Unofficial peace diplomacy: Private peace entrepreneurs in conflict resolution processes

By Lior Lehrs

This book analyses the international phenomenon of private peace entrepreneurs. These are private citizens with no official authority who initiate channels of communication with official representatives from the other side of a conflict in order to promote a conflict resolution process. It combines theoretical discussion with historical analysis, examining four cases from different conflicts: Norman Cousins and Suzanne Massie in the Cold War, Brendan Duddy in the Northern Ireland conflict and Uri Avnery in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book defines the phenomenon, examines the resources and activities of private peace entrepreneurs and their impact on the official diplomacy, and examines the conditions under which they can play an effective role in peace-making processes.
This book is relevant to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, Peace, justice and strong institutions

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Oct 4, 2022
• ISBN: 9781526147646

Book preview

Unofficial peace diplomacy

ffirs01-fig-5001.jpg

Key Studies in Diplomacy

Series Editors: J. Simon Rofe and Giles Scott-Smith

Emeritus Editor: Lorna Lloyd

The volumes in this series seek to advance the study and understanding of diplomacy in its many forms. Diplomacy remains a vital component of global affairs, and it influences and is influenced by its environment and the context in which it is conducted. It is an activity of great relevance for International Studies, International History, and of course Diplomatic Studies. The series covers historical, conceptual, and practical studies of diplomacy.

Previously published by Bloomsbury:

21st Century Diplomacy: A Practitioner's Guide by Kishan S. Rana

A Cornerstone of Modern Diplomacy: Britain and the Negotiation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by Kai Bruns

David Bruce and Diplomatic Practice: An American Ambassador in London, 1961-9 by John W. Young

Embassies in Armed Conflict by G.R. Berridge

Published by Manchester University Press:

Reasserting America in the 1970s edited by Hallvard Notaker, Giles Scott-Smith and David J. Snyder

Human rights and humanitarian diplomacy: Negotiating for human rights protection and humanitarian access by Kelly-Kate Pease

The diplomacy of decolonisation: America, Britain and the United Nations during the Congo crisis 1960–64 by Alanna O'Malley

Sport and diplomacy: Games within games edited by J. Simon Rofe

The TransAtlantic reconsidered edited by Charlotte A. Lerg, Susanne Lachenicht and Michael Kimmage

Academic ambassadors, Pacific allies: Australia, America and the Fulbright Program by Alice Garner and Diane Kirkby

A precarious equilibrium: Human rights and détente in Jimmy Carter's Soviet policy by Umberto Tulli

US public diplomacy in socialist Yugoslavia, 1950–70: Soft culture, cold partners by Carla Konta

Israelpolitik: German–Israeli relations, 1949–69 by Lorena De Vita

Diplomatic tenses: A social evolutionary perspective on diplomacy by Iver B. Neumann

Unofficial peace diplomacy

Private peace entrepreneurs in conflict resolution processes

Lior Lehrs

Manchester University Press

Copyright © Lior Lehrs 2022

The right of Lior Lehrs to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by Manchester University Press

Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 5261 4765 3 hardback

First published 2022

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Cover image: Anat Saragusti / HaOlam HaZeh / Yedioth Ahronoth Group

Typeset by

New Best-set Typesetters Ltd

Contents

List of figures

Acknowledgments

List of abbreviations

Introduction

1 Theoretical framework: private peace entrepreneurs

2 Norman Cousins and US–Soviet–British negotiations on a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 1962–1963

3 Suzanne Massie and the Cold War during the Reagan era, 1983–1988

4 Brendan Duddy and the negotiations between the Provisional IRA and the British government during the conflict in Northern Ireland, 1973–1993

5 Uri Avnery and his dialogue with the PLO in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 1975–1985

Conclusions

Appendix

Index

List of figures

1.1 The broker in the network system

1.2 Action patterns of PPEs

1.3 PPE patterns of influence on the official diplomatic sphere

1.4 Variables that determine PPEs’ ability to have an influence

2.1 President John F. Kennedy with representatives from the American Association for the United Nations, March 1962. Copyright: United Press International

