Healing dialogue: Can the techniques and practices of Track Two diplomacy play a role in resolving public health conflicts?
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00207020221135364 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essay |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2022, Vol. 77(2) 313–334
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00207020221135364
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Healing dialogue: Can the
techniques and practices of
Track Two diplomacy play a
role in resolving public health
conflicts?
Aleem Bharwani
University of Calgary, Canada
Julia Palmiano Federer
University of Ottawa, Canada
Jack Latour
University of Ottawa, Canada
Abstract
Track Two Diplomacy, a form of facilitated informal and unofficial dialogues between
conflicting parties, has become a well-established form of international conflict res-
olution. This paper seeks to explore whether the techniques and practices of Track
Two could be applied in a new setting beyond international armed conflicts: public
health. Global society continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic, systemic racism, and climate change, among other pressing
public health issues that can not only exacerbate but also create new conflicts that
negatively affect communities. Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches are needed
more than ever. We synthesize literature from both Track Two and public health fields
to present a conceptual framework that posits whether and how such concept s as the
“problem-solving workshop,”“transfer,”“reflective practice”and others might sup-
port parties involved in divisive, intractable, visible, and invisible conflicts which
currently mark the public health space.
Corresponding author:
Aleem Bharwani, Alberta Health Services, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, Edmonton, AB T2N 4N1,
Canada
Email: ambharwa@ucalgary.ca
Keywords
Track Two diplomacy, facilitated discourse, public health, global health, non-violent
conflict
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, new manifestations of conflict, polarization,
and division have emerged among societies, both at a global and communal level. In
particular, the pandemic has brought conflicts in the public health sector to the fore, as
polarized and divergent views on vaccines, mask mandates, and public health pro-
tections have touched societies on individual, community, societal, and global levels.
However, although the focus on public health questions related to COVID-19 is crucial,
this exclusive focus draws attention away from the structural conflicts that the public
health community has been grappling with for some time, such as racism, gender
discrimination, health inequities, and climate change. These converging crises present
“wicked problems”
1
that require innovative and interdisciplinary solutions.
Existing approaches to mitigate these conflicts converge around the need to find
common purpose across differences through collaborative problem-solving and skilled
facilitation. Track Two, while primarily focused on armed conflict, shows strong
potential for applicability to the field of public health. At the same time, there is interest
among scholars to understand the application of Track Two beyond armed conflict
settings. Therefore, this paper is interested in the research question: Can the techniques
and practices of Track Two be applied in divisive public health debates?
To answer this question, this paper examines several bodies of literature: Track Two
and areas of practice beyond armed conflict, as well as the growing scholarly field of
Health in All Policies (HiAP) in public health that includes a number of primary reports
and case studies featuring many of the core elements of Track Two theory and practice.
We find that there is a need to bridge the gap between these two bodies of
scholarship. Therefore, based on the analysis of the literature, this paper develops a new
conceptual model that could be used in divisive public health debates. This paper
contributes a new theoretical model to Track Two and conflict resolution scholarship,
and introduces novel forms of dialogue and participatory processes to critical public
health scholars. The paper is organized as follows. It discusses the potential for the
application of Track Two theory and practice into non-armed conflict settings and into
public health, specifically through HiAP as a bridging theory. It then analyzes the
modalities in which Track Two and public health could be integrated through a new
conceptual model to be tested empirically in practice. The paper concludes with a
discussion on how inclusive, holistic, and decolonized approaches to both Track Two
1. B.W.Head, “Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies,”Policy and
Society 38, no. 2 (2019): 180–197; D. Kerr and N. Glantz, “Diabetes, like COVID-19, is a wicked
problem,”The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 8, no. 11 (2020): 873–874.
314 International Journal 77(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial