Newsroom


Article in the Huffington Post, in response to an opinion editorial published in Roll Call on Capitol Hill:

Chris Weigant: A Truly Original Foreign Policy Idea: Public Talks
Sep 26, 2007 ... Connolly knows this as well, and has prepared for skepticism. The Institute's site has a list of common objections to the Public Talks ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../a-truly-original-foreign-_b_65889.html - Cached

If two groups of peoples in violent disagreement with each other on the world's stage (be they different countries, dispossessed groups, or factions within a country) have exhausted all diplomatic options, is the inevitable result war? Or is there another way to address their vastly different viewpoints of history (and the conflict at hand) which could have a better outcome?

An opinion piece ran in yesterday's Roll Call which proposes a truly innovative and original concept: Instead of closed-door diplomatic meetings, why not try working out differences in the public arena? More properly stated: When diplomatic measures have already failed, why not try something new -- since there's nothing left to lose at that point?

The author of this extraordinary proposal is John Connolly, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Dialogue. The idea (in a nutshell) is: when all other diplomatic methods of resolving a disagreement have already failed, why not try something different? Have both sides publish their views of the history of the conflict to the world's audience, in publicly available media -- and let the chips fall where they may. Each side would make its case to the world, for all to see. As charges and counter-charges are published in a continuing process (over a period of months), each side could rebut legitimate points made by the other in subsequent releases -- in an attempt to sway world opinion to their relative perspectives.

Since Roll Call is a subscription site, the IFPDialogue website has posted a copy of the article. [I have reproduced this text below -- also, see Full Disclosure statement below]. The article explains the concept in detail, and the Institute's website has even more extensive documentation, if you're interested. The Institute even has a video currently up at YouTube where John Connolly tries to lobby Congress through the power of the web.

I admit that this is a radical idea, and an honestly singular new way of thinking. Connolly knows this as well, and has prepared for skepticism. The Institute's site has a list of common objections to the Public Talks concept, complete with plausible answers for each. He makes a convincing case that he's not just tilting at windmills, but that his idea could actually and effectively work. The biggest argument he's got going for him is that the whole idea wouldn't even begin until after normal diplomatic negotiations had collapsed. At that point, what is there really left to lose for either side?

John Connolly is putting this idea into the vaunted "marketplace of ideas" for consideration by one and all. While this marketplace can be brutal to those espousing abhorrent ideas (like President Ahmadinejad of Iran recently), it should also remain open to creative original thinking when it (so rarely) happens.

The public -- the "shoppers" in the marketplace -- are the ones who ultimately will decide the merits of the idea. But they can't decide if they don't even hear it in the first place. Which is why I present it here, to give it the wider audience I think it deserves.

United States/ Foreign Policy: PDF of the Roll Call Opinion Editorial, September 25, 2007

Article from London in response to the University Event, October 6, 2010

Link to article:  http://www.victoriayates.co.uk/?p=401


The Great Debate »
Interview with John Connolly
By victoriayates, on October 13th, 2010
~Written for London Student Paper, Volume 31, Issue 3 ~



As Middle-East Peace Talks reconvene, sputtering somewhat on a road whose unsteady path has taken physical and metaphorical casualties since 1948, one cannot help but tinge fragile optimism with hesitant pause about what will happen if they (once again) fail to produce results.

Students are no strangers to backing conflict resolution; political activism within the University of London is a staple on campuses, frequently spreading to wider movements within London at large. Ultimately petitioners can only be so involved while the doors to negotiation are sealed to all but those invited to the table. What then are we to do when talks fail and peace relapses? John Connolly, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Dialogue, believes he has a solution, something he terms ‘Public Talks’, and on October the 6th he called upon students across the globe to show support.

‘Public Talks’ attempt to create a neutral, open, and free platform for discussion through statements compiled by all proponents of a conflict, and accessible to all, hoping to prevent the failure of closed talks ending in a return to arms.

Public Talks itself was a product of the early 1980s and the new phenomena of terrorism. To the modern readers we are sadly acquainted with the concept, but for the time it was a novel experience. “People were hijacking planes, and cruise liners and things like this, and these were not militarily significant events, what they were doing was they were trying to get our public attention… And I had this idea based on a very simple concept; what if there was another way that these groups could communicate to the world public in a non-violent way? That was it. That was the entire concept”.

I spoke with Connolly over Skype, he from a Starbucks in California (an excusable necessity at 7am), me from my flat in London at the more modest 3pm. We had arranged our cross-Atlantic interview to discuss his brainchild, tag-lined “a new form of international dialogue that will strengthen the process of democracy worldwide”. Connolly began, “we are trying to introduce a level communication process”, this egalitarian sense rooted in his belief that “in the US there are real serious political constraints about any new ideas, we have very narrow boundaries what’s considered acceptable in public”. An open forum affords accessibility to the public who he feels to be “much more practical in the US than their political leaders which are more, in a sense, ideological”.