2.2 Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, Alice Bobrysheva (member of the Soviet Peace Committee), and Candice Cousins (Norman Cousins's daughter), April 1963. Copyright: Norman Cousins Papers, UCLA Library

3.1 President Ronald Reagan and Suzanne Massie at the White House, November 1988. Copyright: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

3.2 Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Suzanne Massie at the White House State Dinner, December 1987. Copyright: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

4.1 Brendan Duddy with former MI6 officer Michael Oatley, April 1998. Copyright: Brendan Duddy's family

4.2 The guest room at Duddy's home where the meetings took place during the 1975 talks. Copyright: Lior Lehrs

5.1 Meeting between members of the Israeli Council for Israeli–Palestinian Peace and PLO leaders in Tunisia, January 1983. Copyright: Uri Avnery's archive, The National Library of Israel

5.2 Cartoon by Ze’ev after the meeting in Tunisia, published in Haaretz on 25 January 1983. Copyright: Israeli Museum of Cartoons and Comics in Holon and Ze’ev's daughters, Dorit Farkash-Shuki and Naomi Farkash-Fink

Acknowledgments

It is quite common for people who live in an intractable conflict area to feel that the conflict is a natural phenomenon that they have to live with, like an earthquake or storm, and that nothing can be done to change it, especially by ordinary citizens. For this reason, I have always been fascinated by cases involving people who refused to accept this assumption. During my studies in International Relations and the Middle East, I took a special interest in the history of diplomatic contacts and peace efforts that sought to address the Israeli–Arab and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts over the years. The scholarship generally focused on the official sphere, which was often characterized by stalemate and stagnation. But in researching the topic, I noticed that alongside the well-known official negotiations and meditation channels, there had also, over the years, been less-known and less-researched unofficial dialogue channels that were initiated by private actors, some of whom even played critical roles. Against this background, I began to look for similar cases in other conflict areas around the world and thus discovered dozens of cases of private peace entrepreneurs in different regions and at different times. This inspired me to devote years of research to this topic, which eventually led to this book. None of this would have been possible without the help and support of many people, and this is a great opportunity to thank them.

I would like to thank Avraham Sela and Arie Kacowicz for their helpful feedback and enriching conversations during my work on this research project, and Dan Miodownik and Galia Press-Barnathan for their endless support, encouragement, and advice. I would also like to express my gratitude to Louis Kriesberg, Daniel Kurtzer, Niall Ó Dochartaigh, Elie Podeh, Ruti Teitel, and Hilde Henriksen Waage for their ongoing support, suggestions, and invaluable assistance. I am indebted to the late Robert Jervis for our inspiring dialogue and his insightful feedbacks. He was a giant of IR, a real intellectual and one of the kindest scholars I have ever met. I also wish to honor the memory of Yaakov Bar-Siman-Tov, who was a teacher and friend, and is sorely missed.

I am grateful to Ronald Zweig, director of New York University's Taub Center, and to the center's administrator, Shayne Figueroa, for their support and hospitality during my postdoctoral fellowship at NYU. A thank you is due to I. William Zartman and Daniel Serwer, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Conflict Management Program, and to Sarah Cobb and Susan H. Allen, from George Mason University's Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, for hosting me as a visiting scholar during my research.

This research was also made possible thanks to scholarships and grants, and I am indebted to the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. I wish to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation and insights, and the dedicated archivists in the various archives I have used. Special thanks to Eamonn Downey and the Duddy family for their kind support and help during my research in Northern Ireland.

I also wish to thank Giles Scott-Smith, who followed and supported the process of this book project from the beginning, and Lucy Burns and Robert Byron of Manchester University Press for all their assistance and dedication. Special thanks to Merav Datan for her careful and thoughtful editing.

