 | ||||
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  | |
|
| Peacemaking - Diplomacy | ||||||||||||||||||
Overview Diplomacy - the practice of conducting relations between actors with the intent to influence, transmit a position or negotiate on a given issue or situation for a mutually acceptable outcome. There is continued debate of the particular roles played by Track I and Track II actors in conflict management. The division of the actors involved in conflict management into two tracks is only one method of distinguishing the different participants in conflict management. However there are definite classifications between official and unofficial actors in areas of conflict. While it is generally recognized that both actors fill useful functions, boundary issues and other role-related issues continue to create tensions between the two tracks. With increased internationalism and globalization the sphere of participants in inter-communal conflicts is expanding. Participants include not only state actors but the opposition parties and adversaries within the conflict itself, not to mention regional, multinational and non-governmental organizations. Third parties in Track I and Track II diplomacy can also provide several different roles in conflicts and in their de-escalation. They can fill the role of supporter or mediator during the Peacemaking process. A third party supporter or mediator can provide space for and initiate negotiations or discussions, gather information, help penetrate emotional barriers, help expand the negotiable pie, represent absent persons or views, provide resources, create pressure to reach an agreement, and generate support for an agreement. They do this with the intent to de-escalate conflicts, reach and sustain agreements and prevent future conflicts from occurring. Track I and Track II diplomacy are two mutually reinforcing processes in conflict management: two overlapping circles, sharing common characteristics and responsibilities within conflicts. Each track possesses its own effectiveness and despite similar methods used by both tracks, the role of Track I and Track II diplomacy cannot be filled by the other.
The role of the Track I diplomat can be one of participant, supporter or mediator. This can be demonstrated through first, second or third party participation in the conflict. Track I mediators are crucial during Peacemaking because they can have a strong effect on the outcome of the peace process. Track I supporters can help provide incentives during the Peacemaking and help provide and/or generate political and financial clout for a party to the conflict. Track I diplomacy is also important for the parties to the conflict themselves. Committing First Track diplomats to communicate for each side is a sign of commitment in the negotiation process. Despite the historical depth of Track I diplomacy, it is an ever-changing process, evolving in order to meet the demands particular to the parties, the conflict, and the international environment. Parties to the Conflict Roles Third Parties in Track I Diplomacy States and organizations will become involved in a conflict on behalf of one of the parties involved. Each offers influence and prestige and in doing so can help shift the power structure of the conflict in the negotiation process. This can be done by providing additional support to one of the two equally powerful sides, thereby creating asymmetry between the parties in the negotiations. Conversely, a third party can also provide power to an otherwise weaker party thereby creating symmetry in the negotiations. States will unite or unilaterally act to provide international support for a group or party in the conflict in the form of political, military or financial support. During the Peacemaking process this additional support provides power to the opposing sides through:
Additionally, supporters act as the go-between for the conflicting sides. Track I diplomats offer legitimacy to the contending parties without the parties themselves losing face or becoming involved in the negotiation process before each party is ready to commit to an agreement.
Third Party Advocacy for Victims Third party Track I diplomats have an incredible amount of influence and power in the international community. Track I diplomats provide a loud voice for victims in an internal conflict, especially during the Peacemaking process. During negotiations not only are cease-fires to be established, but accountability must be maintained. In the cases of violent inter-communal conflict, victims extend beyond the fighting forces as violence permeates all areas of civil life. This can result in human rights abuses, genocide, rape, and other forms of violations. First Track diplomacy can bring issues to light during negotiations and ensure they are considered and addressed during the Peacemaking process. This can be done in several ways such as through commissions or communals which work in concert with the negotiation process. The First Track diplomat has methods and more direct channels for bringing issues, such as human rights abuses to a forum where responsibility can be placed and justice can be served. Third Party Mediator The Track I diplomat's role is to aid in the resolution of a stalemate and the attainment of a peace settlement. One can do so in the capacity of mediator or arbitrator in the Peacemaking process. Third party involvement in the form of mediation is generally welcomed by all parties involved and is seen as an alternative to the parties negotiating their own solutions. Their presence helps diffuse tensions and creates a common language through which the parties can negotiate and settle differences. Third party Track I diplomats intervene when they:
When a First Track diplomat acts as a mediator or arbitrator during Peacemaking, he/she can either be a strong controller or a weak controller in the negotiation process itself. Terrance Hopmann writes that the third party Track I mediators are "individuals of high regard in the international community [...] Usually these individuals are selected because both the actor they represent has some relevant power, authority or legitimacy in the eyes of the parties to the dispute and because of their own personal skills as go-betweens". As noted above, other times a third party is involved because of interests in the region, conflict and/or its outcome. Strong Controller A strong controller generally has some vested interest in the conflict and in its resolution. While this interest is usually related to some tangible good, be it land, resource or people, it can also be intangible such as a kinship tie to the parties involved. In conjunction with the vested interest, a strong controller is only effective if he/she has some power to wield within the negotiation settlement. This power can be a result of a past, present or future political relationship, a present economic tie, or some form of power which allows the mediator to offer conditions on his/her own during the negotiation process.
