Track One and Track Two Diplomacy / Civil Society Peace-Building: Preconditions, Merits

and Problems

Sabine Wagner,

INEF Duisburg / IFSH Hamburg

Actors on thePeace-Building Stage

• Peacebuilding involves a wide range of actors

• Approaches to Peace-Building make a distinction between actors on the state level („Track One“) and actors on the civil society level („Track Two“)

Track One and Two

Track One

• Governments• International and

regional Organisations (EU, UNO, AU)

Track Two

• International and local NGOs

• Research institutes• Churches• Individuals

Track One Diplomacy

Mediation

• Mediation by states is practised in the form of official or quiet diplomacy

• The usual types of mediation (umbrella term) are good offices, facilitation, consultation, negotiation and mediation

Types of Track One Mediation

• Good Offices: low-intervention mediation efforts (e.g. logistical support for peace talks)

• Facilitation: prior or parallel to negotiations, facilitators try to create space for the conflicting parties to come together. Facilitators talk to the parties separately, often through shuttle diplomacy

• Consultations: mediators act as advisors to the conflicting parties

• Mediation: characterised by a higher degree of interference than other mediation types, mediators articulate their opinion and usually try to develop a peace plan

Power Mediation as a Special Form of Mediation

• Outcome-orientation: the aim of mediation is to identify representative leaders of the conflicting parties and to bring them together to negotiate a cease fire and/or a peace accord

• Power Mediation: outcome-oriented, explicit possibility of use of power, including military force. This approach can be practised by states which are able to bring resources into the negotiations („financial carrots“ or „military sticks“)

Criticisms on Track One Diplomacy

• State diplomacy focuses on the top leadership level of conflicting parties:

„[...] the international community most often seeks out and relates to hierarchical leaders [...] even when, as it is often the case, power may be far more diffuse and fractionated. In situations such as Bosnia, Somalia, and Liberia, the degree to which hierarchical power is operational is decidedly unclear.“ (Jean Paul Lederach, Levels of Leadership, in: Luc Reychler/Thania Paffenholz (Hrsg.), Peacebuilding. A Field Guide, Boulder 2001, S. 147)

And more criticism...

• State mediation are only in rare cases „neutral“

• Outcome-oriented approaches are not sufficient in tackling deeper roots of conflict

Track Two Diplomacy / Civil Society Peace-Building

• Rather a complementary concept than an alternative to Track One

• Process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented

• Tackles the relationships af actors on all society levels (grass-roots level, middle-range level, top level)

Example of Track Two Instruments: „Interactive Problem-Solving Workshops“

• Influential persons of conflicting parties are brought together in a neutral, informell setting, „Chattamham Rules“

• In a three-stage process, accompagnied by practicioners and scientists, proposals are worked out for a solution which satisfies the security and identity needs of all parties

Limits to the Problem-Solving Workshop

• Recruitment: it is difficult to find participants who are motivated to actively get involved in the peace process and who are at the same time in a position that enables them to feed the workshop results into the political process

• Asymmetry: workshop has limited output when the constellation of conflicting parties is characterised by an asymmetric power structure

Multi-Track Diplomacy: the natural answer to the „multi-cause“ of conflict?

„Peace in the largest sense cannot be accomplished by the United Nations or the Governments alone. Nongovernmental Organizations, academic institutions, parliamentarians, business and professional communities, the media and the public at large must all be involved.“

(Boutros-Ghali, Agenda for Peace 1992)

Multi-Track Diplomacy

• There are a number of approaches to integrate Track One and Track Two Diplomacy into a complementary concept

• McDonald names 9 different actor groups, pointing out the media as an interconnecting communication channel

Multi-Track Diplomacy(Source: Louise Diamond/John McDonald, Multi-Track Diplomacy. A Systems Approach

to Peace (3rd edition), West Hardford 1996)

Excursion: NGOs as Track Two Players – Strenghts and Weaknesses

Strenghts:

• Independent, credible• accepted by conflicting parties• can provide an informal, unofficial setting to conflicting parties• less media attention, creates space for shuttle diplomacy• have access to actors on all levels of society: grassroots level, middle-

range level and top level • use an array of innovative and flexible methods (e.g. „Search for

Common Ground“: TV-series „Nashe Maalo“ in Macedonia, „Studio Ijambo“ in Burundi)

