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 requires a major nation or established international organization to be the driving force behind establishing this new approach to negotiations. This overseeing body will define when recourse to Public Talks would and would not be appropriate.

The initial development of Public Talks would need to include representatives of various nations and organizations, thus ensuring widespread acceptance of the final rules and terms. These early actions and events would generate worldwide public expectations for this process well before it unfolded.

The central communications instrument is a series of magazine-size "Dialogue Documents," from eight to 16 pages distributed primarily online. In the region affected, one or more prominent newspapers or magazines could distribute the physical documents. The international community would have access through the Internet and probably one large print media that would distribute those Dialogue Documents.

This new challenge media would 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 parties to reach agreement.

Once established, either side of a conflict fulfilling the defined criteria could unilaterally present its Dialogue Document before a worldwide audience without any guarantee of a response in kind.  Yet, an adversary who rejects this open process risks international acceptance of the other side’s historical narrative. Rejection could thus lead to that adversary defining its policies to the world.

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

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.. Examples of economic issues that could be addressed are many and include climate change and trade issues.  If Public Talks had been established before the recent oil spill, we may have already seen the conclusion of a six or eight  part “Rapid-fire” (week-by-week) Public Talks between the U.S. and BP.

Some objections need to be addressed.

Public Talks is inconsistent with the secrecy that advocates of realpolitik insist on. Secret talks and special envoys will continue to have an ongoing role, but Public Talks presents an alternative beyond hopelessly stalled negotiations. The failure of many contemporary secret talks in Madrid, Dayton, Oslo 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.

Is this 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.

Since the stronger of two sides can reject Public Talks, the value of this platform is dubious. 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 public will ask those who reject Public Talks: What do they have to hide?

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 would pay 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.

In conclusion, the central details of international conflicts have been the traditional domain of political elites.  Once citizens acquire a more complete understanding of the facts and history surrounding why conflicts and wars remain unresolved, they will become increasingly engaged in the process of Public Talks.

Then, as citizens recognize the necessary tradeoffs for two adversaries to reach agreement, public opinion will build for each party to take incremental steps towards compromise. Where no compromise is acceptable, the reasons will become clearer than ever.

Public Talks will compel a focus on not just the symptoms of conflicts, but the underlying causes.  Citizens around the world will overwhelmingly support Public Talks because this structured exchange of opinions will yield a greater public recognition of historical truth than we experience today.