Weak Controller A weak controller has little more than his/her own state's influence and prestige to offer in mediation. In this case the presence of the Track I diplomat is to demonstrate their own state's faith and support in the resolution of the conflict. Given that the state (or organization) does not have a vested interest in the conflict, the involvement of Track I diplomacy, high profile participants or diplomats indicate the amount of support and faith the state has in the resolution. When President Bill Clinton invited the Israelis and the Palestinians to peace talks, the value of the talks rested on the United States, a strong and forceful state that had faith that the two parties would reach an agreement and find common ground. The high profile of the U.S. President itself created pressure on the negotiation and was in itself a method of third party Track I diplomacy by the international community on the internal conflict. Methods of the First Track Mediator A Track I mediator has particular resources at his/her disposal to aid the negotiation process. Even a weak mediator can and will use incentives to promote Peacemaking. Positive incentives are promises by either a state or international organization to provide the sides with goods or services in exchange for the negotiated settlement. This is particular to Track I diplomacy because Track I has more power and resources at its disposal than Track II diplomacy. Governments can promise humanitarian aid, weapons sales, trade relations or other incentives as a reward for a negotiated settlement. Likewise international organizations can offer membership, loans, or similar incentives. These are more likely if a representative from the state or organization is involved in the negotiation process. It facilitates not only the incentive program but also the negotiation process itself. Additionally, a Track I diplomat has strong negative incentives to offer with their involvement in Peacemaking. Negative incentives might be in the form of sanctions, military action, expulsion from international/regional organizations or other types of actions which would negatively effect one or both parties. These negative incentives not only are meant to encourage the continuance of the negotiation but also of the state's or organization's commitment to the conflict's resolution. Criticisms of Track I Diplomacy First Track diplomats are criticized due to their lack of influence on the ground of the conflict. This means that even after a negotiated settlement has been reached, the fighters continue to wage war. This could be because the fighters do not view the "diplomat" as a true representative of their cause, or because they do not agree with the settlement. Therefore steps must be taken to ensure that the fighters and the signatories are in communication and agreement during the Peacemaking process. Lederach composed a leadership triangle which illustrates the importance of coordination throughout all levels of actors in order to ensure a sustainable peace. He divides the actors into three different types: elites, community leaders and grassroots. Each group possesses its own responsibility in Peacebuilding, from the elites' focus on high-level negotiations, to the community leaders' workshops to the grassroots' psychosocial work. The leaders in Track I are dependent on the community leaders, who are dependent on the grassroots actors for successful conflict resolution. This is another example of the intertwining interaction between Track I and Track II. Without it, peace is jeopardized. While Track II diplomacy is pervasive through all stages of the conflict, it is growing in importance in Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding when Track II diplomats can use their contacts to monitor the situation "on the ground." It is crucial in laying the foundation for higher level negotiations, ensuring the communities are stable and enabling former adversaries to live together in peace. Citizen initiatives and actions outside official government roles demonstrate different ways in which Track II diplomacy has benefited conflict resolution. Track II diplomacy has increased in importance in resolving international conflicts in the past fifty years due to the increased ability of organizations and individuals to visit and participate in other cultures as well as the increased interaction between states. Track II is less public and therefore open to a larger degree of movement. As stated by J. Lewis Rasmussen: "[They] are largely unencumbered by the political baggage their official counterparts carry and thus can be more effective at times in providing networking capabilities among parts of societies that are 'off limits' to most government personnel. In addition, unofficial actors, serving as neutral parties can help provide a bridge within divided societies; unofficial activities are often the only means through which members of opposing parties or factions can safely meet."
