THIRD PARTY IN UNOFFICIAL DIPLOMACY
Arshaluys Mushkambaryan
"Noravank" Foundation
06 May 2010
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.