Track Two diplomacy -- unofficial contact and interaction aimed at resolving conflicts -- is a growing field that not only can support Track One (government) efforts but "can also play an important role in its own right," say the authors. Conflict resolution and prevention efforts must involve both government officials and nongovernmental participants, they contend, because "it is only through a collaborative effort among all societal sectors and power structures that real change is possible."

McDonald is chairman and co-founder of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) in Washington, D.C.; Notter is the institute's program director. McDonald, a 40-year career diplomat, was appointed ambassador twice by President Carter and twice by President Reagan to represent the United States at various U.N. world conferences. A lawyer, scholar, and development expert, he earlier worked in Western Europe and the Middle East. Notter, who has been with IMTD since 1992, has been primarily involved with the institute's long-term initiative in Cyprus.

The term Track Two Diplomacy was coined in 1981 by Joseph Montville, referring to a broad range of unofficial contact and interaction aimed at resolving conflicts, both internationally and within states. Montville, then a U.S. diplomat, used the term in contrast to Track One diplomacy, which refers to diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts through the official channels of government.

In the early years of the development of the concept of Track Two diplomacy, the term focused mainly on the work of professionals in the budding field of conflict resolution. These professionals brought people together informally to develop creative solutions to international conflicts that were simultaneously being worked on (usually without success) at the Track One level.

By 1991 it had become clear that the range of unofficial interaction that can support the resolution of international conflicts is far too varied and complex to be adequately represented by the term Track Two. Louise Diamond coined the phrase "multi-track diplomacy," which outlines nine different "tracks" that together comprise a system for creating peace internationally. The system includes Track One (government) and Track Two (nongovernmental) conflict resolution professionals, but it also recognizes the influence of seven other tracks: business, private citizens, research and education, activism, religion, philanthropy, and the media.

Within the growing community of conflict resolution practitioners, each individual or organization offers something different in terms of methodology, conceptual background, or general approach. Despite this understandable variety, we have identified three categories of Track Two activities that together describe a large portion of the Track Two initiatives operating in the field today. These categories are consultation, dialogue, and training.

Consultation

Consultation -- perhaps the most common form of Track Two activity -- brings people together from conflicting groups, in their personal capacities, to facilitate discussion or generate creative ideas for problem solving. When these unofficial participants have political influence, then there is an opportunity for these creative ideas to be included in the official conflict resolution process as well.

A common form of consultation has been the "problem-solving workshop." These workshops bring parties together unofficially to conduct a joint analysis of the conflict from a problem-solving perspective, facilitated by a panel of conflict resolution practitioners. Such meetings are often held in a neutral site, in a secluded and comfortable setting, without press coverage or position papers. All discussions are confidential, allowing the participants to explore options without having to make any commitments. Problem-solving workshops analyze the root causes of the conflicts and examine the interests and needs that underlie the rigid positions of the conflicting parties.

Recent consultation initiatives have had great success; however several of the pioneering efforts in the 1960s and 1970s did encounter difficulties. Some of the early consultation projects achieved outstanding results at workshops -- the participants developed deep personal relationships with each other and experienced some form of transformation -- but as the participants returned to their communities, they were ostracized and marginalized for getting too close to the "enemy." This damaged the credibility of Track Two efforts somewhat, both in these specific cases and for the field in general.

More recent consultation initiatives have accounted for this issue by building in strong "re-entry" elements into their programs, which are designed to ensure the successful transfer of the learning to the broader community. Participants are helped to create tangible projects to apply their learning and continue to interact with members of the "other" community in a safe way once they return home. In cases of ethnic conflict, this might mean groups forming across ethnic lines to do joint projects, such as art or cultural exhibitions, or studies of substantive issues such as security, economic development or human rights. Some Track Two programs work with specific sectors of society, such as educators; participants from these workshops might return home and form a multi-ethnic committee to review how textbooks in schools portray the other community. By creating an outlet for participants to apply what they have learned, the power of these Track Two initiatives is greatly enhanced.

