lOMoARcPSD|32287180

Diplomacy

Bachelor of Arts (University of Delhi)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

DIPLOMACY – TRACK I, TRACK II AND MULTI-TRACK

Introduction
* Diplomacy is an art of negotiations between representatives of state. With time this art got
refined by many brilliant diplomats and this art is continuously evolving.
* Diplomacy is a principal activity of heads of states, governments and special bodies of
external relations in implementation of goals, objectives of state's foreign policy, as well as
protection of rights and interests of state abroad.
* Diplomacy is the principal substitute for the use of force or underhanded means in statecraft;
it is how comprehensive national power is applied to the peaceful adjustment of differences
between states. It may be coercive (i.e., backed by the threat to apply punitive measures or to
use force) but is overtly nonviolent.
* Its primary tools are international dialogue and negotiation, primarily conducted by
accredited envoys and other political leaders. Unlike foreign policy, which generally is
enunciated publicly, most diplomacy is conducted in confidence, though both the fact that it is
in progress and its results are almost always made public in contemporary international
relations.
* The purpose of diplomacy is to strengthen the state, nation, or organization it serves in
relation to others by advancing the interests in its charge. To this end, diplomatic activity
endeavours to maximize a group’s advantages without the risk and expense of using force and
preferably without causing resentment. It habitually, but not invariably, strives to preserve
peace; diplomacy is strongly inclined toward negotiation to achieve agreements and resolve
issues between states. Even in times of peace, diplomacy may involve coercive threats of
economic or other punitive measures or demonstrations of the capability to impose unilateral
solutions to disputes by the application of military power. However, diplomacy normally seeks
to develop goodwill toward the state it represents, nurturing relations with foreign states and
peoples that will ensure their cooperation or—failing that—their neutrality.
* Now, question arises what are the tracks followed towards this? These tracks are the various
approaches of negotiations and resolution of conflicts. Although there are several tracks of
diplomacy, the major two are Track I and Track II.
Track I Diplomacy
* The term "track-one diplomacy" refers to official governmental diplomacy, or "a technique
of state action, [which] is essentially a process whereby communications from one government
go directly to the decision-making apparatus of another".
* Thus, track-one diplomacy is conducted by official representatives of a state or state-like
authority and involves interaction with other state or state-like authorities: heads of state, state
department or ministry of foreign affairs officials, and other governmental departments and
ministries. Track-one diplomacy may also be referred to as "first track" or "first tier" diplomacy.
* Along the official track, track-one diplomacy may take place bilaterally between two states,
or multilaterally when several states interact together, and even regionally or globally through
inter-governmental organizations (IGOs). For example, when Estonia and Russia negotiated
over issues related to the Russian-speaking people living in Estonia, these negotiations were
1

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

examples of bilateral track-one diplomacy. When the OSCE and its High Commissioner on
National Minorities held consultations with Estonia, Russia, and other Baltic states, that was
an example of regional track-one diplomacy.
* The purpose and intentions of track-one diplomatic efforts may vary greatly: track-one
diplomacy may be used coercively and may involve sanctions, ultimatums, and psychological
intimidation; it may be used persuasively and involve argumentation and/or compromise; it
may be used as a means of adjusting states' relationship to and views of one another; and it may
be a tool for reaching mutual agreements---which may themselves reflect elements of
persuasion or coercion. Track-one diplomacy may be used by a third-party state to help bring
about an agreement between other states. States may engage in track-one diplomacy as direct
participants in negotiations, as supporters of one or another party to the negotiations, or as
third-party mediators.
* Track-one diplomacy varies not only according to the different roles states play, but also
according to the manner in which these track-one roles are carried out. Official interactions
may be at the senior head-of-state level, ministerial level, or involve lower- level officials. In
negotiations, states may shift the levels of officials sent to negotiations as a signal of the level
of commitment to the negotiation.
* When a state shifts from a lower-level official to a higher-level official, this may usefully
signal a growing confidence in the negotiation process. At each level of interaction, the types
of track-one diplomacy interactions range from written communication, to formal meetings, to
casual conversations.
* Many official negotiations involve a combination of forms of interaction. Written documents
relating to an agreement may be exchanged, diplomats may meet to discuss draft agreements
formally, and informal side conversations during breaks may bring an additional component to
the negotiations. For example, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Camp David
Accords with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in
1978, a written document resulted from a combination of formal meetings and significant
informal personal discussions that Carter held with Begin and with Sadat.
* Track I diplomatic activities include the following.
1. Informal consultations
2. "Good offices"
3. Special envoys
4. Mediation
5. Negotiations
6. International condemnations
7. Fact-finding missions
8. Diplomatic and economic sanctions
* Track-one diplomacy takes place as part of the regular interactions of states and also
throughout the life cycle of conflicts. Track-one diplomacy may escalate or de-escalate a
conflict. Governments may try to prevent conflicts, resolve them, and support reconstruction
and reconciliation activities.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* Track-one diplomacy's application to conflict resolution is shaped by the interwoven web of

