Peace is a silvery cobweb held together by delicate threads of diplomacy, compromise, and structure. However, this web, once believed to be perennial, is now fraying before our very eyes — the devastating wars in Ukraine and the Middle East serve as stark reminders of this phenomena. These conflicts are horrifying not only because of the frightening scale of their destruction but also because of their implications of a more troubling reality: the disintegration of the global order that has long preserved our peace.
Davide Leonhardt, writing for “The New York Times” about the war happening in Ukraine, observed that “a war like this — a voluntary war of aggression — would be a sign that Putin believed that Pax Americana was over and that the U.S., the European Union, and their allies had become too weak to exact painful consequences.” Similarly, Jeremy Bowen, in his analysis of the Middle East conflict for the “BBC,” wrote “This war is different to the others because it comes at a time when the fault lines that divide the Middle East are crumbling.” These quotes highlight a chilling truth: the end of a global era is coming and with it, the crumbling of our diplomacy. For in the face of recent conflicts, the old strategies of Track 1 diplomacy — formal negotiations between governments — has been proven time and time again, to be insufficient to address the unrelenting threats.
Yet, this collapse does not mean that peace is completely unattainable, instead, we must transform how we pursue it. A new approach is needed — one that unifies the traditional, state-led methods of Track 1 with the fluid, adaptable techniques of Track 2 diplomacy.
The strength in Track 2 lies in its ability to adjust to the circumstances. Because of its unofficial nature, the boundaries on the operations that Track 2 diplomacy can accomplish are limitless. It operates outside of the norms of diplomacy, and provides spaces where individuals can see each other not simply as representatives of their countries, but as humans. This process allows Track 2 to change perceptions, open channels of communication and cultivate empathy on both sides. Therefore, while Track 2 is an “unconventional” means of peacemaking through it, peacemakers are able to lay the groundwork for long-term peace.
A powerful endorsement of Track 2 diplomacy comes from John Marks, the founder of Search for Common Ground and a visionary in this field, whom I had the great privilege of interviewing recently. Marks has dedicated much of his career to developing a framework that seeks out the ‘common ground’, using shared interests as a foundation for the resolution of conflict. When asked about the feasibility of using Track 2 diplomacy to address recent conflicts he replied: “You can find areas where people agree even though they have arguments with each other and set up processes to resolve some problems and if enough of those get found then it may even change things.” His experiences, narrated in his book From Vision To Action, illustrate the remarkable potential of Track 2 diplomacy to bring about tangible results in even the most intractable conflicts.
One of the most striking examples of Track 2’s power is the “Core Working Group,” a project initiated by Marks to bring together twenty-five Middle Easterners — Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, and Turks — who, despite their political differences, came together to resolve shared challenges within their countries. In the initial meetings, the atmosphere was hostile, the tensions heightened as an Arab official started criticizing an Israeli general. Yet, in a moment, these rising tensions were dissipated as a Lebanese official intervened and stated simply, “He is my friend.” In that instant, personal connections transcended political animosity and the atmosphere of the meeting shifted in that of collaboration and mutual respect. This is what Track 2 diplomacy seeks (and has succeeded) to achieve: the dissolution of entrenched hatred and the fostering of human connection.
Nevertheless, as influential as Track 2 is in building relationships and changing mindsets, it is not without its limitations. The informal nature of Track 2 diplomacy means it lacks the authority needed to create pivotal policy changes to halt large-scale conflict altogether. Track 2’s strengths lie within its ability to act on the areas in which Track 1 diplomacy lacks. As such, it needs to be supported by the efforts of Track 1 diplomacy to be successful in its operations. This was best demonstrated in John Marks’ work in Iran. Despite his efforts to use Track 2 diplomacy to bridge the divide between American and Iranian officials, real progress was made only when he was able to align the unofficial methods of Track 2 with the conventional process of Track 1. The turning point came from an unexpected source: wrestling.
Wrestling, a revered sport in Iran, served as a crucial tool in the advancement of the countries’ relations. Through careful preparation, the American wrestlers were able to participate in the Takhti cup, a prestigious Iranian tournament. As the wrestlers walked into the tournament, they carried the American flag in with them. This gesture, televised to the Iranian public, symbolized the newfound possibility for diplomatic relations between Iran and America. Yet, the efforts did not end there. Once back in the U.S., John Marks, to amplify the amiability generated by this event, arranged a meeting with the U.S. president to reinforce the American government’s willingness to work towards the possibility of better relations. This episode underscores the crucial lesson: Track 1 and Track 2 diplomacy must work alongside one another to maximize diplomatic success.
As the familiar world begins to give way to uncertainty, it is clear that we must adapt. The outdated techniques of Track 1, relying solely on government to government negotiations, is simply insufficient in the face of the more complex and intense conflicts endangering our world today. The integration of the adaptable, human-centered approach of Track 2 into the formal authority of Track 1 can forge a new framework of peacebuilding capable of withstanding the volatility of our changing world.