It’s a criticism both Connolly and I would agree is not necessarily applicable to the European demographic. Within the EU the prevalence of coalition governments infers a level of ideological compromise singular governments are not called to make. However he continues, “the idea here ultimately is to see if we can introduce a process in the real world”, it is very much a “bottom-up approach”.

Connolly’s decision to target universities and students in particular was part of a measured decision over what he hoped Public Talks would become. The option had been there to “go to political groups that could use this as a bit of an ideological weapon. And so I’ve decided not to do that, I would like to introduce this as a universal process that is independent of any given issue”. The essential crux for him is the question “should individual citizens be party to central details of conflicts between societies and nations? If you believe in secrecy you are against public talks”. What was not initially clear to me however were the semantics.

Born into a liberal democratic society I recognise the media as a (hopefully) neutral observational force whose job in areas of conflict is to relate both sides. It seemed to me that in this sense, perhaps public dialogue was already occurring. I asked Connolly how he would differentiate his movement from the likes of grassroots journalism, which affords a voice to those embroiled in conflict. He replied that it was again about the scale, about the idea of a ‘universal system’. So while it does “share characteristics in terms of transparency, this is very different in that it will be the same political groups that are now representing individual societies and nations”.

But, I challenged, what then can prevent this initiating a propaganda war? When giving the megaphone to those in power, especially in times of conflict, you lay open the dialogue to self-serving arguments of righteousness. Connolly replied candidly that he wasn’t sure it was possible to directly guarantee that it wouldn’t. Adding that those who choose to misuse the system would be “perceived by the world public, you and I, as really quite deficient if the other adversary is rather forthright”. For our collective addiction to Internet, to satellite news, to a broad collection of sources, Connolly sees Public Talks not as a replacement but a supplementary form of communication “where you and I would know there are both sides of a conflict”.

On the 6th of October Public Talks asked Universities and Colleges on each continent to post a founding document on their library doors, amongst the names taking part were representatives from six continents, and eight universities recently ranked in the top 200 in the world. What was the aim of this Luther-esque proclamation for Connolly, a call to arms or the instigation of discussion? “What we are trying to do here is take a certain idea and make it a sort of newsworthy event, that will precipitate some discussion in the media about this whole idea process…We are trying to start a ball rolling here, we don’t know how far its going to roll, and we don’t know how many roadblocks different journalists will put up there”.

Although it appears a somewhat utopian, free-flowing process, when it comes down to pragmatic application the idea will undergo regulation. Initially becoming the domain of a regulating body that will form the terms and rules under which Public Talks will function.

What caught my attention was the clear absence of a mediator. Although not always successful, these are vital components of diplomatic relations as we see them today, take George Mitchell (a personal favourite example) who successfully aided brokering peace in Ireland. If not a mediator, I wondered, what is the regulating body? In the beginning, Connolly explains, there may be a need for a regulator to advance the terms of the process, “certain aspects will come up, people will push the boundaries in certain ways, and someone has to say yes or no. So consequently there may be a mediator in the beginning, but once we become familiar with the given format there may be less need”. A decision he sees as that of a large body, the US, the UK, or the UN for example, any of whom could cultivate this process.

It seems then it’s anyone’s game. While Connolly focuses his attentions on the US, a prominent choice for its sheer weight in the political world, his initial interest had been in the UN as the central hub for Public Talks, an option he has since largely rejected. He explains “I realised the UN may be a non-starter for this, and that it could theoretically be done by some major nation”.

In a world where the US and UK are satirised as bullying interventionists, it seems pertinent to consider whether they had enough trust from abroad to head such an initiative whose values are about truth, equality, and public opinion. Connolly defended that of course other nations need to be invited to help create the terms, but the one mitigating factor as he sees it is “the US public and the public around the world, they’re not going to want to have some flawed and faulty undermining of this level communication field”. Connolly hopes that with this new process “justice will be more of a relevant concept than it is today. And right now frankly, today, if you are more powerful you don’t really need to negotiate with your less powerful adversaries”.

Connolly’s enthusiasm for his idea and tenets it represents are undeniably exciting. The value of fair, open discussion can be underestimated in a society where it has been a staple throughout living memory, nevertheless it’s far from standard practice. Democracy Wall in Beijing emerged within the confines of communist society as a rare source of free expression in the 1970s, allowing (albeit for a brief window) individuals to post documents critical of government without censorship in a publicly accessible way. Ideas germinating here came to fruition in the Tiananmen Movement, and show what the real potential power of open dialogue could mean.

It is at its heart a discussion about an ideal, and my inner sceptic cannot help hold a concern for its application. However Public Talks has yet to face its crash test, go forth and gather your own opinion, it is after all what the idea is all about.

Another article following the October 6 event:

University of Maryland - Dear Mr. Connolly, Thank you for inviting ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Dear Mr. Connolly,. Thank you for inviting us to participate in Public Talks...
publictalks.org/downloads/Maryland.pdf

The Diamondback > News
Univ. alum creates novel method for conflict resolution
International “Public Talks” concept emphasizes transparent discussion
By Leyla Korkut
Monday, October 18, 2010

John Connolly thinks he knows how to revolutionize international negotiations. But to do it, he's enlisting the help of universities across the globe.