Several good examples of Track Two consultation projects have been implemented with Israelis and Palestinians. Most prominently, work done unofficially by Israeli and Palestinian academics -- hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo -- was a crucial component of the process that led to the historic agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat that was signed on the White House lawn in 1993. On another front, Herbert Kelman of Harvard University has been running a series of problem-solving workshops with Israelis and Palestinians since 1971. Although all of the participants at his workshops attended in their personal capacities, the impact of his work can be seen by the fact that many of the members of the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams had attended some of these workshops.

Dialogue

In the context of Track Two diplomacy, dialogue is a form of facilitated communication between parties in conflict where the communication is not for the purpose of convincing or persuading, but to explore meaning -- the meaning groups give to their existence or to particular circumstances. It is about sharing that meaning, and in so doing, finding a connection or a bridge across what divides the groups in conflict. Some dialogue processes do involve influential people who will have an impact on Track One negotiations. These dialogues contribute to more productive negotiations by generating a freer flow of ideas between the parties. Dialogue processes are obviously most effective in situations where official communication has been cut off or has stalled. Dialogue can also be vital for building trust between communities in conflict, particularly when it is used at a grass-roots level.

The United States Information Service (USIS) has sponsored a Track Two dialogue process between Indians and Pakistanis. Meeting alternately in Pakistan and India, the Neemrana dialogue -- which is now funded by the Ford Foundation -- convenes equal representation from Pakistan and India. Individuals from many of the tracks in the multi-track diplomacy system are participating, including former diplomats, generals, and representatives from business and education. This dialogue is the first of its kind for these two countries and is happening at a time when communication between India and Pakistan is difficult. These unofficial, bilateral meetings are occurring among influential figures who are meeting to discuss a range of contentious issues.

The Neemrana process has been supplemented by a series of Traveling Seminars, organized by USIS India and USIS Pakistan, that introduce new people from a wider spectrum of society to conflict resolution. Often led by Neemrana participants, the seminars, which take place in alternate sites in India and Pakistan, give participants contact with people from the other country and encourage them to create conflict resolution chapters in their own towns or institutions. One group that was formed, just this year, as a direct result of the Traveling Seminars is the Indian Peace Action and Analysis Network.

Dialogues can be equally as useful within communities as between them. A group of psychologists in Israel has been running a dialogue between members of the political left and the political right within Israel since 1993. The recent political shift to the right in Israel has seriously affected the peace process there, so Track Two efforts addressing that issue are important. Dialogue is a particularly good tool for dealing with diversity within groups.

Training

The third category of Track Two intervention is training. Conflict resolution professionals use training to give conflicting parties skills that they can use in resolving and transforming those conflicts. These skills are often applicable in many different situations, from interpersonal disputes to deep- rooted national or ethnic conflicts.

Training interventions can involve participants from all levels of society, from grass-roots private citizens, to high-level political figures, although people generally participate in their private capacity. Typically, Track Two training initiatives focus on conflict resolution skills, such as communication, conflict analysis, reconciliation, cooperation, and negotiation. Like most Track Two initiatives, training programs are designed to maximize the impact of the training on the conflict resolution process, including at the Track One level. Training programs are also particularly helpful in generating grass-roots support for conflict resolution in societies where social conflict is deep rooted.

Training, dialogue, and consultation can be used in conjunction with one another within any given intervention. For example, many dialogue initiatives include training in communication skills to make the dialogue more productive, and training programs often use both dialogue and analytical problem-solving processes to provide opportunities to practice the newly acquired skills.