international relationships that form the context for international conflicts. In this context,
track- one diplomats take on many roles and utilize diverse techniques. Track-one diplomats
can act as the primary parties to negotiations, support one or more of the primary parties, or act
as third parties. These multiple roles, and issues of official recognition, complicate track-one
diplomacy's application to conflict resolution.
Negotiation
* Diplomats engaged in negotiations as direct parties seek to further their own country's
interests by influencing other direct participants in negotiations, by influencing mediators, and
by influencing the international community. For example, in the conflict between Russia and
Chechnya, Russia can be seen as a direct party to the conflict. Track-one negotiators (and
mediators, as described below in the section on Third Parties) may bring considerable
influence, concrete incentives, and other resources to the negotiations. In contrast to track-two
diplomacy, track-one diplomacy may include substantial positive incentives ("carrots") such as
humanitarian aid, weapons sales, and trade relations. Likewise, track-one diplomacy can also
include significant negative incentives such as sanctions, expulsion from international
organizations, and even military force.
Supportive Parties
* States may involve their diplomats in a conflict in order to support one or more of the direct
parties to the conflict. For example, at different points in time, Russia has been seen as
supportive of one or the other side in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. States can offer influence
and prestige and shift the power structure of the conflict, thus shaping the negotiations.
* Depending on the existing power structures, this might involve providing additional support
to one of the two equally powerful sides, thereby creating asymmetry between the parties in
the negotiations. Conversely, a supportive state can also provide power to an otherwise weaker
party thereby creating symmetry in the negotiations. States will unite or unilaterally act to
provide international support for a group or party in the conflict in the form of political, military
or financial support.
* During the peacemaking process this additional support provides power to the opposing sides
through:
> Offering additional military support to a party in the conflict thereby providing further
inducements to the opposing sides and the mediator to reach a resolution.
> Providing political support to a party in the conflict thereby demonstrating an international
backing of one of the warring parties.
> Offering financial support through positive or negative incentives thereby intending to sway
one party in the negotiation process.
* Additionally supporters act as the go-between for the conflicting sides. Track-one diplomats
offer legitimacy to the contending parties without the parties themselves losing face or
becoming involved in the negotiation process before each party is ready to commit to an
agreement.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

