International University Event

The Idea: Public Talks

Is it time for a new form of international dialogue? “Public Talks” is a communication process based on a series of formal rules and terms that will create a level playing field between two adversaries.

The structure and overall parameters for Public Talks would need to be created by a major nation or established international organization. This overseeing body will define when Public Talks could and could not be used.

The establishment of Public Talks would naturally include representatives of various nations and organizations whose participation would ensure widespread acceptance that the final rules and terms are fair and equitable. The initial construction of the parameters for Public Talks would generate widespread public expectations. Thus, citizens and leaders worldwide would become aware of this process well before it begins to unfold.

The central communications instrument of this twenty-first century tool is a series magazine-size "Dialogue Documents," which would be from eight to 16 page, and distributed primarily online. In the directly affected regions, a local print media could distribute them in hard copy. The international community would have access to this information through the Internet and probably one large media outlet, which would bid for exclusive rights to widely distribute those Dialogue Documents.

Dialogue Documents will feature each side's interpretation of history, questions to one's adversary, negotiating positions and other content relevant to international conflicts. Later stages of this process will focus on the negotiating tradeoffs necessary for two or more parties to reach agreement. It is potentially a world communication process that uses public opinion to advance an otherwise stalled negotiation process.

When this challenge media is created by leaders engaged in negotiations, it will be perceived as a new type of unfiltered news. Public Talks is a universal process that could play a role in both political conflicts and unresolved economic issues. The defining characteristic of this process is easily understood: After private talks fail, Public Talks will be encouraged.

A few potential examples of political conflicts where Public Talks could be used include NATO-Eastern Europe, Shia-Sunni in Iraq, Russia-Georgia, Iran-U.S./European allies, India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestinians, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Serbia-Kosovo/Albania, Turkey-Kurds, Spain-Basque Separatists and the Russia-U.S. suspended nuclear pact. Examples of economic issues that could be addressed are many and include climate change and trade issues.

One possible outcome of establishing Public Talks is that it may serve as a bridge in the larger negotiating process that ultimately culminates in private talks.

The motive for adversaries to engage in Public Talks is not an idealistic notion of goodwill, but rather, recognition of the growing influence of world opinion. An adversary's motive to accept a Public Talks challenge would be to head off erosion of public support worldwide.

Secret talks and special envoys will continue as before but each of these traditional initiatives will be infused with a greater sense of urgency than today. Once Public Talks is formally established, either side of a conflict that fulfilled the defined criteria by the organizing body could unilaterally present its Dialogue Document before a worldwide audience. Although there may be no guarantee of a response in kind, if an adversary rejects that challenge, that party risks international acceptance of the other side’s historical narrative of that conflict. This rejection could effectively result in that adversary defining its policies to the world.

The party most dissatisfied with the status-quo would usually have the primary motive to initiate Public Talks. That party could be expected to build a worldwide media campaign around this process. They might  use media interviews, demonstrations and other measures to focus widespread attention to their views and historical narrative contained within their Dialogue Documents.

The following anticipated objections need to be addressed:

Public Talks conflict with the secrecy that advocates of realpolitik insist on. Secret talks will continue to have an ongoing role, but Public Talks presents an alternative beyond failed negotiations. The collapse of many contemporary secret talks in Madrid, Dayton, Oslo and other initiatives too numerous to list here point towards the need for an alternative negotiating platform. Moreover, some political leaders will sweep this secrecy objection aside with simple logic: Public Talks becomes an option only after secret talks have stalled.

Is this just one more form of propaganda? When and where have we seen propaganda in the form of a level playing field between two adversaries? The strong and the weak will share the same platform to put forth their views on an equal basis. Although this format may tempt some parties to obfuscate, manipulate and outright lie, they risk that their credibility would be damaged by a more forthright adversary. With a direct clash of opinions, only the most credible and strongest arguments would survive. Public Talks are very much the opposite of propaganda.

Any United States administration will oppose a process that encourages an equal exposition of both sides of a conflict.  Immediately after 9/11, a Pew Research Center poll revealed that 73 percent of the American public favored hearing from both sides of political issues – even if it meant hearing directly from our enemies. The Obama Administration has publicly endorsed and encouraged open dialogue.  Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that President Obama would fully support the establishment of Public Talks.

Since the stronger of two sides can easily reject a Public Talks challenge, the value of this new platform is dubious. Today, the powerful often reject calls for talks from the other side with impunity. Yet consider the larger events that will introduce Public Talks. Citizens, journalists and leaders will see a new communication structure independent of ideology.

The less powerful will value this new communication process as they will be able, in many cases, to project their issues, history, causes and grievances onto the world stage. Through press conferences, television   appearances and other media initiatives, they will take steps to create public expectations for their upcoming Dialogue Document that will ultimately be delivered into the hands of people worldwide. Citizens and leaders everywhere will then see a historical narrative that might  contrast with views held by the more powerful group.

In addition, rejecting Public Talks risks ceding the moral high ground to an adversary and could precipitate a shift of both US and international support. Journalists and the public will ask: What do they have to hide? Why not engage in this process?

This proposal is divorced from reality because governments do not care about advertisements or messages, but rather only national interests and power. Such critics ignore a trend of our era that public opinion has become a growing force in national and international affairs. Many manifestations of this phenomenon are part of our political process, from the White House's quick response statements that seek to get out in front on political issues to the way that virtually every government in the world carefully stage-manages media events for its national leader. Governments are intensely concerned with  public opinion and devote considerable resources to media relations and public affairs.

Nations could censor Public Talks by simply preventing the distribution of a challenge document. Yes, they could in areas under their control. However, attempts to block this process internally may backfire, as the rest of the world would pay close attention to any banned information. Suppressed documents such as Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago became more powerful because they were banned and thus endowed with heroic status.

Many citizens around the world will support Public Talks because this structured exchange of opinions will tend to yield a greater public recognition of historical truth. By opening up the central details of these conflicts to the masses, previously the sole domain of diplomatic elites, Public Talks will alter the relationship of citizens everywhere to conflicts between societies. Thus, establishing Public Talks could advance democracy in ways that cannot now be easily predicted.

Once citizens of the world acquire a fuller understanding of the tradeoffs necessary for two sides to reach an agreement, public opinion will build for each party to take incremental steps towards compromise.  Where no compromise is acceptable, the reasons for this stance will become clearer than ever.

Amidst the “battle of ideas” taking shape today, supporters of Public Talks will show they are more interested in the underlying causes of international conflicts than just the symptoms of these very serious problems. What nations and international organizations will take the initiative to establish Public Talks?