I first came to know people’s diplomacy in the 1980’s, when I participated in a series of Soviet- American people- to- people programs aimed at building mutual understanding across the iron curtain. Young Samantha Smith spoke on national Soviet television of a desire for friendships between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and the leadership on both sides listened.
In 1991, I led 20 American teens to Camp Artek in the Crimea to befriend Soviet youth. Soon thereafter, I moved from bridging between Soviets and Americans to bridging between people divided by the violent conflicts within the post-Soviet space. Since 1996, I have found a range of opportunities to facilitate unofficial people- to – people programs. My experience has been mostly with Abkhaz, Georgians, and Ossetians, and less frequently with Moldovans and Transdniestrians. Lately, I fear, people-to-people programs have lost their way. The programs are becoming too politicized, while the insights of those who participate are too often neglected by political leadership.
As I packed my suitcase recently for yet another Georgian-Ossetian unofficial workshop, my six-year-old son asked me why I do this work. I explained simply: to help people build bridges of trustworthy clear communication that will prevent wars. That satisfied my son, but I also heard in my own head the voices of those on both sides who suffered in the August 2008 war. Some would argue that unofficial efforts did not prevent that war. I’ve told myself, and I’ve heard local Georgian and Ossetian peacebuilders tell themselves and each other, that we simply didn’t do enough of those unofficial efforts that could have prevented the war. (It was, after all, in the Georgian-Ossetian relationship where the war started, but that was an area where virtually no people-to-people contact was active across the divide in 2008.) By the time I closed my suitcase, I had decided people-to-people diplomacy could make more of a difference if we kept the emphasis on the people more, and if political leadership could be convinced to value these people more.
Since the mid-1990s, tens of thousands of people in the South Caucasus have directly participated in one form or another of people’s diplomacy. Armenians and Azeris gathered in West Virginian mountains to learn each other’s views of their shared conflict. Other Armenians and Azeris traveled repeatedly to Tbilisi to make the contact that is not possible along the so-called line of contact today. Georgians and Abkhaz together made a film about Karabakh. Ossetian women reunited with their former Georgian neighbors in Baku and then again in Yerevan. Multiple individual business people joined forces to develop a Caucasus cheese brand and a Caucasus tea. Ecologists bridge across conflict lines to study environmental change in the region. Internet blogs, chats, and online analytical publications (such as Analyticon) connect people with the views of others beyond ceasefire lines. These are but a few examples of peoples diplomacy initiatives of the last 15 or so years.
I found it useful to reflect on why all these people devote their time to people’s diplomacy. Why do they risk ridicule or worse from neighbors suspicious of their engaging "the other?” In my own experience of facilitating unofficial confidence building in the South Caucasus, I’ve met the people who are willing to give peoples diplomacy a chance. Why do they put so much time and energy into meeting with people from the other side of the conflict?
Citizen diplomats are motivated by the impacts they expect, both on themselves as direct participants and more indirectly on society. The impact on individuals who participate directly in such initiatives is seen in the friendships they develop. Individuals see the humanity of "the other” and in doing so they see their own humanity more clearly. They explain to the other side their understanding of the situation and possible ways forward and listen to explanations by "the other” in a way that both sides learn a more multifaceted understanding of the conflict. These direct participants can then share what they have learned with others through film, radio, TV, or simply talking with their friends and neighbors. Citizen diplomats hope that through their efforts social trust will gradually grow, more people will understand more about the concerns of both sides, and the official negotiators will benefit from that increased understanding as they make lasting agreements that will for a reasonable life for each person in the region.
These motivations hold within them implicit explanations of how people-to-people diplomacy contributes to hoped-for changes in the conflict system. More formally, we call these theories of change. If we return to emphasizing the people and their hopes for changes, there are two ways we can see to strengthen people-to-people diplomacy.
We can re-focus on the people who pour their hearts into these initiatives and the ultimate impacts they want to have: individual and social. The impact on individuals who participate directly in people-to-people diplomacy is clear. Participants report they understand "the other” better. And, many participants say they understand themselves better, too, and ways they and their society could rebuild relations with "the other.” But the impact on the broader society is less often clear, although most participants aim at making such an impact. Here’s where returning to the people and their motivations could strengthen peoples’ diplomacy today. Looking across the Caucasus, where are the media freedoms and space for alternative political voices that provide opportunities for people with experience bridging across the divides to contribute to the development of constructive approaches to the conflicts?
Citizen diplomats need to take their insights to their own society’s conversations more. Doing so will require both that political leadership be more welcoming of the value of these insights offered by citizen diplomats and that the citizen diplomats themselves speak up more. In this sense, people-to-people diplomacy will have more impact if its insights become more politically relevant.
Ironically, the second way that emphasizing the people in people-to-people diplomacy would help is by remembering the non-political aspects. By removing excessive political meanings layed on to the act of meeting with people across the conflict divide, we can de-politicize a set of grassroots initiatives that have become overly politicall.