Additional insights into multi-track dipolamcy are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Multi-track diplomacy is a concept developed and put into practice by Louise Diamond and myself, co-founders of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy. The concept is an expansion of the original distinction made by Joseph Montville in 1982, between track one (official, governmental action) and track two (unofficial, nongovernmental action) approaches to conflict resolution.
After writing the first book on track-two diplomacy in 1985 while at the State Department, I expanded the two tracks to five tracks in 1989. These new tracks included government, conflict-resolution professionals, business, private citizens, and the media. In 1991, I worked with Louise Diamond to expand the five tracks into nine, and we coined the term, "multi-track diplomacy." We founded the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) in 1992.
The nine tracks are:
- government,
- professional conflict resolution,
- business,
- private citizens,
- research, training and education,
- activism,
- religious,
- funding, and
- public opinion/communication
With this expanded model, we sought to redesign our original diagram. The new diagram eliminated the hierarchical approach to understanding conflict resolution, replacing it with a compass design. The compass diagram demonstrates the correlation of all tracks in an equal setting. Each of the tracks has its own "resources, values, and approaches"; however, the tracks, when functioning together, produce a synergy to approaching conflict. This compass approach is what Diamond has called a "systems approach to peace." No one track, by itself, can build a peace process that will last.
Application of the Systems Approach to Peace
In order to understand the systems approach to peace, one must understand the concepts of peace building and standard procedures. Within peace building, there exist three main categories of activities. These distinct approaches include:
- Political peace building, which is accomplished through track-one diplomacy and may consist of political rebuilding.
- Economic and institutional peace building, which is also a function of track-one diplomacy. It involves the rebuilding of infrastructure and international institutions.
- Social peace building, a component often unacknowledged by traditional peace building actors. Social peace building is approaching peace through a human element. This means dealing with the emotions of conflict and preparing a framework for de-escalation and violence prevention. This framework for prevention is established by supporting community leaders with skills and tools by which prevention of violence and prevention of escalation are possible. Social peace building also means working with the heart, which is fundamental to the work that we do at the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy.
"Standard procedure" concerns the manner or model that is exercised when approaching a particular conflict. Fundamental to IMTD's approach is that one model cannot be applied to every conflict situation. Each conflict remains individualized in its own right. However, there are certain "standard procedures" that we observe fairly consistently. (See Table 1):
| Standards | Description | | Invitation | Involvement only through invitation | | Long-Term Commitment | Personal, professional, and institutional commitment of five years | | Relationship | Build with track one, transparent | | Trust | No hidden agenda, continued involvement | | Engagement | Active and caring partners, leave out money and advertising | | Partnership | Consortium of conflict professionals, local partners, and women | | Synthesis of Wisdom | Importance of indigenous wisdom | | Multiple Technologies | Different methodologies, trainers | | Action Research | Continued evaluation and application of lessons learned | | Responsibility | Help participants utilize learned skills | | Empowerment | Goal of local empowerment | | Transformation | Evolution in approaching situation |
|
Among our standard procedures are:
- We only engage in conflict situations if a party to the conflict invites us to help. We then evaluate the invitation and make a decision about whether to accept it or not.
- If we do accept the invitation, we will go to the conflict site and listen to all sides or parties to the conflict to determine, as much as possible, what is going on, and what the parties' needs are. We consider direct involvement a high priority and stress a long-term commitment. We generally commit ourselves for no fewer than five years, or as long as participants desire our involvement.
- We try to make clear from the onset that we are not a threat to track-one efforts, but rather desire a strong relationship with all people and institutions within the conflict setting, track-one included. We see ourselves as transparent; we are there to offer services, such as community leadership training.
- We build on this idea of relationship with a fundamental commitment to trust. We build up this trust by solely focusing on the idea of peace building.
- Our commitment to a situation is evidenced by our high level of engagement, whereby money from the participants and advertising are left out of the picture. We do not charge participants for our services, nor do we advertise our efforts to them or others.
- Partnership is vital to the advancement of peace building. This partnership should include local peace builders and conflict professionals, often emphasizing the inclusion of women in the peace building efforts.
- We stress the synthesis of wisdom. Although we bring knowledge with us to every site, we believe that Western approaches may not always be as effective as local means. It is crucial to share methods and formulate an approach appropriate for each particular situation. The result is often a blend of Western and indigenous approaches to conflict resolution and peace building.
- We try to adapt to the level of each situation by using multiple trainers, technologies, and methods. Our work is improved by learning from fieldwork and applying lessons to future situations.
- We also rely heavily on evaluations. We consider our efforts to be those of action research.
- When involved in a particular situation, we stress the importance of responsibility. We believe the intervener's responsibility is to provide the means to acquire and hone skills to deal with the conflict. Participants are then expected to take the responsibility to utilize the skills.
- By teaching the local community to use the skills and methods to approach conflict, our goal is empowerment of the people involved in the situation. Empowerment is a projected goal for all participants.
