First, let me say that the Georgia I am referring to in the title is not the state of Georgia, in the USA, but the Republic of Georgia.

Cross cultural discussion among students from the U.S. and Russia: Teaching students about conflict resolution and Track II diplomacy

The conflict that is ongoing between Russia and Georgia is not only frustrating, but filled with sadness for myself, and many of my colleagues who participated in projects from the early 1980s to early in the 21st Century that brought us into classrooms, and homes in the cities and towns of Tbilisi, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Pushchino, and Chelyabinsk in these two countries.  Of course when we started, these two Republics were part of the Soviet Union.

The projects of which I was involved were examples of what is called Track II or citizen diplomacy.  Track II diplomacy was a term coined by Joseph Montville, which in his own words is a concept to characterize unofficial initiatives aimed at fixing a conflict situation.”  Montville, a former State Department official, served as a career Foreign Service office in North Africa and the Middle East in the 70s and 80s, and later entered a specialized “intelligence” branch in Washington to lead to groundbreaking endeavors based on “depth psychology.”  His goal was to find ways for adversaries to work through conflicts.  In 1980, he was involved in conference at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California to explore engagement with the Soviet Union that included government, business and individuals from the arts (link here to read about the history of Esalen Institute in international relations).  At this Big Sur meeting, Montville explained that as an offical of the government, he practiced Track I diplomacy; he told the people in attendance that were going to practice Track II diplomacy, which to him meant “unofficial, people-to-people diplomacy, that others have called citizen diplomacy.

Students learned to solve problems by working with each other in each others' culture: A form of citizen diplomacy

My own involvement in citizen diplomacy was  as member of and later director of the Association for Humanistic Psychology’s (AHP) Soviet Exchange Project.  This first phase in what would be 20 years of travel to Russia brought us to Moscow, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), and Tbilisi, Georgia.  In each city we forged relationships with educators and psychologists, and their families.  We worked together to share ideas, and develop relationships, some of which are lasting to the present.  Naturally, it was with great sadness that we witnessed the conflict between the Republics of Russia and Georgia.  The Track I level of diplomacy that we have seen has to try and resolve the conflict maintains the resentments that exist between Russia and Georgia, and even the U.S.  Track II diplomacy, which hopefully will emerge from this situation, can involve respected, yet unofficial members of each country.  Montville’s idea of Track II diplomacy was very controversial at the time, but after publishing an article in Foreign Policy magazine, the concept of Track II diplomacy was viewed as a viable way to eventually work at the Track I level of diplomacy.

There are memories of many of us teaching in schools in Georgia and Russia, and later inviting teachers (and students) to teach and learn in American schools.  Our experiences were rich, and it was through these experiences that we grew to learn from and trust each other.  These unofficial visits, which involved informal activities (dinners together, visiting each others homes) led to more formal and “official” agreements between schools, universities, and research institutes.  It grew from the bottom up, and fostered very strong and long lasting relationships.

What happened in South Ossetia?  I don’t have a simple answer as to what happened to cause this conflict.  Thomas Friedman, in an OP-ED column in the New York Times, asked: What did we expect? He places shared blame on Putin (Russian Prime Minister), Saakashvili (Georgia’s President), and the Clinton & Bush foreign policy teams.  I think he is correct, especially his discussion of how people the foreign policy teams missed the mark in learning how to communicate with the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Instead of fostering deeper informal relationships with the former Soviet Union, the U.S. appeared to choose sides, and fostering different kinds of relationships (admission to NATA is encouraged most countries, except Russia) with Russia versus the other Republics (Georgia, Ukrane, Estonia). There are other points of view that need to be explored on this conflict, as is the case in all conflicts.

Let me explain.  In the 1990’s U.S. Senator Bill Bradley co-sponsored a bill that supported student-student and teacher-teacher exchanges through the United States Information Agency.  For several years in the 90s we received funds from the USIA to support the exchange of students and teachers from America and Russia to promote communication and understanding through collaborative study, discussion, and action on local environmental problems.  Students and teachers lived and worked with each other in their respective homes, and schools, and through the experience and our own research gained a deeper insight into each others’ history, culture and beliefs.

Track II diplomacy led to official agreements and projects between official institutions (Georgia State University and the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences)

The conflict in Georgia requires a form of thinking that Joseph Montville defined, and developed, and later showed could work to resolve conflicts between adversaries.