Parties to the Conflict During the Peacemaking stage Track II diplomacy can help the official actors prepare for negotiated settlements by initiating discussions and finding common ground on which negotiations can be based. The efforts of the Track II actor help diagnose the real problems and issues underlying the conflict. When negotiations are not prepared to begin at the official level, Track II diplomacy can be used to act on behalf of the parties themselves. Using representatives from the opposing sides who are in direct connection to the leaders is one way to initiate a peace process. Track II aids Peacemaking through lower-level agents:
Workshops and Social Psychology in Track II Diplomacy Workshops, re-education and cooperative programs targeting unofficial and local level participants are strong attributes of Track II diplomacy. Track II supports and participates in efforts between conflicting parties, allowing for lower level participants to come together in order to discuss issues and solutions to the conflict as well as issues and solutions to concerns outside the conflict. This helps foster mutual understanding and cooperation in the reconciliation process. Getting to know the other side and their views reduces the chances of misunderstandings which may threaten the Peacemaking process. And as Krisburg has noted, this helps the use of different channels in order to provide alternative paths when conflicts do occur which may threaten a breakdown of the Peacemaking process. Track II During Peacebuilding Once peace treaties have been signed and the pictures have been taken, the role of the Track II diplomats becomes increasingly important. As Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse have stated, the goal of peace-building is to prevent a relapse of violence and create a self-sustainable. Peacebuilding, the process by which communities disarm, reconcile and rebuild, is a slow, long and personal process. Even the infrastructure designed through the peace treaties or cease-fires does not address nor allow for the problems of rebuilding communities and social, political and economic ties. For long-term peace improvements in the cultural, economic and social lives of the conflicted in societies, as well as the need to create new common identities and vested interests, Kriesburg notes that the involvement of Track II actors is vital. The process of reconciliation after an inter-communal war is not easy. Not only do militarists have to be reintroduced into society but society needs to once-again return to a normal civil life in the same areas where only weeks/months earlier fighting had ensued. This becomes further complicated when communities torn apart are divided or "negotiated" to live side-by-side. The success of the reconciliation is in tandem to the success of the peace agreements. Different Second Track organizations are designed and targeted for different areas of the reconciliation process. Some seek to re-distribute food and supplies to broken communities. Some seek to re-educate militarists in local and civil employment. Some foster communication between community members or even such as Habitat for Humanity, seek to literally rebuild communities. The more advantageous combine the physical restructuring of communities with the emotional reconciliation of broken communities, bringing previously warring groups together to rebuild bombed out schools, hospitals, and other communal institutions. Finally, Second Track diplomacy during the peace-building stage is one of the front linesmen for detecting early warning signs of re-occurring violence and of threats to the peace process at the local level.