This work would not have been possible without my dear family and friends, who gave me endless support and had to listen, over and over again, to stories and details about various private peace initiatives, and were required to express interest. I am particularly thankful to my dear "Shmutz friends, whose longstanding friendship I cherish and whose encouragement was a tremendous resource for me. Above all I would like to thank my parents, Dina and Gideon, for their love and support. I am especially indebted to my mother, who served as a shadow reviewer and a source of inspiration for the work, being herself a peace entrepreneur" who, on the eve of the 1967 Israeli–Arab war, sent a letter to Soviet leader Alexei Kosygin calling on him to act to prevent the war. The war was not prevented, and she is still waiting for a reply.

List of abbreviations

Introduction

In his play The Acharnians (425 BC), Greek playwright Aristophanes told the story of Dikaiopolis – an Athenian citizen who, in the context of the ongoing war with Sparta, tried to promote a discussion at the Athenian citizen assembly about achieving peace. The audience ignored his request and expressed support for the continuation of the war. As a result, Dikaiopolis decided to launch a private appeal to Sparta and indeed concluded a private peace treaty with it.¹ The story of Dikaiopolis is fictional but it represents the real international historical phenomenon of private peace entrepreneurs (PPEs), which stands at the center of this book.

PPEs are individual private citizens who, without official authority, initiate channels of communication with official representatives from the opposing side during a conflict, in order to promote a conflict resolution process. Although the history of international and internal conflicts reveals many cases of PPEs, some of whom played a valuable or even critical role in conflict resolution efforts, the literature has not examined this important phenomenon with the full and specialized attention that it deserves, let alone conceptualized the PPE as a distinct international actor. This book aims to fill that gap, both theoretically and empirically. It highlights the ability of private individual citizens – who are not politicians, diplomats, or military leaders – to operate as important and influential actors in international politics in general, and in peace processes in conflict areas in particular.

The chapter presents a definition of PPEs and positions the phenomenon within current theoretical literature, discusses its contribution to various fields, and describes the similarities and differences between PPEs and other theoretical frameworks and actors. It then presents the research questions and methodology, and outlines the structure of the book.

Definition: private peace entrepreneurs

PPEs have four basic defining characteristics. First, they are private citizens with no official authority.² They are neither appointed nor elected to outline, shape, or carry out foreign policy, or to negotiate peace, and they act only in their own name and without an official mandate. In this regard they may be described as self-appointed peace envoys.

Second, PPEs are local peacemakers who belong to one of the disputing sides (a state or ethnic community) in the conflict. In cases of internal conflict, they are members of the national framework in which the conflict is taking place.³ There have also been cases involving external PPEs – namely, private citizens who do not belong to either of the disputing sides – although such cases are beyond the scope of this study. Internal PPEs are characteristically quite different from external PPEs in terms of resources, acquaintance with the conflict, motivation, legitimacy, and potential role. These two types of PPEs therefore deserve separate analysis, and this research focuses on internal, or local, PPEs. The distinction is similar to that of Wehr and Lederach between the outsider-neutral mediator, who has no connection to either side of the conflict, and the insider-partial mediator, who is the mediator from within the conflict.

⁴

Third, PPEs initiate channels of communication with official representatives from the other side of the conflict, not with private citizens. The communication might take place directly with leaders or mid- or low-ranking representatives, or through a mediator who has a direct channel to officials on the other side of the conflict.

Fourth, the goal of PPEs’ activities is to promote a process of conflict resolution and to influence the official sphere as well as relations between the leaderships of the disputing sides (in this regard the PPE differs from Dikaiopolis). Subject to the conditions and the circumstances of the conflict, their goal might be positioned anywhere along a wide spectrum, from resolving a specific disagreement or an urgent crisis, through creating a channel for negotiation, to drafting a peace agreement.

