. https://spia.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/591d%2520WWS%2520Track%2520Two%2520Diplomacy%2520Report_Final_MARCH%25205.pdf
  36. https://mecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/English.pdf
  37. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QYLtK5mrGPCnMvQxQ/theories-of-change-for-track-ii-diplomacy-founders-pledge
  38. https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chatham-house-rule
  39. https://www.beyondintractability.org/audiodisplay/ripeness-promoting-strategies-audio
  40. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/28/2/155/121942/Oslo-and-Its-Aftermath-Lessons-Learned-from-Track
  41. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG592.html
  42. https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Legacy-Camp-David.pdf
  43. https://search.issuelab.org/resources/28110/28110.pdf
  44. https://www.track2asia.eu/projects/
  45. https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/track-ii-diplomacy-maintains-dialogue-with-north-korea/
  46. https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/mediation-in-the-yugoslav-wars-the-critical-years-1990-95/
  47. https://www.c-r.org/accord/sudan/role-track-two-initiatives-sudanese-peace-processes
  48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343302039003006
  49. https://nathanielallen.squarespace.com/s/Process-Peace-Manuscript-April-2016-Revisions.pdf
  50. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/PMT_Burgess_Conducting_TrackII.pdf
  51. https://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/upload/wanis-back-channel-working-paper.pdf
  52. https://www.accord.org.za/ajcr-issues/the-role-of-track-two-diplomacy-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-conflict/
  53. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG592.sum.pdf
  54. https://www.amazon.com/Track-Two-Diplomacy-Theory-Practice/dp/0804794065
  55. https://dkqj4hmn5mktp.cloudfront.net/Track_2_Diplomacy_Theories_of_Change_45f3f47125.pdf
  56. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14683857.2021.1909291
  57. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/14/3/269/122448/Track-II-Diplomacy-From-a-Track-I-Perspective
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387910191_Track_Two_Dialogue_in_Times_of_War_-_Unsuitable_or_Advancing_Peace_for_Ukraine
  59. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/expert-dialogues-international-cooperation
  60. https://www.csis.org/analysis/advancing-us-china-coordination-amid-strategic-competition-emerging-playbook
  61. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/collection/middle-east-track-ii-dialogues-initiative
  62. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/2/471/6540781
  63. https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/covid-19/
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-asian-studies/article/political-scientists-track-ii-diplomacy-the-international-political-science-association-and-crossstrait-relations/1C9AF4B720629C9057DA576A1A17844B
  65. https://issues.org/disease-surveillance-arctic-diplomacy-shok-ginsbach/
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825000565
  67. https://www.autonorms.eu/can-track-ii-dialogues-be-the-new-ping-pong-diplomacy-to-thaw-the-sino-us-relationship-on-military-ai/
  68. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41254-024-00328-7
  69. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/7/pdf/241007-hybrid-threats-and-hybrid-warfare.pdf
  70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg592nsrd.8
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.