Third Parties in Track I Diplomacy Third Party Support When a Track II diplomat acts as a third party supporter or advocate, it generally does so with the intent to bring an issue to the attention of a Track I diplomat. This may mean being a supporting advocate in order to prevent a conflict and its re-escalation or help to bring issues and concerns to justice during the Peacemaking or Peacebuilding stages in a conflict. Third Party Track II diplomacy aids in numerous areas. An important area is that of truth and reconciliation commissions. This includes aiding justice commissions to uncover and gather facts on genocide, rape, robbery or torture. This task is a combined effort by both Track I and Track II organizations. Track II organizations are needed to help interview both the victims and the possible criminals (or soldiers, as the case may be), while Track I is needed to bring the issues (and criminals) to court. Not only do Track II organizations usually have a better relationship with the local populations but most often civilians are more willing to talk to them than to official representatives from governments or multinational organizations. Thus the information gathered through Track II methods is critical for building cases against war criminals. Due to constraints on official organizations arising from political pressures, grassroots organizations and local level contacts are vital for detecting the beginnings of political unrest in a region. In many cases the reports by NGOs or other grassroots organizations have been the main reasons for identifying the beginnings of inter-communal conflict. Unfortunately, sometimes they are "so grassroots" that their opinions are not heeded. In Rwanda, NGOs were the first to signal to the international community that something was occurring due to the influx of refugees and local reports of wide-spread violence. When heeded, Second Track diplomats can be very useful in aiding policy responses to initial instances of violence or conflict. Their information not only proves helpful in creating the policy, but their presence is vital for the implementation of that policy. In Macedonia the UN not only patrolled the borders but sponsored dialogues with community leaders and NGOs organized confidence-building measures such as trash pick-ups with Albanians and Macedonians aimed at prevention of erupting or spill-over of violence in the region. Kriesberg has also stated that third Party Track II diplomacy also aids in preventing violence amongst the conflicting parties by aiding the dissemination of information, countering false rumors, preventing the sale of weapons, and containing the spread of a neighboring conflict through military and humanitarian means. In Macedonia, the surrounding conflict in the neighboring states of the former Yugoslavia threatened its internal stability. It was only through the combined work of the UN, OSCE and NGOs that violence did not break out in the early 1990s. Third Party Mediation Second Track diplomacy has been known to bring parties together and ensure they are on similar playing fields before starting the negotiation process. During the de-escalation process in negotiation, leaders "are reluctant to appear to have made a mistake by changing the course they have begun," states Kriesberg. Second Track diplomacy ensures this does not happen by creating a solid and mutual foundation upon which the official negotiations can begin. Through initiation by a Track II mediator, high level participants do not lose face by committing to official interactions and meetings. During Peacemaking, Second Track diplomats can also ensure that participants at the grassroots levels are involved and notified of the advancements in the negotiation process. This creates dual-level checks and balances throughout the process. The main actors have to be sensitive to the desires and feelings of the ground-level participants in the process. This is especially important in internal conflicts where the guerilla forces might not adhere to one set leader for their cause. By keeping in touch with information of the advancements in the negotiation process, they not only feel a part of the developments but also provide their assurance that no further violence will occur. This is the role of the Track II diplomat because the violent factions of the different parties, if not under direct control of the political leaders, are easily able to violate any agreement, and will if they feel it does not address their concerns. The official actors, however, might not feel the violent factions are legitimate enough to warrant a voice. It is therefore up to the Track II diplomats to create a channel between the official actors of the negotiation, and the unofficial fighters of the conflict. As Kriesburg further states, the "sentiments of the rank-and-file members of the opposing sides" is critical to the success of a protracted and sustainable peace. So is the Track II diplomat.
Critiques of Track II Diplomacy The Track II diplomat has a large task in any situation. The problems are numerous and issues of legitimacy frequently arise. Since Track II diplomacy is usually driven by inter-personal relations, these can swing for or against any effort. NGOs, for example, survive by becoming personal and intimate with the local community. Andrew Natsios writes that this can distort perceptions and hinder the effectiveness of NGOs in a situation of conflict. At times the Track II actor is given too much influence; other times not enough attention is given to the reports generated through Track II efforts. In some cases the agenda of the Track II actor is in conflict with the efforts of the Track I actors. For example, a Track II agenda of seeking "justice" (such as uncovering human rights abuses), can threaten the negotiation process if the participants feel they are going to be charged with violations once the cease-fires have been arranged. Additionally, NGOs and other organizations dependent on conflict and suffering for their survival have the awkward position of needing the conflict, its atrocities and controversies for their continued existence. This claim has been both defended and refuted, for it places these Track II diplomats in an unfavoring light, as being dependent on the conflict for recognition. One must also look at the qualifications of the Second Track diplomat. Is this an organization newly implanted in the region, how much knowledge and/or experience does this group have? And more importantly, how much experience do the individuals working for/within the group have? These issues are something to keep in mind when analyzing the efforts of Second Track diplomacy, its role and its effectiveness in conflicts. For further information regarding the roles of organizations in conflict management, please refer to the section on conflict management organizations. |