Theoretical background

The PPE phenomenon is essentially a unique phenomenon with its own distinct characteristics and patterns that have yet to be adequately analyzed and theorized. It does not accord with any of the concepts postulated in the existing scholarship. This study outlines a special analytical framework for the PPE phenomenon and offers a unique toolkit to discuss and analyze the PPEs’ resources, activities, relations with the establishment, and impact on the official sphere. At the same time, a number of research fields and theoretical frameworks that intersect and correspond with the phenomenon can be identified in the literature, and this work seeks to contribute to these areas of research. The study uses relevant elements from these research fields in developing a proposed analytical framework for the PPE phenomenon, and examines differences between PPEs, on the one hand, and various terms and frameworks in the scholarship, on the other.

The PPE phenomenon falls within the sphere of research on unofficial diplomacy. Various scholars in the field of diplomatic studies have identified a process that developed during the second half of the twentieth century and intensified after the end of the Cold War: the patterns of diplomacy changed as new unofficial and non-governmental actors emerged in the diplomatic sphere, and the monopoly over international diplomatic processes previously enjoyed by professional diplomats and foreign ministries weakened. In describing this phenomenon the literature coined terms such as unofficial diplomacy, citizen diplomacy, and new diplomats, and scholars noted that the revolution in the information and communication technology, and the processes of globalization and democratization, played a role in its development.⁵ The rise of these actors was described as part of the democratization of diplomacy and the transformation from club diplomacy to network diplomacy.

⁶

The discussion on these new actors provoked a debate about their importance and influence and became linked to a broader debate on the existence of a crisis in diplomacy. Proponents of the crisis thesis argue that traditional official diplomacy has become obsolete and is nearing its end, while opponents argue that it is more vital than ever and has an impressive capacity for adaptation to change. The controversy also relates to the distinction between an approach that emphasizes the role of the state system in diplomacy, and an approach that posits a global society in which diplomacy operates as multi-centric networks with various types of actors, within which the state system constitutes only one option for engaging in diplomacy.

⁷

In parallel, in the field of conflict and peace research, discussions developed around the concept of track two diplomacy. Montville defined the term as unofficial, informal interactions between members of adversarial groups or nations with the goals of developing strategies, influencing public opinion, and organizing human and material resources in ways that might help resolve the conflict. ⁸ Scholars emphasize that track two is not intended to substitute for the official negotiation track (track one) but to support it. Track two encompasses a wide range of activities and encounters between citizens from conflicting sides, and over time scholars have drawn distinctions among various types of track two practices. Agha et al., for example, distinguished between soft track two diplomacy, which aims to familiarize each side with the other and change perceptions and relations over the long term, and hard track two diplomacy, the goal of which is to produce a proposal for a political agreement and to advance official negotiations. Diamond and McDonald formulated the term multi track diplomacy using nine tracks, with various actors and functions in each track, as part of a peacemaking system.

⁹

A key component of this literature centers on problem-solving workshops that bring together participants from parties to a conflict, preferably with access to decision makers. The workshops are facilitated by an impartial third party, usually a scholar-practitioner with expertise in conflict resolution and social psychology, and are aimed at exploring the parties’ needs and fears and developing new ideas and solutions. These workshops began in the 1960s, when the leading scholars who initiated and facilitated them – such as John Burton, Herbert Kelman, and Ronald Fisher – also developed the theoretical work on the subject, offering different models and approaches as a basis for their workshops.

¹⁰

While there are some points of intersection between the PPE phenomenon and the track two framework, they are essentially different for several reasons. First, track two refers to a wide range of encounters between private citizens from rival groups, whereas PPEs are not interested in a meeting with private citizens on the other side but in a dialogue with the official leadership, for the explicit purpose of influencing the official sphere and promoting conflict resolution.

¹¹

Second, PPEs are active players who devote time and energy to their ongoing independent activity, and often pay a price for it, whereas participants in track two problem solving workshops are usually invited by a third party and have a limited, temporary, and passive role. The track two literature focuses on how workshops change the participants’ perceptions towards the conflict and the rival side, whereas PPEs’ pro-peace perceptions and commitment are a pre-existing factor that pre-dated their participation in meetings and motivated them to pursue their PPE efforts in the first place. Moreover, there is usually no significant role for an external third party in PPE activity, as PPEs initiate and facilitate their contacts directly with the rival side. The focus of the two frameworks also differs: while track two scholarship focuses on a process, the research on PPEs focuses on an agent that can become involved in various processes, initiatives, and projects, including track two. In this sense, the track two framework is too limited, revealing only part of the vast and varied picture of unofficial peace diplomacy.

