, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
From Stalemate to Dialogue: The Sequential Use of Track II Diplomacy and Shuttle Mediation
in Conflict Resolution
Introduction: The Dynamics of Conflict and the Imperative for Intervention
Protracted conflicts between neighbouring states are often characterised by a complex interplay of
historical grievances, mutual distrust, and deep-seated security dilemmas. When such conflicts reach
a mutually-hurting stalemate (MHS), a strategic opportunity for de-escalation emerges, as the costs
of continued hostility outweigh the potential benefits of victory (Zartman, 2001). However, this 'ripe
moment' does not guarantee a peaceful resolution. The profound psychological and political barriers,
particularly the pervasive distrust and refusal to engage in direct dialogue, can render the stalemate
intractable. The case study presented illustrates a classic scenario where two hostile states, locked in
a conflict and unable to face each other, required sophisticated third-party intervention and indirect
channels to initiate a peace process. This analysis will dissect the conflict resolution strategies
employed, focusing on two critical aspects: the confidence-building measures that laid the
groundwork for dialogue and the deadlock-breaking mechanism that facilitated official
communication. By examining the specific applications within this case, we can understand the
crucial functions of these tools in transforming a destructive conflict into a manageable one.
Point 1: Confidence-Building as a Catalyst for Dialogue
Confidence-building measures (CBMs) are fundamental tools in conflict resolution, designed to
reduce tensions, foster trust, and create an environment conducive to negotiation. Their primary
purpose is to signal a shift in intentions from confrontation to cooperation, thereby lowering the "fear
factor" that often perpetuates conflict (Osler Hampson, 1996). In the provided case, the conference
organisers skillfully employed a specific, yet powerful, category of CBMs, which aligns most closely
with the concept of Track II diplomacy. This mechanism served as the initial and indispensable step
towards unlocking the stalemate.
The Use of Track II Diplomacy
Track II diplomacy is defined as unofficial, informal, and non-governmental interactions between
individuals or groups from conflicting parties, aimed at developing creative solutions, building
personal relationships, and exploring the parameters of potential agreements outside the rigid
constraints of official state policy (Montville, 1991). The case description explicitly states that
"influential persons on both sides planned an academic conference in a neutral state that will be
attended by academics from both states." This is a textbook example of Track II diplomacy. The
organisers deliberately bypassed the official political leadership, who were trapped in a cycle of
distrust and unwilling to meet, and instead engaged influential academics. These academics, while
not holding formal political power, were likely to be respected figures with connections to their
respective governments, capable of influencing public opinion and policy.
From Stalemate to Dialogue: The Sequential Use of Track II Diplomacy and Shuttle Mediation
in Conflict Resolution
Introduction: The Dynamics of Conflict and the Imperative for Intervention
Protracted conflicts between neighbouring states are often characterised by a complex interplay of
historical grievances, mutual distrust, and deep-seated security dilemmas. When such conflicts reach
a mutually-hurting stalemate (MHS), a strategic opportunity for de-escalation emerges, as the costs
of continued hostility outweigh the potential benefits of victory (Zartman, 2001). However, this 'ripe
moment' does not guarantee a peaceful resolution. The profound psychological and political barriers,
particularly the pervasive distrust and refusal to engage in direct dialogue, can render the stalemate
intractable. The case study presented illustrates a classic scenario where two hostile states, locked in
a conflict and unable to face each other, required sophisticated third-party intervention and indirect
channels to initiate a peace process. This analysis will dissect the conflict resolution strategies
employed, focusing on two critical aspects: the confidence-building measures that laid the
groundwork for dialogue and the deadlock-breaking mechanism that facilitated official
communication. By examining the specific applications within this case, we can understand the
crucial functions of these tools in transforming a destructive conflict into a manageable one.
Point 1: Confidence-Building as a Catalyst for Dialogue
Confidence-building measures (CBMs) are fundamental tools in conflict resolution, designed to
reduce tensions, foster trust, and create an environment conducive to negotiation. Their primary
purpose is to signal a shift in intentions from confrontation to cooperation, thereby lowering the "fear
factor" that often perpetuates conflict (Osler Hampson, 1996). In the provided case, the conference
organisers skillfully employed a specific, yet powerful, category of CBMs, which aligns most closely
with the concept of Track II diplomacy. This mechanism served as the initial and indispensable step
towards unlocking the stalemate.
The Use of Track II Diplomacy
Track II diplomacy is defined as unofficial, informal, and non-governmental interactions between
individuals or groups from conflicting parties, aimed at developing creative solutions, building
personal relationships, and exploring the parameters of potential agreements outside the rigid
constraints of official state policy (Montville, 1991). The case description explicitly states that
"influential persons on both sides planned an academic conference in a neutral state that will be
attended by academics from both states." This is a textbook example of Track II diplomacy. The
organisers deliberately bypassed the official political leadership, who were trapped in a cycle of
distrust and unwilling to meet, and instead engaged influential academics. These academics, while
not holding formal political power, were likely to be respected figures with connections to their
respective governments, capable of influencing public opinion and policy.
