What are the benefits of multi-track diplomacy? 1

What are the benefits of multi-track diplomacy?

1. Introduction

e Overall statement:

 

e Multi-track diplomacy combines aspects from all tracks of diplomacy to

develop an individual best fit approach to counteract diplomatic

challenges. It can utilize specific advantages from one track and

mitigate potential weaknesses with tools from another, making mult

track diplomacy more flexible than official or unofficial diplomacy only

 

e Roadmap

 

¢ To build a basis for the argumentation |

Track-One, Track-Two and Track-1.5 diplomacy.

 

e | will define each Track and provide an overview over their respective

characteristics as well as their strengths and potential limitations

 

e Case studies for each track will be provided to show practical

examples and highlight the historical context of each track =

 

e Based on the conclusion and backed up by case studies | will conclude

that multi-track diplomacy is more likely to conduct successful

negotiations. All benefits of multi-track diplomacy will be compared and

evaluated against Track-One, Track-Two and Track-1.5 diplomacy.

 

e Track-One diplomacy

e Definition and characteristics

e Official way of peaceful communication between states and

their representatives (Hamilton, Langhorne 2010, p.11)

e Describes as “Primary peace-making tool of a state’s foreign

policy”

e Main differentiation to all other tracks: State-to-State

communication with signatory competence and delegation of

authonity for the negotiating individuals (Mapendere 2001, p.3)

 

e Benefits

 

e Participants in negotiations have in-depth knowledge of

interests of participants and can use executive political power

to influence outcomes

 

e Sufficient resources that can be used as bargaining chips

(Mapendere 2001, p.3)

 

e Limitations

 

e Actors may act in an opportunistic way to ensure re-election or

other personal goals (Mapendere 2001, p.4, Rudin 1956,

p.163)

 

e States and their representatives are limited to their channels of

communication and interaction (Peh, Park 2021, pp

 

e Case study

 

e US's foreign policy in North Korea, showing that only Track-

One diplomacy can lack significant improvements or results

(Peh, Park 2021, pp. 57-74)

 

e Track-Two diplomacy

e Definition and characteristics

 

e “Unofficial, unstructured interaction” between individuals

(Davidson, Montville 1981, p.155)

 

e Not suitable to replace Track-One diplomacy is it lacks

executive force and power in comparison but can complement

Track-One actions and aid official diplomacy (Davidson,

Montville 1981, pp.155-156)

e Track Two parties are not inhibited by political or constitutional

power (Mapendere 2001, p.5)

e Can give non-governmental organisations a platform to express

their opinion on political, social or economic topics (Mapendere

2001, p.6)

e Opportunity to discuss solutions outside the set processes and

boundaries of Track-One negotiations (Schiff 2010, p.95)

e Limitations

e Limited power to influence decisions in foreign policy building

(Schiff 2010, p.96)

e Only applicable in non-authoritarian societies (Mapendere

2001, p.6)

e Lack of resources to influence decisions and outcomes in

negotiations (Schiff 2010, p.96)

e Transfer from Track-Two diplomacy into Track-One governed

policies not guaranteed (Cuhadar 2009, p.642)

e Case study

e The role of Track-Two diplomacy as a support function during

the Anglo-lrish negotiations (Arthur 1990, pp.415-418)

e Track-1.5 diplomacy

e Definition and characteristics

e “Public or private interaction between official representatives of

conflicting governments or political entities” (Mapendere 2001,

p.10)

e Facilitated by party not affiliated to any official body or

representative (Mapendere 2001, p.10)

e Aiming to overcome the political structure that stated the

conflict (Mapendere 2001, p.10)

e International respect and reputation important for facilitating

 

party (Mapendere 2001, p.14)

e Benefits

 

e Possibility to directly influence structure of power of negotiating

parties (Mapendere 2001, p.16)

 

e Diplomatic flexibility: Entering as neutral mediator and facilitator

to enable start of negotiations (Mapendere 2001, p.16)

 

e Actas interface between official governmental entities and non-

Official conflict parties such as rebels (Mapendere 2001, p.18)

 

e Limitations

 

e Mediating party may be viewed as impartial by conflict parties

(Mapendere 2001, p.19)

 

e Facilitators do not have actual power or can hardly influence

parties directly due to lack of negotiation resources

(Mapendere 2001, p.19)

 

e Case study

e “Aceh — The Peace that Still Holds” (Rafi 2015, pp.75-79

e Multi-track diplomacy

e Definition and characteristics

 

e Defined as “predicated on the idea that personal interactions

between negotiating parties, along with the contributions of a

supportive external environment” (Raboin 2014, p.85)

 

e Views negotiation and diplomatic relations as ecosystem with

interconnected individuals, principals, agents and communities

(Mapendere 2001, p.7)

 

e Description of nine tracks of multi-track diplomacy:

 

1. Government

e “Formal, top-down negotiation through

established bureaucratic and political processes”

