Track II Diplomacy

March 13, 1988

I read with great interest Dr. Volkan's (1987) paper: "Psychological Concepts Useful in the Building of Political Foundations between Nations: Track II Diplomacy. It is seldom nowadays that one discovers a new and refreshing approach to long-standing social dilemmas, especially in the sphere of international diplomacy. Approaching nations as group-individuals and applying psychoanalytic conceptualizations to them not only explains heretofore irrational and complex behaviors in diplomacy and war, but also the possible means to stop regressions. I do wish to bring to your attention one additional issue.

It appears that Dr. Volkan tends to view adversaries as coequals who tend to magnify minor if not trivial differences. However, in individual psychology we have also delineated the difference between regressions and fixation. Despite periods of hostility when both nations may behave similarly and badly, it is important to remember that one nation may have seriously provoked the other nation into hostilities. We know for example that psychopaths and borderline individuals with poor impulse control, affective lability, proneness to regression, and object splitting are frequently provocative if not brutal. When confronted, they cry "foul" out of an extraordinary sense of entitlement. If hurt, they feel affirmed in their sense of victimization.

As psychoanalysts we know these individuals; and often it is only with the most painstaking self-examination that we prevent ourselves from retaliating within the therapeutic relationship. We occasionally fail. That we do does not however legitimize the patient's overweening expectations or destructive behavior. We have only temporarily regressed to the patient's level and have confirmed his infantile fears. We attempt, therefore, to protect patients, and the therapeutic alliance, from the outset with strict boundaries, and inform them of the consequences of destructive behavior, including rejection, from t