Third Parties
* States may intervene in conflicts as third parties to help seek a resolution. For example, Russia
serves as one of the official mediators intervening in the Moldovan-Transdniestrian conflict.
Like track-one negotiation roles, track-one third party roles take on various forms depending
on the context, the goals with which the state becomes involved in a negotiation, and the
resources that a state is willing to commit to a negotiation process.
* Some track-one mediators represent states that have a strong vested interest in a conflict
settlement, and others have less vested interest. Particularly when their state's interests are high,
track-one mediators may seek to control the negotiations through using strong incentives and
significant resources.
* Other track-one mediators may bring to bear only weaker influences, such as prestige and
convening authority. For example, former South African President Nelson Mandela served as
a third-party mediator for conflict resolution in Burundi, and relied primarily on his significant
prestige and personal influence to shape the peace process.
* Track-one diplomats in third-party roles can also explicitly seek to support victims. Track-
one diplomats have influence in the international community and can provide a voice for
victims in an internal conflict. Track-one diplomats may support the establishment of ceasefires
and related accountability, as well as argue against human rights abuses, genocide, rape, and
other forms of violence.
* Track-one diplomats often have the power to bring issues to light through commissions or
tribunals that may formally designate responsibility and ensure justice is served. For example,
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is a track-one diplomacy
initiative to bring to justice those who committed war crimes in former Yugoslavia.
* Often, the track-one third party's role is to aid in the resolution of a stalemate and the
attainment of a peace settlement. This can be done in the capacity of mediator or arbitrator in
the peacemaking process. Third-party involvement often helps diffuse tensions and creates a
common language through which the parties can negotiate and settle differences. Third-party
Track One diplomats intervene as mediators when they:
1. Possess a clear mandate to intervene
2. Have interests and stakes in the conflict, such as political or military stability.
3. Are invited by both parties to intervene
4. Want to preserve a structure to which they belong.
5. Seek to extend their own or their party's influence and believe that participation in the
mediation process will do so.
* Terrance Hopmann writes that the third-party track one mediators are "individuals of high
regard in the international community. Usually these individuals are selected because both the
actor they represent has some relevant power, authority or legitimacy in the eyes of the parties
to the dispute and because of their own personal skills as go-betweens". As noted above, other
times a third party is involved because of interests in the region, conflict and/or its outcome.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* Whether an official diplomat is involved as a direct negotiator, supporter of one or more

parties, or as a third party, issues of official recognition often enter into track-one diplomacy.
In particular, issues related to official recognition place some restrictions on track-one
diplomacy in the many conflicts in which one or more parties refuses to recognize another party
or parties to the conflict. States may not wish to recognize others' legitimacy or claims by
entering into formal negotiations.
* Nevertheless, in the many intra-state conflicts of today, where one party is an internationally
recognized state and another party is not, negotiations take the form of track-one diplomacy
even if one party is not recognized as a state, or even when several parties do not recognize
each other's formal legitimacy. For example, in conflicts that are secessionist or self-
determination conflicts, one party seeks to secede from, or exercise self-determination in the
context of, an internationally recognized state. The conflicts over Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and
Transdniestria are examples of this sort of conflict. As in these three examples, often IGOs and
other states will sometimes serve as mediators.
Track II Diplomacy
* The term Track Two Diplomacy was coined in 1981 by Joseph Montville, referring to a broad
range of unofficial contact and interaction aimed at resolving conflicts, both internationally and
within states.
* Montville, then a U.S. diplomat, used the term in contrast to Track One diplomacy, which
refers to diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts through the official channels of government.
* In the early years of the development of the concept of Track Two diplomacy, the term
focused mainly on the work of professionals in the budding field of conflict resolution. These
professionals brought people together informally to develop creative solutions to international
conflicts that were simultaneously being worked on (usually without success) at the Track One
level.
* By 1991 it had become clear that the range of unofficial interaction that can support the
resolution of international conflicts is far too varied and complex to be adequately represented
by the term Track Two.
* Louise Diamond coined the phrase "multi-track diplomacy," which outlines nine different
"tracks" that together comprise a system for creating peace internationally. The system includes
Track One (government) and Track Two (nongovernmental) conflict resolution professionals,
but it also recognizes the influence of seven other tracks: business, private citizens, research
and education, activism, religion, philanthropy, and the media.
* Within the growing community of conflict resolution practitioners, each individual or
organization offers something different in terms of methodology, conceptual background, or
general approach. Three categories of Track Two activities have been identified that together
describe a large portion of the Track Two initiatives operating in the field today. These
categories are consultation, dialogue, and training.
Consultation
* Consultation -- perhaps the most common form of Track Two activity -- brings people
together from conflicting groups, in their personal capacities, to facilitate discussion or

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

generate creative ideas for problem solving. When these unofficial participants have political
influence, then there is an opportunity for these creative ideas to be included in the official
conflict resolution process as well.
* A common form of consultation has been the "problem-solving workshop." These workshops
bring parties together unofficially to conduct a joint analysis of the conflict from a problem-
solving perspective, facilitated by a panel of conflict resolution practitioners. Such meetings
are often held in a neutral site, in a secluded and comfortable setting, without press coverage
or position papers. All discussions are confidential, allowing the participants to explore options
without having to make any commitments. Problem-solving workshops analyze the root causes
of the conflicts and examine the interests and needs that underlie the rigid positions of the
conflicting parties.