(Chrismas 2012, p.15)

2. Non-Government / Professionals

e “Critical system that seeks to solve problems,

mediate, consult, and make peace through

analysis and system building” (Chrismas 2012,

p.15)

e Often conducted by former members of Track-

One organizations (Chrismas 2012, p.15)

3. Business

e Relying on business relationships to develop

relations and solve conflicts (Chrismas 2012,

p.16)

4. Private Citizens

e Described as “Everyday Diplomacy” conducted

by citizens focusing on individual relationships

on a humanitarian and friendship level

(Chrismas 2012, p.15)

5. Research, Training, and Education

e Following the concept that availability and

sharing of information can contribute to conflict

resolution

e Think tanks, universities and comparable

institutions as main actors (Chrismas 2012,

e Covering ,Peace and environmental activism on

such issues as disarmament, human rights,

social and economic justice, and advocacy of

special interest groups regarding specific

governmental policies.” (Chrismas 2012, p.18)

 

e Based on “Private Citizens” Track aiming to

influence specific policies implemented by

Track-One diplomacy (Chrismas 2012, p.18)

 

7. Religion

 

e Described “as the heart of multi-track diplomacy,

where values of equality and social justice are

situated” (Chrismas 2012, p.19)

 

8. Funding

 

e Official or unofficial institutions or individuals

often enabling other tracks and supporting them

with resources to end conflicts (Chrismas 2012,

p.20)

 

9. Communications and the Media

 

e Leveraging power to people with media access

to influence opinions and other Tracks

(Chrismas 2012, p.20)

 

e Benefits

e Can combine advantages and opportunities from all previously

describes tracks

e Solutions and negotiations can be developed in a more detailed

level along the nine tracks (Chrismas 2012, pp. 21-22)

6

e Ability to monitor effects from one track to another and

development if countermeasures with holistic approach

(Mapendere 2001, p.7)

 

e Limitations

 

e Resources as bargaining chip still required to achieve

sustainable and high impact results (Mapendere 2001, p.8)

 

e Beneficial in theory but rather complex to apply in practice

(Mapendere 2001, p.8)

 

e Potentially effected by parallel and competing topics or

negotiation points (Mapendere 2001, p. 8)

 

e Conclusion

 

e Comparison of multi-track diplomacy to Track-One, Track-Two and

Track-1.5 using “Benefits” and “Limitation” arguments from previous

sections

 

e Highlighting the importance to balance different targets within different

tracks to ensure that one negotiation effort will not jeopardize another

track or goal

 

e Showing that multi-track diplomacy is more applicable within modem

diplomacy practices (Barston 2019, pp. 124-126, Seib 2016, p. 70-73)

 

e Highlighting the major benefits a “network” approach brings in

comparison to Track-One, Track-Two and Track-1.5 approach

(Mapendere 2001, p. 8)

 

e Concluding case study highlight the benefit and success of multi-track diplomacy: “ = ¢ mergence of multi-track diplomacy in international dispute vod treaty of Portsmouth and the community that made peace possible’

Bibliography

Arthur, P. 1990, "Negotiating the NOrne Blalld Problem: Track One or Track Two

Diplomacy?", Government and opposition (London), vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 403-418.

Barston, R.P. 2019, Modern Diploma ao" and Francis.

Chrismas, R. 2012, "Multi- Track Diplomacy and Canada's Indigenous Peoples",

Peace research, vol. 44/45, no. 2/1, pp. 5-30.

Cuhadar, E. 2009. “Assessing Transfer from Track Two Diplomacy: The Cases of

Water and Jerusalem.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 641-658.

Davidson, W., and Montville, J 1981. “Foreign Policy According to Freud.” Foreign

Policy, no. 45, pp. 145-57.

Hamilton, K. & Langhorne, P.R. 2010, The Practice of Diplomacy, Routledge.

Mapendere, J. 2001, Defining Track One and a Half Diplomacy: Its complementarity

and the analysis of factors that facilitate its success, ProQuest Dissertations

Publishing.

Peh, K. Park, S. 2021. Staying the Course: Denuclearization and Path Dependence in

the U.S.’s North Korea Policy. North Korean Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 pp. 57-78

Raboin, B. 2014, "The Emergence of Multi- Track Diplomacy in international dispute

resolution: The treaty of Portsmouth and the community that made peace possible ",

Willamette journal of international law and dispute resolution, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 85-

104.

Rafi, S. 2015. “Parniamentary Track 1 % Diplomacy: An Effective Tool for Peace-

Making.” Strategic Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 71-88.

Rudin, H. 1956. “Diplomacy, Democracy, Security: Two Centuries in

Contrast.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 161-81

Seib, P. 2016, The Future of Diplomacy, Polity Press, Oxford.

Schiff, A. 2010. “Quasi Track-One’ Diplomacy: An Analysis of the Geneva Process in

the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” International Studies Perspectives, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.

93-111.

 

8