• can create space for „peace constituencies“ • „eyes and ears“ to international community: early presence in conflict

zones • develop expertise, provide political actors with analyses and

recommendations (e.g. International Crisis Group)

Weaknesses:

• Low financial capacities, low „political weight“ (but: cedibility)• Discontinuity (high fluctuation of staff due to difficult living

conditions, psychological pressure)• Staff sometimes does not meet required professional skills and

qualifications (Conflict analysis, mediation techniques, social and intercultural competence)

• NGOs sometimes replace the state, weak state structures lose credibility

• „In many ways NGO activity can be seen as replacing the state. This raises a crucial question [...]: To whom are NGOs accountable?“ (Pamela Aall,1996)

• Legitimacy? (external and internal legitimacy)• Dominance of „western“ actors and peacebuilding concepts

...more weaknesses...

„I found that in Egypt, Rwanda and Burundi people were not too excited about the role of NGOs in their country. In Rwanda, one person called it the „new colonization, which I later read in an article as well. [...] The Westerners felt that they were trying to do something good and refused to believe that their work was under suspicion, while the local population had a different attitude. Those who worked with the NGOs enjoyed having a „good job“, while the population itself was not as attached to the cause or the service that was being provided as it was to the money and surroundings that came with it.“

(Amr K. Abdullah, Finding the Tools to Bridge the Cultural Gaps, http://www.alhewar.com/Alma-Amr.htm,14. Okt. 2001)

...and more weaknesses

• NGOs do not choose their local partners careful enough („let‘s cooperate“)• NGOs sometimes have only weak if any ties with civil society, and sometimes

represent elite interests only• NGOs sometimes replace local peace initiatives instead of supporting them• NGOs sometimes do not analyse conflict situations properly before they get

involved• Sometimes NGOs do not show long-term commitment („jumpers“, „hit and run“

approach) „do no harm“ „Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment“• NGOs sometimes ignore the fact, that there is always a number of people who

profit from war • Harsh competition for funds• Labor division among NGOs as well as between NGOs, states and multilateral

agencies, is surprisingly underdeveloped, lack of cooperation• NGOs tend not to evaluate their programs on a regular base networks

NGO activities: „Search for Common Ground“ in Macedonia

(source and further information: www.sfcg.org)

• Bridges for the New Balkans: Regional Media Project

• Mozaik: Model for Multicultural Pre-school Education in Macedonia

• Nashe Maalo: Television, Theatre and Outreach Projects

Bridges for the New Balkans: Regional Media Project

• Bridges for the New Balkans was the first regional media project in the Balkans

• Project has been successfully implemented in Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia

• Main goal of the project is improved communication among different ethnic communities and nations in the Balkans

• Using media as a tool, the project attempts to overcome prejudices among the Balkan nations

• Since the beginning of the project, approximately 500 journalists, intellectuals and other professionals from different countries in the region have been involved in the project

Project Components

• Karavan, Regional Magazine

• Multiethnic Forum, local (Macedonian) Magazine

• Balkan Kaleidoscope

• Local TV Exchange

• Local Radio Exchange

Mozaik: Model for Multicultural Pre-school Education in Macedonia

• Mozaik was initiated in 1998 to support Macedonian educational institutions in bridging the gap caused by linguistic, cultural and ethnic segregation in schools and kindergartens

• Project has two main components: introducing a bilingual approach in kindergartens and developing a child-centered pedagogical approach that includes age-appropriate training in conflict-resolution skills for children

• Since 1998 Mozaik has been successfully implemented in Skopje, Kumanovo, Gostivar, Struga and Debar

• SCGM‘s objective for 2004-2006 is that Mozaik is integrated formally into the Macedonian public education system

Nashe Maalo: Television, Theatre and Outreach Projects

• Nashe Maalo was the first children‘s television program in Macedonia

• goals: promote intercultural understanding, encourage conflict prevention in a multicultural society and impart specific conflict-resolution skills that children can use in their everyday lives

Nashe Maalo

• Children‘s Puppet Theatre

• Nashe Maalo Outreach

• Children‘s Magazine

• Parent-Teacher Guide

• Nashe Maalo Music CD

• Knowledge Quiz Show

• Nashe Maalo Live Theatre

Thank you for your attention!

Questions/Discussion:

• What are your experiences with NGOs or other „Track Two“ Actors?

• What do you think of the „Search for Common Ground“ approach in Macedonia?