* Recent consultation initiatives have had great success; however, several of the pioneering
efforts in the 1960s and 1970s did encounter difficulties. Some of the early consultation projects
achieved outstanding results at workshops - the participants developed deep personal
relationships with each other and experienced some form of transformation - but as the
participants returned to their communities, they were ostracized and marginalized for getting
too close to the "enemy." This damaged the credibility of Track Two efforts somewhat, both in
these specific cases and for the field in general.
* More recent consultation initiatives have accounted for this issue by building in strong "re-
entry" elements into their programs, which are designed to ensure the successful transfer of the
learning to the broader community. Participants are helped to create tangible projects to apply
their learning and continue to interact with members of the "other" community in a safe way
once they return home. In cases of ethnic conflict, this might mean groups forming across
ethnic lines to do joint projects, such as art or cultural exhibitions, or studies of substantive
issues such as security, economic development or human rights.
* Some Track Two programs work with specific sectors of society, such as educators;
participants from these workshops might return home and form a multi-ethnic committee to
review how textbooks in schools portray the other community. By creating an outlet for
participants to apply what they have learned, the power of these Track Two initiatives is greatly
enhanced.
* Several good examples of Track Two consultation projects have been implemented with
Israelis and Palestinians. Most prominently, work done unofficially by Israeli and Palestinian
academics -- hosted by the Norwegian government in Oslo -- was a crucial component of the
process that led to the historic agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and
Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat that was signed on the White House
lawn in 1993. On another front, Herbert Kelman of Harvard University has been running a
series of problem-solving workshops with Israelis and Palestinians since 1971. Although all of
the participants at his workshops attended in their personal capacities, the impact of his work
can be seen by the fact that many of the members of the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating
teams had attended some of these workshops.
Dialogue

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* In the context of Track Two diplomacy, dialogue is a form of facilitated communication

between parties in conflict where the communication is not for the purpose of convincing or
persuading, but to explore meaning -- the meaning groups give to their existence or to particular
circumstances. It is about sharing that meaning, and in so doing, finding a connection or a
bridge across what divides the groups in conflict.
* Some dialogue processes do involve influential people who will have an impact on Track
One negotiations. These dialogues contribute to more productive negotiations by generating a
freer flow of ideas between the parties. Dialogue processes are obviously most effective in
situations where official communication has been cut off or has stalled. Dialogue can also be
vital for building trust between communities in conflict, particularly when it is used at a grass-
roots level.