Third, scholars describe track two as a complementary track, designed to support the official track, and the two components are presented as part of a single system aimed at a common goal. However, the PPE prism reveals more complex relations between the unofficial and the official spheres. PPEs often act under conditions of tension and in a manner that clashes with official policy. They might operate under conditions of diplomatic vacuum, with no official dialogue underway, or even under circumstances of war, violence, or an official policy that opposes negotiations. PPEs are not defined by their relationship with the leadership or position vis-à-vis official negotiations; their independent activity stands on its own.

Fourth, the track two literature centers on the more organized, structured, and professional activities and meetings of citizen diplomacy, especially the problem-solving workshops conducted by key scholars in the field, while ignoring the wide range of informal diplomatic initiatives and activities that take place in a more amateurish, private, covert, and unprofessional manner, occasionally without awareness of the theoretical context. In addition, the scholarship on track two and citizen diplomacy tends to see this as a new phenomenon and to focus on contemporary cases, thus ignoring the historical dimension that this study seeks to contribute to the field.

This study on PPEs contributes to literature on the inclusion of civil society in peace processes. Scholars in that field have considered the important role that civil society organizations can play, arguing that there is a link between their inclusion in the peacemaking process and the sustainability of the peace agreement, and offering possible ways to incorporate civil society in functions such as advocacy, facilitation, and monitoring.¹² The study also accords well with the recent local turn in the scholarship on peacebuilding, which derives from a critical view of the liberal peacebuilding project that is managed by international actors and, according to this critique, is based on a universal Western model that excludes the local context. The local turn emphasizes the potential role of local actors, communities, and organizations in peacebuilding, providing a model for peace from below as opposed to top-down liberal peacebuilding.¹³ This research, which focuses on the PPE as a local peacemaker, shares and affirms some of the assumptions of the local turn approach.

The PPE is a hybrid actor, engaging, on the one hand, in practices from the world of traditional diplomacy, and, on the other hand, in practices from the world of civil society and political activism. The study attempts to bridge the gaps between the two sets of literature, borrowing theoretical tools from these fields for inclusion in the proposed analytical framework. Towards that end, the framework combines elements from the literature on international relations, diplomacy, and negotiations with elements from the literature on social movements and activism in general, and in the field of world politics and peace in particular.

Three important diplomatic practices, well known in the scholarship on negotiations, deserve special attention for their relevance to the discussion on PPEs: mediation, backchannel diplomacy, and use of a special envoy. Many PPEs strive to integrate these diplomatic models in their unofficial activity and to use them as a means of influencing the official diplomatic sphere.

Mediation is defined as intervention by a third party, external to the conflict, carried out voluntarily, with the consent of the parties, in order to promote an agreed solution. Scholars emphasize that the mediator should be neutral and impartial. External official mediators can be representatives of a superpower, state, or international organization.¹⁴ PPEs are not mediators in the classic sense, as the disputing sides did not request their involvement and did not necessarily grant them permission to mediate, and, unlike mediators, they are not a third party. They are local actors who come from within the conflict, and their efforts do not necessarily qualify as mediation. Although the main elements of the orthodox definition do not apply to PPE activities, PPEs may evince some characteristics of the mediator's role. Over the years, the scholarship has developed broader definitions of mediation in order to expand the traditional framework and include new types of mediation, such as quasi-mediation and informal mediation carried out by private and unofficial actors.¹⁵ Scholars point to changes in the nature of the world's conflicts since the end of the Cold War, from inter-state to intra-state disputes, as a significant reason for the growing role of private peace mediators.

