Article Review 3
In the article, Implementation of Track Two Diplomacy, Olga Botcharova challenges the
void left from contemporary conflicts that have fallen short of reconciliation, due to the efforts of
track one diplomacy, or that of political leaders. Botcharova makes the claim that despite the
many calculates and seemingly balanced attempts at international peacemaking, more than fifty
percent of negotiations ultimately fail. The following question is proposed “how could this
staggering number of failed attempts be accurate with the backing of informed experts and
rational solutions?” The author states that many of the answers of contemporary conflict are
presented using the perspective track two diplomacy. Botcharova offers an alternative to fill the
void that official diplomacy has left: track two diplomacy.
The author offers an unorthodox approach of two track diplomacy. Track two diplomacy
is defined as “an unofficial interaction between members of adversarial groups or nations to
develop strategies, influence public opinion, and organize human and material resources in ways
that might help to resolve their conflict” (Helmick, 2002, p. 284). It is eminent that track two
diplomacy was never anticipated to overrun or substitute traditional official diplomacy, rather it
was meant to assist and fill a void where many times official diplomacy falls short. As a result of
traditional diplomacy lacking the healing needed in destroyed nations, Botcharova suggested
factors that block successful enactment of international peace policy. The understanding of the
barriers is intended to reveal the route to proper resolution among the conflicting groups.
Applied Theories
“The essence of these studies and my experience in peacemaking in regions of
severe conflict suggest that three major factors block the successful
implementation of international peace policy: (1) a failure to attend to the deep
need for healing from victimization of the parties in violent conflict, (2) strategies
that impose foreign recipes for peace, and (3) strategies that appeal to the political
hierarchy as the exclusive decision makers” (Helmick, 2002, p. 280).
Failure to Attend to the Need for Healing addresses the fact that once a conflict has
officially ended, the necessary steps for reconciliation are not applied. Leaders seem to think that
just because they make peace on paper, enemies will shake hands and forgive one another.
However, regardless of the reasons of war or peace, these people only focus on the suffering of
their loved ones. Military pressure is the first step of official mediation and is often necessary,
but more must be done for healing to happen.
Strategies Imposing Foreign Recipes for Peace highlights how international communities
view the people in the regions as passive, rather than active resources. These communities are
typically third world countries that have no decision making ability regarding the matter.
However, meditation is only successful if the indigenous people develop a sense of ownership
over the peace initiative. Once the outsiders leave, the locals must sustain the changes. This
requires great trust, network development, and long-term commitment.
Strategies That Appeal to the Political Hierarchy discusses how political leaders are
impatient and attempt quick fixes for conflict, when healing takes time. Most national
reconciliation is seen as coming down from this hierarchy, but is does not sustain without
interference. A common example is, America offering money and resources to families as
forgiveness for a death of their innocent as sometimes guilty family member, caused by United
States troops.
