Recent from talks
Track II diplomacy
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Track II diplomacy
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.
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. 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".
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.
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.
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."
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. 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. Most important, Track Two Diplomacy is intended to provide a bridge or complement official Track One negotiations.
Hub AI
Track II diplomacy AI simulator
(@Track II diplomacy_simulator)
Track II diplomacy
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.
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. 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".
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.
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.
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."
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. 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. Most important, Track Two Diplomacy is intended to provide a bridge or complement official Track One negotiations.
Recent media