Public Talks in Nine Parts

One: Introduction

All diplomatic options have been exhausted. There needs to be a dialogue.  Both statements affirm the need for the international community to establish a formal alternative to traditional negotiations.

“Public Talks” allows one side of a failed negotiating process to unilaterally put their historical narrative and larger story in a defined format before the world public while asking their adversary to respond in kind.

Regardless of that response, this process will focus the power of world opinion on the precise issues that are preventing agreement between adversaries. 

This form of international dialogue is based on a series of rules and terms that will create a level playing field between two adversaries. Given today’s political realities, there are compelling reasons for the U.S. and a handful of other major nations to establish this diplomatic alternative for the 21st century.

An Overseeing Body containing representatives of these nations would create the operating principles for when this large-scale communication process should be used and when it should not.

This leads to a unified policy for foreign affairs:  After private talks fail, the U.S will encourage Public Talks.

Two: Core Description

The central communications instrument for Public Talks is a series of magazine-size "Dialogue Documents," of 12 to 24 pages distributed primarily online. In affected regions, one or more prominent newspapers or magazines could distribute the physical documents. The international community would have access through the Internet and probably one or more large print media that would distribute those Dialogue Documents.

Once Public Talks is established, either side of a conflict fulfilling the defined criteria could unilaterally present its Dialogue Document before a worldwide audience.  An adversary who rejects this open process risks international acceptance of the other side’s historical narrative.  Ultimately, an adversary's motive to accept a Public Talks challenge would be to head off an erosion of public support.

This new media would allow for each side's interpretation of history, questions to one's adversary, negotiating positions and other content relevant to international conflicts.

Successive rounds would have sections that the Overseeing Body would shape into a comprehensive process.  The same leaders who represent each side in private talks will tend to be responsible for that side’s Public Talks.  This structured clash of opinions will tend to yield a greater public recognition of historical truth than citizens commonly experience today.

As this deliberate back-and-forth process proceeds, citizens everywhere world acquire a fuller understanding of the tradeoffs necessary for two sides to reach an agreement.  Thus, public opinion will build for each to take incremental steps towards compromise.  Yet, where no compromise is acceptable, the reasons for this stance will become clearer than ever.

The manner in which Public Talks engages citizens worldwide could influence the transformation of civil society within specific nations.  As individual citizens become more aware of the underlying political details that shape their lives, they will become directly focused on what they most want to see.

Three: Objections

Public Talks is inconsistent with the secrecy that advocates of realpolitik insist on. Secret talks and special envoys will continue.  Public Talks, however, presents an alternative beyond consistently deadlocked negotiations. The failure of many contemporary secret talks, in Dayton concerning the war in Bosnia, Oslo in the Middle East, the Six Party talks focusing on North Korea, and other initiatives too numerous to list here, argue 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 effectively collapsed.

This is just another form of propaganda. When and where has propaganda offered a level communication playing field between two adversaries? The strong and the weak share the same platform on an equal basis. Although some may obfuscate, manipulate and outright lie, they risk damaging their credibility by a more forthright adversary. Indeed, Public Talks are very much the opposite of propaganda.

Public Talks might give terrorists a voice.  Public Talks would not give terrorists a voice as the Overseeing Body would undoubtedly prevent this from happening.

The value of this platform is dubious since the stronger of two sides can reject Public Talks. The powerful often reject calls for negotiations from the other side with impunity. Nevertheless, the less powerful will be able to unilaterally project their issues, history, causes and grievances onto the world stage. Through press conferences, television appearances and other efforts they will take steps to create public expectations for their upcoming Dialogue Document that will ultimately be delivered into the hands of people worldwide.  Thus, 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 broader public will ask of those who reject Public Talks: What do they have to hide?

The prominent publication of one's maximum negotiating positions would make it difficult to compromise later. This concern also applies to traditional talks, yet with Public Talks, the precise give-and-take of compromises to reach an agreement will be better understood by affected citizens.  This open process will provide political cover for leaders who could show their constituencies the detailed trade-offs necessary to reach a settlement. In contrast with traditional talks, leaders emerging from secret negotiations often find themselves targets of extremists who can portray one or two issues as a towering betrayal by those who negotiated that secret deal.

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

Four:  Media

Marshall McLuhan observed "Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication."  

In 15th century Europe, the Bible was interpreted and disseminated by priests.  The invention of the Gutenberg printing press gave rise to the Reformation where citizens were able to experience that information directly.