¹⁶

The second practice is backchannel diplomacy – an official communication channel conducted in complete confidentiality, without the knowledge of the media or the public. Usually the political and bureaucratic establishment is also unaware, and only a small, exclusive circle of decision makers is involved in the process.¹⁷ Backchannels rely on individuals with close ties to decision makers, who in turn have confidence in them. These individuals are granted the authority to explore a variety of options, with more leeway than front-channel talks allow, and to commit to a tentative outline of an agreement. PPEs, as unofficial actors, do not meet the definition of backchannel negotiators, but if their informal channels gain a certain measure of official recognition from decision makers, they can become backchannels. Wanis-St. John acknowledges the possibility of a backchannel that begins as a freelance initiative, without official status, and later receives official approval.

¹⁸

The third practice centers on the role of a special envoy – a diplomatic emissary sent at the request, and initiative, of a leader for a special diplomatic mission (also known as ad-hoc diplomacy).¹⁹ It is important to distinguish between PPEs – who act on their own behalf and initiative, operate over time out of an ideological commitment, and can under certain circumstances be integrated into the official sphere – and special envoys, who serve in an official capacity on behalf of decision makers and often come from the establishment.

At the same time, the literature on civil society activism, and especially on transnational civil society, also has significant relevance to the analysis of PPEs’ activity. The scholarship on transnational civil society, a growing field in international relations literature since the end of the Cold War, focuses on transnational movements as global actors engaged in cross-border collective and independent activity, with activists and members from different countries who share common ideas, values, and goals. These transnational movements, coalitions, and networks struggle for various global causes such as human rights, environmental issues, social justice, and arms control. They seek to have an impact on world politics and aim to influence three target audiences: states, international institutions, and civil society.²⁰ Two central concepts that have developed in this literature deserve mention. The first is the concept of a transnational moral entrepreneur, which refers to actors (individuals or groups) who work for normative global change. The second is the transnational epistemic community, a network of cross-border experts whose members share common normative and causal beliefs and work to disseminate ideas and policy prescriptions.

²¹

The PPE is an individual citizen, not a transnational movement or a cross-border network, and PPEs’ activity centers on a limited diplomatic goal in the context of conflict resolution in the particular geographical area where they live, rather than on global issues. However, because PPEs, like transnational activists, are civil society actors who engage in cross-border action and seek to influence international politics and diplomacy, this study uses insights and concepts from the work on transnational civil society. PPE efforts also overlap somewhat with peace activism, and the study therefore uses tools from research on social movements, particularly peace movements, and contributes to this literature. The discussions on PPEs and on peace activists share certain questions, such as the conditions for effective activism and the unique challenges of civil society activities pertaining to war and peace.

²²

This study on the PPE phenomenon underscores the need for more theoretical attention to the individual private citizen as an international and diplomatic actor. It examines the PPE's agency while addressing the complex dynamic between this agent and the structure.²³ Nearly half a century ago James Eayrs wrote about the emergence of the individual to a significant role in world politics and criticized the dominant theory for ignoring the individual as an actor and treating that individual only as a creature of the state to which he belongs. ²⁴ The research on the PPE phenomenon challenges basic assumptions and thinking patterns in the main international relations paradigms and raises fundamental questions on issues such as authority and representation in international relations and diplomacy.

²⁵

The study also contributes to the literature on entrepreneurs. The term entrepreneur comes from the French word entreprendre, meaning to undertake, and scholars in the field emphasize three main dimensions: innovation, proactiveness, and risk taking. Another important dimension in the literature is opportunities: entrepreneurs strive to identify and take advantage of opportunities. These components are highly relevant for the analysis of PPEs. In addition to research on business entrepreneurs, the literature contains discussions on social entrepreneurs, policy entrepreneurs, and moral entrepreneurs, and this study adds the dimension of entrepreneurs in the field of unofficial peace diplomacy.

