Religion and Public Policy: Human Rights, Conflict, and Ethics, edited by Sumner B. Twiss, Marian Gh. Simion, Rodney L. Petersen (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
An Introduction to Multi-Track Diplomacy
#4 in series
Rev. Rodney Petersen, PhD
CMM Executive Director Emeritus
An enlarged understanding of the role of religion in today’s world is playing into a growing awareness of the importance of religion in matters of diplomacy. Religion plays a key role in conflict in Israel and Palestine and lies behind the anger exhibited by both Hamas and Israeli self-understanding. Religious self-understanding can also be seen to be a factor in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Where there is a perceived imbalance in the distribution of economic, political and environmental or social resources (social injustice) that coincides with identity-group boundaries, there is potential for violence and for protracted conflict that will further devastate the communities involved. Given its role in framing the authenticity of different world views, religion can either contribute to regional peace or be used as an argument to justify conflict in the context of perceived injustices as happened in regional conflicts in recent years as well as in the “so-called,” “War on Terrorism.” The rift between religious ethics and international law finds reasons for engagement in such situations (William P. George, “Looking for a Global Ethic? Try International Law,” Religion and International Law by Mark W. James and Carolyn Evans eds. [Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004]: 483-504).
Conflict theory outlines several approaches which often devolve into either conflict management or conflict resolution. Whereas the former implies taking action to keep a conflict from escalating further, the latter seeks to resolve incompatibilities, and such actions often lead to outcomes described as zero-sum, positive-sum, or negative-sum (Sharma Mantha, Handbook on Conflict Management Skills [Hyderabad, India: Centre for Good Governance, 2001]). Both approaches may necessitate the intervention of a third party. Such mediation may be necessary because of the breakdown of communication, an outbreak of violence or the intractability of parties in negotiation. Such intervention may be inter-personal, or it may happen at the group level. It may represent efforts to mediate among elites, middle-range leaders or grassroots actors, and be appropriate to the level of interaction (Lisa Schirich, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. A Vision and Framework for Peace with Justice [Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2004]: 71).
We frequently think of third-party intervention in regional conflicts as coming from nation-states. This is the work of political or military leaders through official visits, policy statements, “coercive measures like sanctions, arbitration, power mediation,” or “non-coercive measures like facilitation, negotiation, mediation, fact-finding missions and ‘good offices” (Cordula Reimann, “Assessing the State-of-the-Art in Conflict Transformation,” in Martina Fischer and Beatrix Schmelzle {Eds.} Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation [Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Management, 2004]). This is Track I intervention, or diplomacy. It involves particular resources, positive as well as negative incentives, and can carry all of the coercive potentiality that a state or international organization can bring to bear upon a conflict.
Track II diplomacy has developed over the past half century, as a part of the growing NGO movement, and often in response to the unique regional conflicts that have broken open since the end of the Cold War (1989). American diplomat and public policy scholar Joseph Montville coined the term “track two diplomacy” in Foreign Policy Magazine (Winter, 1981-82) (William D. Davidson and Joseph V. Montville, “Foreign Policy According to Freud” in Foreign Policy No. 45 Winter, 1981-1982; Montville, The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A Case for Track Two Diplomacy. The Psychodynamics of International Relationships [Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1990]; and Montville, “Religion and Peacemaking,” in Raymond Helmick, S.J. and Rodney Petersen, Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy and Conflict Transformation [Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2001]). The term was first used in an analysis of the field in a book by John W. McDonald, Conflict Resolution: Track Two Diplomacy (Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute, 1987). Pioneered in concept even earlier among scholars like Herbert Kelman, Edward Azar, John Burton, John Galtung, it has grown considerably as a concept and a recognized form of diplomacy in building an atmosphere conducive to the work of reconciliation. Authors Davies and Kaufman argue that Track II diplomacy: “promotes an expansion of social capital as needed to move from the logic of mutual hostility and imposed solutions (zero- or negative-sum outcomes) to the integrative logic of peace building as a process of collectively addressing human needs, leading zero- or positive-sum outcomes that encourage buy-in by all parties and development of a self-sustaining democratic culture” (John Davies and Edward Kaufman “Second Track/Citizens’ Diplomacy: An Overview” in John Davies and Edward Kaufman (Eds.) Second Track/Citizen’s Diplomacy: Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation [New York: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 2003]: 3).
Track II diplomacy can complement “first track” or official diplomacy in that it can initiate new opportunities for communication where little or none exists, foster cross-cultural understanding and pursue joint efforts at dialogue or action when official dialogue is blocked or absent. It can begin, build and enlarge upon official Track I diplomacy. Public policy and conflict mediators John Davies and Edward Kaufman write about the assets that such “citizens’ diplomacy” can bring to conflict in the following way: “Second track, or “citizens” diplomacy may be broadly defined as the bringing together of professionals, opinion leaders or other currently or potentially influential individuals from communities in conflict, without official representative status, to work together to understand better the dynamics underlying the conflict and how its transformation for sustainable development might be promoted (Davies & Kaufman, Second Track/Citizen’s Diplomacy, 2).
Track II diplomacy has been widely used, often with success, in numerous areas around the world. Policy analyst and mediator John W. McDonald cites examples with respect to the former Soviet Union, the PLO in Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland (John W. McDonald, “Multi-Track Diplomacy,” in Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess {Eds.} Beyond Intractability [Boulder, CO: Conflict Resolution Consortium: University of Colorado, 2003]: 52-54). It has made possible a constructive civil society in South Africa after the end of Apartheid. Many cases are documented by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall in their study, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000). An enlarged understanding of the role of religion in today’s world is playing into a growing awareness of the importance of religion in matters of diplomacy, specifically Track II diplomacy, not only in the U.S. but also within the European Centre for Conflict Prevention (Paul van Tongeren, Malin Brenk, Marte Hellema and Juliette Verhoeven, People Building Peace: Successful Stories of Civil Society [Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005]). The Report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Engaging with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings,” finds room for just such additional activity and emerging partnerships in several cases cited in the report. Our world is ripe for a more profound understanding of religion whether it is in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, South Asia or elsewhere. Track II diplomacy must be fostered if we are to have a more peaceful world.
|