The Impact of Citizen Diplomacy in International Conflict

When governments stop talking, ordinary citizens often keep the conversation alive. Across some of the world’s most tense rivalries, retired diplomats, academics, journalists, and peace activists quietly meet to build understanding where official channels have frozen. This practice has a name: citizen diplomacy. Also called Track II diplomacy, it has become one of the most studied tools in conflict management, and its story is especially relevant for South Asia, where the India-Pakistan relationship has repeatedly tested the limits of formal negotiation.

What is citizen diplomacy? 🔗

Citizen diplomacy refers to unofficial contacts between people of different nations, as opposed to official contacts between governmental representatives. It can involve direct joint activities between citizens, or situations facilitated by non-governmental third parties such as NGOs, scholars, or private peacemakers who act as bridge builders.

The term Track II diplomacy was coined in 1981 by Joseph V. Montville, then a US State Department official, in an article titled “Foreign Policy According to Freud.” He drew a line between two kinds of diplomacy. Track I refers to official, governmental diplomacy conducted by professional diplomats through negotiations. Track II refers to conflict resolution efforts by non-state actors, who use workshops and conversations to lower the anger, tension, and fear that exist between conflicting groups.

The central idea is simple but powerful. Private individuals, meeting unofficially, can find their way to common ground that official negotiators cannot. Because these participants are not bound by official positions, they can float ideas, test compromises, and explore solutions that sitting officials are politically unable to suggest.

Track I, Track II, and the tracks in between 🔗

Diplomacy is not a single channel. Scholars now talk about a spectrum of approaches that work simultaneously. Track I is government-to-government. Track II brings together influential but non-governmental figures: academics, religious leaders, NGO representatives, and retired officials. There is even a category called Track 1.5 diplomacy, which describes situations where official and non-official actors cooperate together in conflict resolution, occupying a hybrid middle ground.

This wider view is often called multi-track diplomacy, a framework recognising that peacebuilding happens across many channels at once. Some classifications identify as many as nine distinct tracks, ranging from formal negotiation to grassroots community work. The key insight is that no single track is enough on its own. Each one feeds off the others.

Why citizen diplomacy matters in conflict resolution 🔗

Track I diplomacy has real limitations. It is power-based, formal, and often rigid, conducted by instructed representatives who cannot stray from their government’s official line. Settlements reached this way can fall apart when the balance of power shifts. Because of these failures, scholars have argued that citizen diplomacy should be developed as a complementary tool for addressing the deeper roots of conflict.

The underlying assumption of Track II work, as practitioners describe it, is that conflict can be eased by appealing to common human capabilities to respond to good will and reasonableness. Where official talks deal in positions and leverage, citizen contacts deal in perceptions, fear, and stereotypes, the psychological barriers that keep adversaries locked in hostility.

Building relationships before negotiations begin 🔗

One of the most valuable functions of citizen diplomacy is timing. Track II and citizen contacts often build relationships and trust months or even years before official negotiations begin. By the time formal talks start, the groundwork of mutual understanding may already be in place.

A famous example sits outside South Asia. In 1989, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences hosted a series of conferences bringing together Arab and Israeli participants. These unofficial meetings snowballed into a major effort that helped lay the groundwork for the landmark 1993 Oslo Accords. The official breakthrough was built on years of quiet citizen contact.

The interactive problem-solving workshop 🔗

The best-known model of Track II work is the interactive problem-solving workshop, developed by scholars including John Burton and Herbert Kelman. In these workshops, representative citizens from conflicting parties meet to change perceptions, break down stereotypes, and create a sense that peace might actually be possible. The goal is not to sign agreements but to shift the way each side sees the other, so that more and more people become invested in a peaceful outcome.

Citizen diplomacy between India and Pakistan 🔗

Nowhere is the case for citizen diplomacy clearer than in the relationship between India and Pakistan. After more than seven decades of nationhood, neither country has been able to reap a lasting peace dividend on the subcontinent. For long stretches the two sides relied almost solely on government-to-government diplomacy, and progress repeatedly stalled.

This is precisely the gap citizen diplomacy tries to fill. A general consensus has evolved among scholars and peace practitioners that Track Two diplomacy between the two countries has been able to facilitate official dialogue and keep communication channels open even during times of crisis. It has helped bring down psychological barriers, bridge cultural differences, and build an atmosphere conducive to better regional relations.

The Neemrana Dialogue 🔗

The most notable and enduring India-Pakistan Track II initiative is the Neemrana Dialogue. It was first held in 1991 at Neemrana in the Alwar district of Rajasthan, which gave the process its name. Pakistan hosted later rounds, and the venue kept shifting between the two countries. The dialogue brought together distinguished retired diplomats, military veterans, academics, and public figures from both sides to discuss the full range of bilateral issues.

What makes Neemrana significant is its longevity. It has survived multiple diplomatic freezes, and analysts note it has periodically been revived even when official ties were suspended. In recent years, groups of Indian experts have travelled to Pakistan to revive the Track II process and discuss all aspects of bilateral ties amid chills in the relationship. The principle behind these visits is that a temporary setback in inter-governmental relations should not be allowed to shut down people-to-people cooperation entirely.

Aman Ki Asha: a media-led experiment 🔗

Perhaps the most ambitious citizen initiative was Aman Ki Asha, meaning “Hope for Peace.” Launched on 1 January 2010, it was a joint initiative of two leading media groups, The Times of India and the Jang Group of Pakistan. This was unprecedented. Mainstream media houses of two rival nations rarely cooperate, since local media often inflames conflict by following nationalistic lines. Here, instead, the press tried to use its reach to build peace.