- Finally, transformation is key to Mitt's objectives. Here, transformation is the evolution of thoughts and mindsets toward a greater understanding and acceptance of others traditionally seen as "the enemy." Transformation is "the eventual ability to learn how to work and live together in the same community without violence, fear, and strife."
Use the following to cite this article:
McDonald, John W.. "Multi-Track Diplomacy." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/multi-track_diplomacy/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Diamond, Louise. "Multi-Track Diplomacy in the 21st Century." ,
Available at: http://www.gppac.net/documents/pbp/part1/6_multit.htm.
This article examines eight global trends that will affect global security in this new century: the globalization of violence; the breakdown of systemic integrity; the rise of rogues; the depletion of natural resources; the institutionalization of polarization; challenges to the nation state by the changing balance of world power; and the traumatization of the human family. It then details how multi-track diplomacy can help in this transformational era.
Unofficial Communication Channels / Citizen Diplomacy/ Multitrack Diplomacy. University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/citdip.htm.
In cases where official diplomats and formal representatives of the parties are unwilling or unable to communicate effectively, unofficial contact between informal representatives may provide a workable alternative. Originally formulated as "track two diplomacy" to be differentiated from, but supportive of, official or "track one" diplomacy, John McDonald and Louise Diamond suggested that there are actually nine tracks that all mutually reinforce each other in a peacebuilding system.
Offline (Print) Sources
Serwer, Daniel. "A Bosnian Federation Memoir." In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, 1999.
Written by the US State Department's official primarily responsible for the Bosnian Federation in the mid-1990s, he traveled to Bosnia numerous times during that time to try to avert a return to the 1993-4 war. The chapter chronicles the multiparty efforts to maintain the peace.
Hare, Paul J. "Angola: The Lusaka Peace Process." In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, 1999.
After violence resumed after the 1992 elections in Angola, the international community again played a central role in bringing the parties back to the negotiating table. This chapter describes the international effort to establish the Lusaka peace process and describes its principles.
Diamond, Louise and John W. McDonald. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. Kumarian Press, April 1, 1996.
This book identifies and documents nine tracks in the Multi-track diplomacy system: government; professional conflict resolution; business; private citizen; research, training, and education; activism; religion; funding; and media or public opinion. For each track the authors examine the purpose, culture, structure, activities, and place in the field of that track.
Saunders, Harold H. "The Multilevel Peace Process in Tajikistan." In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington DC: USIP Press, 1999.
The chapter outlines the multilevel peace process. Discussions took place at a variety of levels: influential citizens outside government, "public peace process," UN-backed official peace process, and civil society involvement. In each of these levels, the authors highlight the importance of third-party intervention in sustaining the dialogue.
Egeland, Jan. "The Oslo Accord: Multiparty Facilitation through the Norwegian Channel." In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, 1999.
This chapter, by a Norwegian participant in the mediation process, discusses the role of Norway and other international actors in producing the Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinians.
Anstee, Margaret J. "The United Nations in Angola: Post-Bicesse Implementation." In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, 1999.
The author, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Angola, describes the complex multilateral effort to bring an end to the civil war in Angola.
Notter, James and John W. McDonald. "Track Two Diplomacy: Nongovernmental Strategies for Peace ." U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda 1:19, December 1996.
This article describes various forms that track two diplomacy can take. The authors, from the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, discuss consultation, dialogue, and training as three key track two diplomacy activities. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy.
Available at: http://www.imtd.org/.
Established in 1992, the mission of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy is to promote a systems approach to peacebuilding and to facilitate the transformation of deep-rooted social conflict. The Institute is chaired by Ambassador John W. McDonald and it's work is grounded in the theory of multi-track diplomacy. The baseline idea of multi-track diplomacy is that all forms of diplomacy be integrated into a comprehensive systems approach to diplomacy. This website accesses a variety of information regarding the theoretical foundations of the Institute's work as well as discussions of the practical work being carried out my the organization.
Ferris, Karen. "Multi-Track Diplomacy: The Case of Bosnia-Herzegovina." ,
Available at: http://www.skynet.ie/~peacesoc/read/multitrackbh.html.
This article aims examines theories of conflict resolution, explaining how ideas behind Multi-track Diplomacy have developed. Using the theories of Multi-track Diplomacy the author looks to Bosnia, examining to what extent the Track I Dayton Peace Accords had an impact and how important Track II and III diplomacy are in creating a 'real and sustainable peace' in Bosnia.
Mateeva, Anna. "Nagorno Karabach: A Straightforward Territorial Conflict." , 2002
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article details the dynamics of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabach in which ethnic Armenians have been struggling for control since the late 1980s. There have been a variety of attempts to mediate this conflict, particularly in the form of multi-track diplomacy, but as of 2002 it remained at a stalemate.
Offline (Print) Sources
Diamond, Louise. "Planting Seeds." In People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around the World. Edited by European Centre for Conflict Prevention, ed. Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 1999.
Attributes the multi-track peace process in Cyprus to intentionality, synergy, and synchronicity.
Return to Top
|