²⁶

Alongside the theoretical aspects, the book makes a historiographical contribution because it sheds light on important figures who have been excluded from the history textbooks, and offers an alternative perspective to traditional narratives concerning the history of the conflicts. It also contributes to historical studies that, while focusing on specific figures who engaged in private diplomacy, do not conceptualize their activity as part of a wider phenomenon.²⁷ The book's historical dimension seeks to contribute to the evolving field of research on new diplomatic history, which examines various actors, individuals, and groups who played diplomatic roles in the broader sense, and to the history of private international relations as well as the research approach of peace history, which focuses on the history of ideas, individuals, and groups in relation to the promotion of peace.

²⁸

Research design

The book focuses on two research questions. The first relates to the definition of the phenomenon – who are the private peace entrepreneurs? – and discusses its boundaries and characteristics. In what way are PPEs and the theoretical characteristics of the phenomenon unique? What resources do they have, and what types of PPEs are there? What are their action patterns and the response patterns of the official establishment? And what are the limits of the phenomenon and the main criticisms leveled against it?

The second research question is about the impact of the phenomenon – what is the impact of private peace entrepreneurs on the official diplomatic sphere? To explore this question, the study first examines whether PPEs have any impact, and, if so, how it is expressed and what are the influence patterns of PPEs. In the second stage, it examines which variables and conditions affect the ability of PPEs to influence and play an effective and significant role in conflict resolution processes. In this context, the research analyzes variables at three levels: those related to the PPEs, those related to their peace initiative, and those that are external.

The research combines theoretical discussion with comparative historical analysis, examining four empirical case studies of PPEs from different conflicts and different historical eras and geographical regions:

1. Norman Cousins and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty negotiations among the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom (1962–1963)

2. Suzanne Massie and the Cold War during the Reagan era (1983–1988)

3. Brendan Duddy and negotiations between the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and the British government during the conflict in Northern Ireland (1973–1993)

4. Uri Avnery and his dialogue with the PLO in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (1975–1985)

The case studies come from three conflicts that were at the heart of post-1945 twentieth-century diplomatic history: the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the conflict in Northern Ireland. Their examination uses the research method of cross-comparisons, which analyzes a phenomenon through case studies from different historical and geopolitical conditions, provides a broad perspective on a full range of variation, and minimizes biases related to political or national context. The empirical research on the case studies allows for an in-depth process-tracing analysis of the PPEs and their activity and influence by offering a broad empirical field from which to identify similarities and differences and examine various angles and components of the phenomenon.

The case studies differ in terms of several variables, including the period and conflict area, the type of conflict (two cases involve international conflict and two involve a conflict between a state and a non-state actor), the stage in the evolution of the conflict, the types of PPEs and their resources and action patterns, the objective of PPEs’ initiatives, and their relations with decision makers. In order to draw valid theoretical conclusions about the variables that shape the effectiveness of the PPEs, the case studies also differ in terms of PPEs’ influence patterns and the degree of their impact on the official diplomatic sphere.

The four case studies come from the post-Second World War international historical context, mainly from the early 1960s through the early 1990s. This historical period reflects a transformative stage in the development of the PPE phenomenon, during which an awareness of unofficial diplomacy in the academic, diplomatic, and political discourse began to take shape. As the end of the Cold War, with the accompanying changes in the international context, is considered a key milestone in the scholarship on private actors in peace diplomacy and international politics,²⁹ this study focuses on the preceding years in order to trace the evolution of the PPE phenomenon, and its main patterns and practices, at this critical stage.

Another advantage of the selected case studies is that they represent long-term PPE activity in the three examined conflicts, and in fact include a series of initiatives and efforts at different stages, thus allowing for use of the method of within-case analysis to identify how the variance in conditions over time affected the outcomes. The comparative historical analysis is based on awareness and sensitivity to the historical context of the various cases, and it allows one to draw generalized conclusions about common characteristics and similarities between PPEs, while also identifying differences and unique conditions in each case.