The campaign organised seminars, conferences, cultural festivals, and economic forums to encourage dialogue and people-to-people contact. Its measurable impact on public perception was striking. Surveys conducted before the launch and on its first anniversary showed that 87% of Pakistanis and 74% of Indians felt the campaign had created greater awareness about the core issues between the two countries. The threat perception reportedly fell by over 20% in both nations, and a majority felt the campaign had successfully communicated the people’s desire for peace to both governments.

Aman Ki Asha also shows the fragility of citizen diplomacy. After emerging as one of the most successful peace efforts within a few years, it became dormant around 2014 as bilateral relations worsened and the Jang Group came under pressure. Goodwill built at the citizen level can be undone quickly when political conditions sour.

From citizen contacts to confidence-building measures 🔗

Citizen diplomacy does not exist in isolation. At its best, it feeds into formal confidence-building measures (CBMs) between governments. In international relations, a CBM is an act of demonstrating cooperation and goodwill with an adversary. The motive is to alleviate misapprehension, tension, and fear by emphasising trust and restricting any acceleration of conflict.

India and Pakistan have experimented with several such measures. The Delhi-Lahore bus service, launched in 1999, was a concrete transportation initiative that facilitated direct people-to-people contact. Eased visa regimes and improved trade relations, particularly during the normalisation phase that began in March 2010, were other examples. The logic connecting citizen diplomacy to CBMs is direct: when citizens humanise the other side and pressure their governments toward dialogue, official CBMs become politically easier to introduce.

Solving conflicts incrementally 🔗

A key strength of this approach is that it does not demand a grand settlement all at once. Instead, it tackles individual issues separately and builds confidence step by step. Trade, cultural exchange, sports, tourism, divided families, and visa rules can each be addressed on their own terms. Each small success creates trust that makes the next step possible.

This incremental philosophy is well captured by a slogan from the peace movement, which insisted that dialogue between the two countries must be uninterrupted and uninterruptible. The argument is that any break in dialogue only strengthens hardliners on both sides who want the peace process to fail. By keeping contact continuous, even at the unofficial level, citizen diplomacy denies extremists the silence they thrive on.

The limits of citizen diplomacy 🔗

It would be misleading to present citizen diplomacy as a cure-all. Its track record is mixed, and honest assessment matters in any study of conflict management. Several structural problems recur.

First, Track II participants can lose their independence. As one former practitioner observed, a lot of India-Pakistan Track II work ends up acting as a mouthpiece of governments, with participants becoming nationalists and ultimately addressing their own states rather than speaking frankly to each other. When that happens, the unique honesty of unofficial dialogue is lost.

Second, citizen efforts depend heavily on political will at the top. Without institutional support, sustained engagement, and economic integration, even well-received campaigns can fade. Aman Ki Asha is often cited as a people-to-people CBM that ultimately fell short of building lasting peace, partly due to a lack of political backing and the recurring shock of terrorist attacks and military escalation.

Third, the broader environment can simply overwhelm citizen efforts. Despite continued Track II meetings, formal ties between India and Pakistan have at times remained in a deep freeze, showing that informal goodwill cannot, by itself, override hard security disputes such as Kashmir and cross-border terrorism.

A complement, not a substitute 🔗

The realistic conclusion is that citizen diplomacy works best as a complement to official diplomacy, not as a replacement for it. Each track has constraints, and each needs to feed off the other. Citizen contacts can keep lines open during crises, prepare the ground for negotiations, and shift public perceptions. But the harder issues of territory and security ultimately require resolution at the governmental level. The value of citizen diplomacy lies in making that government-level resolution more achievable.

What do you think? If official diplomacy and citizen diplomacy both have clear limits on their own, what would a genuinely effective combination of the two look like in the India-Pakistan context? And can people-to-people contacts realistically build durable peace when the most sensitive disputes remain firmly in the hands of governments?

References

1. https://www.beyondintractability.org/coreknowledge/citizen-diplomacy
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_II_diplomacy
3. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/track-ii-diplomacy-a-short-history/
4. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/07/11/parliamentary-diplomacy-as-track-1-1-2-diplomacy-in-conflict-resolution/
5. https://fiveable.me/international-conflict/unit-10/track-ii-diplomacy-unofficial-conflict-resolution-efforts/study-guide/HtEsVPMbEG1VpNQn
6. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/track2_diplomacy
7. https://postcolonialist.com/civil-discourse/track-two-diplomacy-india-pakistan-study-diplomatic-overture/
8. https://jsshuok.com/oj/index.php/jssh/article/download/545/421/1631
9. https://lotusarise.com/india-pakistan-relations-upsc/
10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09584935.2019.1666090
11. https://mkrf.org/portfolio-item/aman-ki-asha-changing-mindsets/
12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335803284_Aman_ki_Asha_a_desire_for_peace_a_case_study_of_a_people-to-people_contacts_peacebuilding_initiative_between_India_and_Pakistan
13. https://www.academia.edu/8430593/Confidence_Building_Measures_between_Pakistan_and_India_Ray_of_Hope_for_the_Stability_of_South_Asia
14. http://amankiasha.com/india-pakistan-peace-now-global-vigil/
15. https://www.etvbharat.com/en/bharat/india-pakistan-keep-holding-track-ii-meetings-yet-formal-ties-remain-icy-enn26041806453