THIRD PARTY IN UNOFFICIAL DIPLOMACY
Conflicts became one of the key points in the field of international bilateral, regional and inter-regional relations, global power structures, and the major ideological battles of the 20-21 century. The approaches to the conflict analysis have been changed a lot during the recent years. New tools have been created by scholars for giving an opportunity to the more comprehensive analysis and for minimizing negative consequences during the interventions, but we still see that third-party intervention besides transforming the conflict can also create new conflicts and do more harm than peace.
Anyway, third party intervention can be done by official and unofficial diplomatic approaches. Usually we see the result of intervention in official diplomatic relations (bilateral or multilateral meetings, agreements, etc), while the role of unofficial diplomatic relations is much more essential and more hidden. Here we have middle level and grassroots1, which are involved in unofficial negotiations, whicle official diplomacy there are top level representatives, who acts. Talking about forms of unofficial diplomacy, we need to mention paralegal diplomacy, Track 2 and track 3 diplomacy, private and non authorized diplomacy, half formal diplomacy etc and talking about actors, who acts in unofficial diplomacy, is necessary to mention non governmental representatives, ordinary citizens, religious leaders etc. Usually the work in unofficial diplomacy is not visible for population, media etc., but very often it leads to the official decisions, by the creation of links and trust on grassroots level.
For example, from the perspective of diplomacy in our case during the “football diplomacy”, we saw that the world were expecting something new after Sargsyan – Gul meeting in Armenia and then after in Turkey, because it was done by top level representatives. The media was fool by articles and news about these meetings. But, we also have had different international meetings, workshops, etc. where the representative from Armenia and Turkey were present, but it didn’t make any “noise” in the news, because here we see the representatives from middle level and grassroots, who are not decision makers, but still key actors. Of course they don’t have any mandate to sign any agreement which can make any impact on bilateral relations, but it doesn’t mean that they can’t create the basis for further bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey. Here we see the power of unofficial diplomacy which can take the key role in bilateral relations and turn to important steps in official diplomacy on the top level.
Talking about cases where unofficial diplomacy can be used, is necessary to include the issues which are not important for the government, failed official diplomacy, as the consequence of the lack of agreements, unjust agreements or unsustainable agreements, etc. The case of our relations with Turkey can be seen as failed diplomacy, because of the lack of agreements or unjust agreements, grievance, etc .
The next key point in unofficial diplomacy is PR and propaganda. Public diplomacy which is based on grassroots level can become the start point in problem solving discussions. Public diplomacy can be done by different external fundings, different educational programs, etc. which can make sense in the opinion changing process. Several years ago we started to talk about changing the mind of population in the context of Armenian-Turkish relations and we started to work on it and already today we see the result. Furthermore, recently there have been mentioned educational programs for students from Armenia and Turkey. To educate the young generation in different conditions can be very successful for fostering bilateral negotiations. Consequently, the role of public diplomacy is very essential in unofficial diplomacy.
Talking about forms, actors of unofficial diplomacy, I would like to mention one of approaches, which is used in unofficial diplomacy – Interactive Conflict Resolution (ICR).
Interactive conflict resolution (ICR) is based on dispute resolution through unofficial actors of groups or states – parties of the conflict, which has the aim to create the possibility to solve the conflict through communication of two parties with the presence of third party skilled intermediary. One of the goals of this approach is to understand, recognize mutually and respect and accept jointly each other, in the other words, to improve relationship between the parties2.
ICR methods realize through workshops, which are focused on education, i.e. to change individual perceptions, ideas and attitudes, and political workshops, i.e. the transformation of these changes through participants to decision-making bodies. Many interventions include both aspects. Workshops can be used in different phases of ICR process: prenegotiation, paranegotiation and peace-building. So, due to this third party improves communication using a range of human relation skills and encourages analysis of the conflict by providing a variety of relevant concepts from the study of the conflict. Participants are invited to engage in a common analysis of their situation before exploring the joint development of creative ideas for its improvement. Third-party consultations further assumes that only authentic and effective face-to-face interaction among the parties themselves can lead to the de-escalation and resolution of destructive, intractable conflicts. The ultimate goals are deep understanding, mutual recognition and respect, and jointly acceptable and sustainable solutions – in sum, an improved relationship between the parties.
ICR is not seen as a replacement for official diplomatic and governmental activities, but as a complement to them. The rational is to provide an informal, low-risk, noncommittal and neutral forum in which unofficial representatives of the parties may engage in exploratory analysis and create problem solving, free from the usual constraints of official policy and public scrutiny.
We don’t have official diplomatic relations with Turkey, but we make some success in the context of unofficial diplomacy, which can be very good basement for further development of diplomatic relations. Of course there will be scholars, who will argue that its non-beneficial for Armenia to create diplomatic relations with Turkey, first of all because of the Armenian Genocide, but to create diplomatic relations does not mean to forget Armenian Genocide. We need more unofficial tools and approaches for fostering diplomatic relations, not only for bilateral relations, but also for regional peace and development. We will be developed country if we develop our relations with our neighbors. Talking about conflicts, I would like to mention that there were different regional strategic project between regional actors, but we didn’t make any success because of the absence of bilateral sustainable relations. We need to consider ICR and other unofficial diplomatic approaches also with Azerbaijan. We need to include population, religious leaders, etc. in negotiations, and try to get from it as much as possible for creating peace between Armenia and its neighbors. It can be beneficial not only from economic and political perspectives, but also from the perspectives of national interests and national and regional security.
1Galtung J. Transcend Manual, 2000.
2Zartman (2007), Peacekeeping in international conflict: methods and techniques.
Return