What is Track II and Track 1 ½ Diplomacy?

At the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, we use what is called a “track
II” approach to achieve our overarching goal of resolving conflicts that threaten U.S.
interests. Utilizing this method uniquely positions us and sets us apart from many other
non-profit, activist organizations. However, this raises the question:

What is a track II approach?

Throughout the years, participants at National Committee track II dialogues have expressed
their support of our efforts and our unique approach; some encomiums are here.

Methodology and Merits of this Approach

Montville stresses, as do others, that track II diplomacy is in no way a substitute for official, formal (track I), government-to government or leader-to-leader relationships. Rather, track II activity is designed to assist official leaders by compensating for the constraints imposed upon official negotiations. Track II diplomacy is “a process that aims to help resolve or manage conflicts by exploring possible solutions out of the public view and without the requirements of formal negotiation or bargaining for advantage.” Simply, Montville says, “The goal is to take the edge off resentments,” creating opportunities for official diplomacy.

Typically, track II diplomacy involves so-called workshops sponsored by neutral, non-governmental organizations. Attendees may include former top officials acting in an unofficial capacity. Often, the workshops are also attended by invited, interested individuals with influence on the adversarial governments. A number of theorists highlight the importance of “influentials” who have the potential to significantly affect the leadership’s thinking and policy-making. In this respect, it is worth noting that former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger has played a key role in many of the NCAFP’s track II meetings with the DPRK since 2003. Other esteemed individuals such as the Honorable Paul A. Volcker, the Honorable Madeleine Albright, and the Honorable Winston Lord have also played important roles in our dialogues.

Many of the theorists of track II diplomacy stress the important role that such efforts play in overcoming the limits of official diplomacy. Harold H. Saunders, a former high-level government official and active participant in the Camp David accords and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, stresses that it is more possible to achieve genuine mutual understanding in a non-official dialogue “where participants act as the human beings they are, than in official exchanges where the persons involved often speak as though they are the titles they hold.” One might add that the track II setting opens the possibility for less insular, “outside-the Beltway” points of view to be expressed.

Additionally, the Track II approach:

  • Changes the attitudes of the parties in conflict by working to break down negative stereotypes and generalizations of the other side. This is especially true of parties who, due to political barriers, find it difficult to meet;
  • Opens channels of communication and improves the quality of communication among parties in intractable conflicts;
  • Aids in relationship and trust-building. This sort of confidence and trust-building is imperative, and the bonds formed during the “unofficial processes” often translate to the “official processes";
  • Builds not only professional networks and associations but also personal relationships as well. The approach allows for frank and open exchanges free of the formality of official dialogues. This allows people to meet and get to know each other both within and outside of plenary sessions;
  • Provides new options for negotiation by generating creative ideas which might not be raised within the context of official negotiations.