* The United States Information Service (USIS) has sponsored a Track Two dialogue process
between Indians and Pakistanis. Meeting alternately in Pakistan and India, the Neemrana
dialogue - which is now funded by the Ford Foundation - convenes equal representation from
Pakistan and India. Individuals from many of the tracks in the multi-track diplomacy system
are participating, including former diplomats, generals, and representatives from business and
education. This dialogue is the first of its kind for these two countries and is happening at a
time when communication between India and Pakistan is difficult. These unofficial, bilateral
meetings are occurring among influential figures who are meeting to discuss a range of
contentious issues.
* The Neemrana process has been supplemented by a series of Traveling Seminars, organized
by USIS India and USIS Pakistan, that introduce new people from a wider spectrum of society
to conflict resolution. Often led by Neemrana participants, the seminars, which take place in
alternate sites in India and Pakistan, give participants contact with people from the other
country and encourage them to create conflict resolution chapters in their own towns or
institutions. One group that was formed, just this year, as a direct result of the Traveling
Seminars is the Indian Peace Action and Analysis Network.
* Dialogues can be equally as useful within communities as between them. A group of
psychologists in Israel has been running a dialogue between members of the political left and
the political right within Israel since 1993. The recent political shift to the right in Israel has
seriously affected the peace process there, so Track Two efforts addressing that issue are
important. Dialogue is a particularly good tool for dealing with diversity within groups.
Training
* The third category of Track Two intervention is training. Conflict resolution professionals
use training to give conflicting parties skills that they can use in resolving and transforming
those conflicts. These skills are often applicable in many different situations, from interpersonal
disputes to deep- rooted national or ethnic conflicts.
* Training interventions can involve participants from all levels of society, from grass-roots
private citizens, to high-level political figures, although people generally participate in their
private capacity.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* Typically, Track Two training initiatives focus on conflict resolution skills, such as
communication, conflict analysis, reconciliation, cooperation, and negotiation. Like most
Track Two initiatives, training programs are designed to maximize the impact of the training
on the conflict resolution process, including at the Track One level. Training programs are also
particularly helpful in generating grass-roots support for conflict resolution in societies where
social conflict is deep rooted.
* Training, dialogue, and consultation can be used in conjunction with one another within any
given intervention. For example, many dialogue initiatives include training in communication
skills to make the dialogue more productive, and training programs often use both dialogue and
analytical problem-solving processes to provide opportunities to practice the newly acquired
skills.
* The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) has been engaged in an ongoing Track Two
training initiative in Cyprus since 1991. In conjunction with the NTL (National Training
Laboratories) Institute of Alexandria, Virginia, and the Conflict Management Group of
Cambridge, Massachusetts, IMTD formed the Cyprus Consortium to provide Greek and
Turkish Cypriots with an extensive program of training. Since 1991, the Cyprus Consortium
has trained or educated over 500 Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The bulk of this program was
jointly sponsored by America-Mideast Educational and Training Services (AMIDEAST) and
the Cyprus Fulbright Commission, with funding from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).
* Programs have ranged from three-day training sessions in basic conflict resolution skills, to
week-long training programs for leaders of bicommunal projects, to a two-part series in which
participants were trained as trainers so they could carry on conflict-resolution training
independently. The program also has included training programs designed for specific
audiences, such as policy leaders, journalists, and educators. This multi-track, capacity-
building approach has contributed greatly to the success of this training initiative. The Greek-
and Turkish-Cypriot participants in this extensive program are now running a number of
bicommunal conflict resolution projects on their own, including several training programs. In
total, people involved in this bicommunal conflict resolution work now number in the
thousands, and their work has been described on the island as a social movement. The
participants in the program have noticed the difference their work has made both in the political
realm and in the media.
The Link Between Track One and Track Two
* Track Two, like any track in the multi-track system, will always be more effective when
employed in conjunction and coordination with efforts from all of the other tracks, including
Track One.
* Track Two practitioners recognize that success in their endeavours contributes to a climate
ripe for Track One leaders to get to the negotiating table and begin to formally resolve existing
differences. In situations of deep-rooted conflict, the formal ratification of peace treaties is
clearly only one step toward a lasting peace. Track Two, particularly when it takes a multi-track
approach, not only can support the efforts of Track One, but can play an important role in its
own right.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* Grass-roots projects facilitate the much needed "bottom-up" peace potential. In addition, as
Track One is more often used as a means of crisis intervention, the other tracks can be utilized
at any point, particularly in a preventive diplomacy capacity. The interrelationship between the
tracks can be a sensitive one. Those working unofficially do not want to feel pressured or
unduly constrained when they explore a policy or process that Track One opposes. Often the
rejection of a multi-track plan by officials at the Track One level can preclude project
implementation. When there is acceptance or support, however, there can be much-needed
mutual aid.
* Track One, on the other hand, should be kept informed. Track Two practitioners must
recognize that if their initiative is successful, they will probably have to coordinate their
activities with Track One. It is governments, after all, who are responsible for negotiating,
signing, and ratifying treaties and other formal documents that may be needed to seal the
unofficial, successful initiatives.
* As an example, in the Cyprus Consortium's multi-year training program in Cyprus, the
consortium was in contact with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot officials as it developed
and implemented the program. The consortium also stayed in close communication with
representatives from the U.S. State Department, both in Washington and in Cyprus, and with
representatives from the various United Nations agencies that are operating on Cyprus. These
contacts and relationships greatly facilitated the implementation of the program. The U.S. and
U.N. officials -- having been continuously informed of the goals and progress of the project --
continue to support the work indirectly by hosting receptions, sponsoring training events, and
providing facilities for training.
* Another excellent example of Track One and Track Two cooperation took place in Tanzania.
The U.S. Information Service (USIS) in Dar es Salaam has developed a program in preventive
diplomacy featuring a one-week training session in conflict resolution skills for 23 leaders from
Track One and Track Two. In fact, all of the tracks in the multi-track system were represented.
IMTD led a four-person team to implement this workshop in April 1996, which was co-hosted
by the Tanzanian Foreign Ministry and USIS. The participants were so stimulated by this
learning experience that they decided to organize their own Conflict Resolution Centre, so they
could begin to spread these peacebuilding skills across the nation. This is what can happen
when Track One and Track Two learn how to work together.
Multi Track Diplomacy
* The idea of multi-track diplomacy evolved over a period of years. In 1981 Joseph Montvile
wrote an article on foreign affairs, creating the concept of track one and track two.
* In 1985 Ambassador John W. McDonald wrote the first book entitled Conflict Resolution:
Track Two Diplomacy, which was published by the State Department in 1987. In 1989,
McDonald wrote a chapter in the book expanding the two tracks to five tracks, and in 1991,
McDonald and Dr. Louise Diamond published the book Multi-Track Diplomacy, a systems
approach to peace.

