Track II Diplomacy: A Short History

How the left-field idea of diplomacy without diplomats became an essential tool of statecraft.

BY CHARLES HOMANS | JULY/AUGUST 2011

The brainchild of a handful of academics, free-thinking State Department bureaucrats, and public intellectuals in the 1970s, "Track II" diplomacy grew out of the observation that private individuals, meeting unofficially, can find their way to common ground that official negotiators can't. Put bluntly, "citizens could take some action rather than simply being bystanders while the grown-up governments acted like jerks," says Joseph V. Montville, the former Foreign Service officer who first put the term down on paper in the pages of Foreign Policy 30 years ago. Governments once viewed Track II as a kind of feel-good exercise at best, and at worst as a genuine threat -- freelance diplomacy, after all, can damage the real kind. But three decades later, most of them have come to understand that an era of unconventional conflicts requires unconventional solutions.

May 1, 1960
An American U-2 spy plane in Soviet airspace is shot down, leading to a full-blown Cold War diplomatic crisis. President Dwight Eisenhower's friend Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review, convenes a gathering of unofficial American and Soviet delegations at Dartmouth College. The meeting establishes the blueprint for Track II diplomacy, from the cast of characters (a mix of academics and ex-officials) to its agenda: a frank conversation about their countries' differences.

1970s
Shrinks discover geopolitics. With backing from groups like the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the Institute for Psychiatry and Foreign Affairs (IPFA), the new field of political psychology begins convening meetings of Arab and Israeli scholars and retired officials. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat is a believer, telling Israel's Knesset in his historic 1977 visit that "a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear, of deception" divides Arabs and Israelis, and is "70 percent of the whole problem."

December 24, 1979
Soviet tanks roll into Afghanistan, and U.S. President Jimmy Carter cuts off contact with the Kremlin. The following year, California New Agers Michael and Dulce Murphy convene a conference at the Esalen Institute to promote unofficial citizen exchanges with the Soviets. Joseph V. Montville, a Foreign Service officer and participant in the APA's Arab-Israeli meetings, tells attendees, "I suppose you could say what I do is Track I diplomacy, and what you do is Track II diplomacy."

CHOO YOUN-KONG/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: DIPLOMACY
 

Charles Homans is features editor at Foreign Policy.

BOB JACOBSON

10:11 AM ET

June 29, 2011

Brilliant: let's replace institutionalism with elitism.

If I get the gist of Diplomacy II, it's that small groups of elites can more effectively make foreign policy than large institutions, least of all large institutions in democratic nations. That's not really much of a revelation. It's been that way ever since banks went global and multinationals soon thereafter. I'm not sure who has more suasion in the USA, my fellow citizens and I or those who run Goldman Sachs, Citi, and JPMorgan Chase at home; and overseas, UBS, Deutsche Bank, the various City banks in London, and their French counterparts.

Of course, it's not just banking elites that get together, but energy elites, military elites, elites who champion democracy (odd) and even elites who want to make life better for the hoi poloi. Most of the citizens I know are not well enough educated to understand let alone make foreign policy and those that are are now out of work or just getting by; a trip to Kabul or even Paris would break their banks irrevocably. Yes, let's have more Diplomacy II, it can't do much worse for the US than has Diplomacy I.

Maybe it's not the style of our diplomacy but what we have to say to the rest of the world that's out of kilter with reality and the other 6.7 billion who cohabit the Earth. Or the way we treat resources that are dear now and will become precious soon, further extending the chasm between rich and everyone else.