The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) has been engaged in an ongoing Track Two training initiative in Cyprus since 1991. In conjunction with the NTL (National Training Laboratories) Institute of Alexandria, Virginia, and the Conflict Management Group of Cambridge, Massachusetts, IMTD formed the Cyprus Consortium to provide Greek and Turkish Cypriots with an extensive program of training. Since 1991, the Cyprus Consortium has trained or educated over 500 Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The bulk of this program was jointly sponsored by America-Mideast Educational and Training Services (AMIDEAST) and the Cyprus Fulbright Commission, with funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Programs have ranged from three-day training sessions in basic conflict resolution skills, to week-long training programs for leaders of bicommunal projects, to a two-part series in which participants were trained as trainers so they could carry on conflict-resolution training independently. The program also has included training programs designed for specific audiences, such as policy leaders, journalists, and educators. This multi-track, capacity- building approach has contributed greatly to the success of this training initiative. The Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot participants in this extensive program are now running a number of bicommunal conflict resolution projects on their own, including several training programs. In total, people involved in this bicommunal conflict resolution work now number in the thousands, and their work has been described on the island as a social movement. The participants in the program have noticed the difference their work has made both in the political realm and in the media.

The Link Between Track One and Track Two

Track Two, like any track in the multi-track system, will always be more effective when employed in conjunction and coordination with efforts from all of the other tracks, including Track One.

Track Two practitioners recognize that success in their endeavors contributes to a climate ripe for Track One leaders to get to the negotiating table and begin to formally resolve existing differences. In situations of deep-rooted conflict, the formal ratification of peace treaties is clearly only one step toward a lasting peace. Track Two, particularly when it takes a multi-track approach, not only can support the efforts of Track One, but can play an important role in its own right.

Grass-roots projects facilitate the much needed "bottom-up" peace potential. In addition, as Track One is more often used as a means of crisis intervention, the other tracks can be utilized at any point, particularly in a preventive diplomacy capacity. The interrelationship between the tracks can be a sensitive one. Those working unofficially do not want to feel pressured or unduly constrained when they explore a policy or process that Track One opposes. Often the rejection of a multi-track plan by officials at the Track One level can preclude project implementation. When there is acceptance or support, however, there can be much-needed mutual aid.

Track One, on the other hand, should be kept informed. Track Two practitioners must recognize that if their initiative is successful, they will probably have to coordinate their activities with Track One. It is governments, after all, who are responsible for negotiating, signing, and ratifying treaties and other formal documents that may be needed to seal the unofficial, successful initiatives.

As an example, in the Cyprus Consortium's multi-year training program in Cyprus, the consortium was in contact with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot officials as it developed and implemented the program. The consortium also stayed in close communication with representatives from the U.S. State Department, both in Washington and in Cyprus, and with representatives from the various United Nations agencies that are operating on Cyprus. These contacts and relationships greatly facilitated the implementation of the program. The U.S. and U.N. officials -- having been continuously informed of the goals and progress of the project -- continue to support the work indirectly by hosting receptions, sponsoring training events, and providing facilities for training.

Another excellent example of Track One and Track Two cooperation took place in Tanzania earlier this year. The U.S. Information Service (USIS) in Dar es Salaam has developed a program in preventive diplomacy featuring a one-week training session in conflict resolution skills for 23 leaders from Track One and Track Two. In fact, all of the tracks in the multi-track system were represented. IMTD led a four-person team to implement this workshop in April 1996, which was co-hosted by the Tanzanian Foreign Ministry and USIS.

The participants were so stimulated by this learning experience that they decided to organize their own Conflict Resolution Center, so they could begin to spread these peacebuilding skills across the nation. This is what can happen when Track One and Track Two learn how to work together.

Conclusion

Resolving deep-rooted social conflicts requires change -- change in attitudes, change in structures, and change in political and legal relationships. Change at the political level is for the most part the domain of Track One. True conflict resolution, however, is not sustainable through a single-track effort. Track Two diplomacy is a growing field, and with each new Track Two initiative there is an opportunity for cooperation and collaboration with Track One efforts. In the end, it is only through a collaborative effort among all societal sectors and power structures that real change is possible.