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|32287180

* The Multi-track diplomacy consists of nine tracks, as follows:

> Track 1 – Government, or Peacemaking through Diplomacy. This is the world of official
diplomacy, policymaking, and peacebuilding as expressed through formal aspects of the
governmental process.
> Track 2 – Nongovernment/Professional, or Peacemaking through Conflict Resolution. This
is the realm of professional nongovernmental action attempting to analyse, prevent, resolve,
and manage international conflicts by non-state actors.
> Track 3 – Business, or Peacemaking through Commerce. This is the field of business and its
actual and potential effects on peacebuilding through the provision of economic opportunities,
international friendship and understanding, informal channels of communication, and support
for other peacemaking activities.
> Track 4 – Private Citizen, or Peacemaking through Personal Involvement. This includes the
various ways that individual citizens become involved in peace and development activities
through citizen diplomacy, exchange programs, private voluntary organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, and special interest groups.
> Track 5 – Research, Training, and Education, or peacemaking through Learning. This track
includes three related worlds: research, as it is connected to university programs, think tanks,
and special-interest research centres; training programs that seek to provide training in
practitioner skills such as negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, and third-party
facilitation; and education, including kindergarten through PhD programs that cover various
aspects of global or cross-cultural studies, peace and world order studies, and conflict analysis,
management, and resolution.
> Track 6 – Activism, or Peacemaking through Advocacy. This track covers the field of peace
and environmental activism on such issues as disarmament, human rights, social and economic
justice, and advocacy of special-interest groups regarding specific governmental policies.
> Track 7 – Religion, or Peacemaking through Faith in action. This examines the beliefs and
peace-oriented actions of spiritual and religious communities and such morality-based
movements as pacifism, sanctuary, and nonviolence.
> Track 8 – Funding, or Peacemaking through Providing Resources. This refers to the funding
community – those foundations and individual philanthropists that provide the financial
support for many of the activities undertaken by the other tracks.
> Track 9 – Communications and the Media, or Peacemaking through Information. This is the
realm of the voice of the people: how public opinion gets shaped and expressed by the media-
print, film, video, radio, electronic systems, the arts.
The system requires all tracks to eventually work together to build a peace process that will
last. The transition from track 1 to track 2 is difficult to achieve, becoming one of the main
problems the organization has to face.

10

Downloaded by Agrima Thakur (thakuragrima1@gmail.com)