Diplomacy by default? New Zealand and Track II diplomacy in Asia

Cost-cutting measures have resulted in possibly the most radical restructuring of New Zealand's foreign service in its history, increasing the importance of informal, or "Track II", diplomacy.IntroductionThe term "Track II diplomacy‟ was coined in 1982 to refer to the methods of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andrew Butcher
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Security Challenges 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://apo.org.au/node/36120
Description
Summary:Cost-cutting measures have resulted in possibly the most radical restructuring of New Zealand's foreign service in its history, increasing the importance of informal, or "Track II", diplomacy.IntroductionThe term "Track II diplomacy‟ was coined in 1982 to refer to the methods of diplomacy that were outside the formal government system, that is between non-governmental, informal and unofficial contacts, private citizens and other non-state actors. Specifically, Track II diplomacy may involve academics, journalists, and occasionally politicians, diplomats and military personnel acting in their “private capacity”. Track II diplomacy may also act as a source of advice to governments, be a laboratory to test ideas, provide an alternative diplomatic route when official routes become blocked or stalled, broker between governments and NGOs and academics, and provide a range of "socialising‟ functions, where potential adversaries get to meet and know each other where otherwise they may not be able to. Track I diplomacy, by contrast, “represents the official government channel for political and security dialogue in the region” and those who participate in it are officially representing their state.There is also Track 1.5 diplomacy, a term coined by Australian Paul Dibb, which can be non-official meetings attended by officials in their "private capacities” and which focus on specific issues of interest to Track I. In other words, both the content of the meeting and the background of the participants are closer to Track I than might be usually found in a strict understanding and practice of Track II diplomacy, at which no officials attend. The distinction between Track 1.5 and Track II “may only be a question of emphasis” but, nevertheless, resolves some definitional disputes around Track II and brings together benefits of Track II (informality, ability to raise new issues) with the particular needs of Track I.Globally, there are tectonic shifts in the regional balance of power in broad terms from the North Atlantic to East ...