Second-Track Diplomacy

Second-track—or multitrack and unofficial—diplomacy encompasses all informal efforts at peace building and sustainable development to prevent war or restore society after war through the building of culture and institutions that sustain peace, as well as conciliation—talking across division during conflict. Second-track diplomacy stands in contrast to first-track diplomacy, or traditional and formal international diplomacy, where officially designated representatives, such as heads of state and ambassadors, come together for political reasons. High-profile nongovernmental organizations and citizen activists are often publicized with unofficial diplomacy. A wide range of less-visible stakeholders, however, can be quite influential in nonrepresentative activities and forums. In many conflicts, the stakeholders are not publicized. Those interested in scrutinizing multitrack diplomacy must ask: Who is acting to prevent conflict? Who is acting to mediate, or assist with negotiating, difference?

The growing emergence of second-track diplomacy parallels changing issues, as well as transfer of powers, rights, and functions to organizations within civil society. For example, in some parts of the world, security—in its traditional sense—has not been a concern for years. Instead, challenges that require regional cooperation, like resource disputes, have priority. Actors concerned with environmental and other complex international tension, like ethnic conflict, are pioneering a multistakeholder process that includes many of the actors listed in the following paragraph.

Our most powerful international actors are no longer necessarily the heads of state but include transnational corporations, churches, and nongovernmental organizations like Amnesty International. General Electric is credited with promoting peaceful conflict resolution between India and Pakistan. Joseph Elder's conciliation work in Sri Lanka as a Quaker has been publicly noted. Susan Collin Marks is another publicized example, describing her citizen involvement in mediating South Africa's transition. Philanthropy, finance institutions, professional and labor groups, academia, and media also play roles as opinion leaders or other exercisers of influence.

Naturally, involvement of these stakeholders alone does not guarantee diplomacy. Transnational corporations and churches have been instrumental to violent and corrupt dynamics, including notorious war crimes. In such circumstances, developing civic society strong enough to weaken, or at least check and publicize, authoritarian abuse of power reflects second-track diplomacy. Strong citizens are less likely to be manipulated by governments committing genocide, for example. Empowering communities in the face of self-interested political leadership can be their best, perhaps only, option for building peace.

Private stakeholders are often best situated to respond to particular needs. They may have practical insight and information not readily available to government. Civil society groups are often more flexible than government bureaucracies, allowing them to act swiftly and more creatively to newly arising issues and concerns. Civil society is most often acknowledged for [Page 855]closeness to people. Visionary initiative can create unexpected opportunities. Those who can operate flexibly, with access to people and networks that can be mobilized quickly, have rare potential to take this lead. The Oslo Accords, as one example, were preceded by months of informal communication preparing the ground for formal negotiation. Relationships between sides were built; common ground was identified.

Increasingly, formal and informal diplomacy merge. The negotiation of South Africa's transitional constitution also brought official and second-track diplomacy together, opening and soliciting meetings to the public through a media campaign, making materials accessible on the Internet, and widely circulating a draft Constitution for review, comment, and objection.

...