The analysis of the case studies uses a proposed theoretical framework (to be presented in the first chapter) that offers a unique toolbox for the analysis of PPEs using relevant theoretical tools drawn from various research fields. The study employs the method of a structural-focused comparison, which is structural because it makes a systemic comparison using general questions examined in each case, and is focused because it centers on particular aspects of the case studies. This method is intended to examine a phenomenon in such a way that the explanations emerging from each case can be combined to formulate a complex and comprehensive theory.

The empirical analysis is based on a wide variety of sources, including official and private archival resources, historical studies, memoirs, biographies, interviews, and media reports. Notably, PPE case studies frequently encounter the problem of lack of resources because of the unofficial and often undocumented nature of their activity. In many cases neither the official governmental archives nor the PPEs themselves maintain records of their activities. Therefore, the case selection was also influenced by the accessibility of primary sources that would allow for an in-depth examination of the PPEs’ activity and its consequences. The study sought to combine sources from official state archives with private archival sources and sources pertaining to relevant actors and parties in each case. The research highlights that in order to expose the unofficial and lesser-known layers of diplomacy, it is necessary to expand the scope of sources and use unofficial and private sources alongside the official ones.

The comparative perspective is further broadened by a pool of thirty-six additional control cases that meet the definition of the phenomenon, helping to provide a broad empirical basis for analysis of the PPEs’ activities and for the illustration and demonstration of various aspects. The list of cases appears in appendix.

The structure of the book

The first chapter outlines the analytical framework for examining the phenomenon of PPEs, including their characteristics, activities, and impact. The first part presents a typology of the phenomenon as it relates to the following components: the PPEs’ resources, types of PPEs, their action patterns, the official establishment's attitude towards PPEs, and critical arguments against their activities. The second part deals with the PPEs’ impact on the official diplomatic sphere, identifies PPEs’ influence patterns, and suggests a multivariable system that distinguishes among variables related to PPEs, variables related to their peace initiative, and external variables. This framework is used to analyze the case studies in the subsequent chapters.

Chapters 2–

5 present analyses of the case studies, with each chapter offering a brief historical background, a summary of the PPEs’ biography and worldview, an analysis of the PPEs’ efforts and initiatives, and an examination of their impact on the official diplomatic sphere.

The second chapter analyzes the case of Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review and anti-nuclear activist, as an American PPE in the context of the nuclear test ban negotiations (1962–1963). The analysis addresses Cousins's role in establishing the American–Soviet Dartmouth dialogue conferences, his meetings with Soviet premier Khrushchev and US president Kennedy, a proposal he made that served as a basis for Kennedy's American University speech, and his efforts to secure support for the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The third chapter analyzes the case of Suzanne Massie, an American author and expert on Russian culture who strove to promote dialogue and improve relations between the US and the USSR in the context of the Cold War. The chapter examines her PPE efforts and relations with both sides, which included frequent visits to the Soviet Union, meetings with US president Ronald Reagan, and an exchange of messages between the parties, during the years 1983–1988.

The fourth chapter analyzes the case of Brendan Duddy, a businessman from Northern Ireland who served as an intermediary between the British government and the Republican leadership at various times between 1973 and 1993. The analysis focuses on three main stages in Duddy's peace efforts: the backchannel he established during the 1975 truce, mediation initiatives during the first (1980) and the second (1981) Republican prisoners’ hunger strikes, and the revival of Duddy's channel in 1990–1993.

The fifth chapter analyzes the case of Uri Avnery, editor of the weekly Haolam Hazeh, a Knesset member, and a peace activist, who as an Israeli PPE established and maintained contact with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The analysis extends from Avnery's first unofficial diplomatic activity in the 1950s and first contact with a PLO official in 1975, through the establishment of the channel between members of the Israeli Council for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (ICIPP) and PLO leaders, to Avnery's meetings with PLO chairman Arafat in the early 1980s.

Drawing on the empirical research, the closing chapter presents a comparative analysis of the PPEs’ activities and impact, offering final conclusions and insights. The discussion covers a range of questions and issues, such as the PPEs’ influence on the