16th and 17th century Newspapers provided a greater understanding of political issues that then hastened a new social contract, democracy.

Radio allowed immediacy of news as never before while television created a true Global Village where opinions of millions were shaped for the first time by events unfolding before their eyes.

The Internet, with the still evolving influence of social networks and mobile communications, is providing unprecedented interconnectivity between individuals.

In the 21st century, political conflicts are widely interpreted and disseminated by journalists.  The establishment of Public Talks will encourage citizens everywhere to experience this information directly from the participating leaders. 

Five:  Overseeing Body

Three traditional forms of negotiations exist today: private talks, talks through an intermediary and the peace conference.  Collective action by today’s leaders would create a fourth form of negotiations, Public Talks, with entirely unique characteristics that will henceforth change the larger international communications environment.

These national leaders could come together under the organizational umbrella of a major nation, group of nations, the United Nations or another entity of their own choosing.  They would appoint a carefully chosen Overseeing body to create the rules and terms for this new form of public negotiations.  

Beyond fundamental principles, this overseeing body would need to address technical questions, such as: 

How long should Dialogue Documents be?    
What sections should be included?
How will these sections be shaped for subsequent rounds?
How much space should be devoted to the negotiating points of each side? 
Which newspapers and/or magazines distribute the Dialogue Documents?  
How much will this process cost and how will it be paid?

Events surrounding the initial establishment of these rules and terms would create immense worldwide expectation for Public Talks well before it ever unfolds.

Six:  Analysis

Against the backdrop of the “new” phenomenon of terrorism of the early 1980s, the concept of Public Talks began with a single question:

What if there was an established process whereby groups could gain world attention by unilaterally challenging their adversary to respond in kind to a highly structured document that was widely distributed in various newspapers and/or magazines?

The establishment of Public Talks will have little or no appeal for those engaged in terror but other leaders within that society or group would have a defined strategy to bring world attention to that cause that would elevate their political standing.

Secret talks will absolutely continue after Public Talks emerge, yet each side of this traditional process will understand that if those negotiations fail, either side may initiate this open process. 

Personal trust between individual leaders would become less important with Public Talks because commitments would be spelled out for all sides to witness.

If this public negotiating process culminates in a single document signed by both sides and distributed worldwide, confidence would increase that agreed-upon terms would be adhered to.  Similarly, confidence would increase that terms of an agreement would not be reinterpreted in sharply divergent ways after the fact.

The central details of conflicts have historically been the sole domain of political leaders and diplomatic elites.  The emergence of Public Talks will alter the relationship of citizens to power as the former will be able to judge the latter in a more complete and comprehensive way that ever before.

Seven:  Pro-Democracy Groups

Advocates of democracy facing an authoritarian regime could distribute their message worldwide that may resonate powerfully throughout that military’s chain of command.  While those in power may seek to prevent Public Talks in country, Public Talks could proceed worldwide, well beyond the control of that regime.

In the case of an internal democratic movement, one section could be directed at a nation’s army where that message would resonate widely and more powerfully than personal statements.

Envision the crowded square with citizens handing this message to individual soldiers that all would know is being read around the world.

Eight:  Opponents

Opponents of Public Talks will decry the absence of secrecy while an array of hypothetical scenarios will be offered in criticism.  Some will view this new process through the prism of a single issue.  Others will instinctively side with established governments and will be philosophically opposed to any platform that encourages the less powerful to be on an equal footing with those in power.

Some diplomats and other elites may resent an intrusion on their sphere of expertise.  Others will fear that the relative permanence of Dialogue Documents will tend to hold leaders more accountable for their public statements. 

Yet arguing for exclusive reliance on traditional negotiations – after there is an established alternative – will be an untenable position.

Nine:  Conclusion

Citizens everywhere have been losing confidence in the ability of leaders to lead and to resolve conflicts. 

This deliberative dialogue may elevate the importance of both moral issues and justice before the world public.  Once we all become witnesses to leaders shaping and using Public Talks, these events may lead to a greater sense of trust in leaders.

Amidst the “battle of ideas” taking shape today, U.S. support for Public Talks will show the world community that Americans are interested in not just the symptoms of international conflicts, but also in underlying causes. An America that does not fear open discussion is more likely to see its principles embraced around the world.

Once introduced, polls around the world will ask:  After private talks fail, do you support Public Talks?

____________