Connolly, who graduated from this university in 1971, developed a project he coined Public Talks - a new strategy of universal communication he hopes will transform worldwide conflict resolution - and he's asking universities to publicize and contribute to the idea.

In Public Talks, a country or region can challenge another to a debate in front of an international mediator, such as the United Nations, Connolly said. The process would begin when a country creates a "dialogue document" - a public testimony, ideally posted on the Internet, that outlines its side of a conflict.

Connolly asked about 30 universities to post a flier Oct. 6 around their on-campus libraries describing the project. But many students said the flier - a detailed explanation of the Public Talks process - flew under their radar.

"I haven't heard about it," junior biology major Kristin Gabriel said. "I didn't see anything when I walked by the library."

Library officials also said they weren't aware of the flier, but that might be because Student Government Association President Steve Glickman said he posted the flier last May on the doors of McKeldin Library when Connolly first contacted him about it because he wanted to show his support immediately.

Influenced by the rise of terrorism in the 1980s, Connolly founded the Institute for Public Dialogue in 2006 to publicize the Public Talks project and help introduce his new strategy. He hopes it will put international negotiations on a public stage and increase the transparency of governmental talks.

Because Public Talks would require the participation of political institutions around the world, Connolly said he is targeting universities first because he thinks large numbers of open-minded students could help get the project off the ground.

He said universities abroad were more receptive to Public Talks than schools in the United States, which he attributes to this country's predominance in international relations.

"In the United States, a level communication playing field is really not as straightforward as it is overseas," Connolly said. "It's been very interesting."

Some students said though they agree with Connolly's intentions, the project is too idealistic and too much of a departure from how countries interact now.

"I feel like because most politicians are already set in their minds in the way they think things work, even if they see a lot of public opinion [supporting Public Talks] they might say, ‘Oh well, you don't have a lot of power, so we're going to keep doing things the way we want to do them,'" Gabriel said.

But Connolly dismisses any criticisms that his idea is too lofty for practical application and insists it can be a realistic communication tool.

According to the Institute for Public Dialogue's website, "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."

Connolly said citizens have responded well to public negotiations in the past, such as after the Sept. 11 attacks, when one poll reported that 73 percent of the American public said they wanted to hear both sides of the conflict. He acknowledged, however, that political leaders will be harder to convince.

"New ideas are essentially more difficult than anything in some regards, especially ideas of critical nature in the U.S.," he said. "But it could happen."

Blog article, 2008:

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=541

Obama vs. Clinton: Public vs. Private Talks

BY RON CALLARI
02.07.2008 | POLITICS
What is the evolution of unresolved negotiations? Have we benefited from failed diplomacy and conflict management over the years? Does mankind actually learn from its collective mistakes? If so, why do so many disagreements fail or stall for extensive periods of time, like the Writers strike in the US or last for decades like the Israeli vs. Palestine dispute?

Coming to terms with historical antecedents on both sides of a conflict, offer the promise of a collective narrative, or a thread of commonality between opposing viewpoints. However, throughout history, we have seen national leaders, special interests, lobbyists and politicians restructure and obfuscate collective memory. Often this is accomplished by the omission of certain facts or the reshuffling of the deck in ways to best suit a small body of people.

In recent history, executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 to develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still debated to this day. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants.

So what is missing the negotiation equation? Where does the public come into play in decisions that affects their well-being? If the verdict for many relies on the negotiations of a few, can the end result aid society fairly? Perhaps the current Democratic campaign can shed some light on the need to redesign the system.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama during the recent debates at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles said that health reform efforts led by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 1990s failed because she conducted negotiations in private and that he would televise negotiations of his health care proposal.

He stated, "I admire the fact that President Clinton and Senator Clinton tried to reform health care (in the 1990s). But I believe they did it in the wrong way." He added, "their theory was you go behind closed doors, you come up with your theory with the help of your technical experts."

The inference here was that, she did not invite members of Congress or receive any kind of feedback from the American people regarding any part of the negotiations and discussion. And while they were behind closed doors, the health care industry, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies were given ample time to reshape public opinion.

The effort was controversial from the start. Members of Congress complained they were excluded from the process, while Clinton's insistence that the task force meet in secret was successfully challenged in court. The outcome surfaced a plan that was declared dead "in the water in late 1994, just weeks before midterm elections that would hand Republicans control of both the House and Senate.

Obama’s plan is to create a public forum of transparency where invitations would be extended to doctors, nurses and patient advocates. The insurance companies would also get a seat at the table; they just would not get to buy every chair."

He also added, "I would put my plan forward ... and these negotiations would be (presented) on C-SPAN ... so the public would be part of the conversation and would see the choices being made". (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation)

An under-the-radar effort is taking place on Capitol Hill that seeks to advance a new political idea called "Public Talks." This group, from the Institute for Public Dialogue in Sausalito, CA, held a series of successful meetings at Senate offices in November, 2007.

As a follow-up, they are now presenting "A Proposal to Establish the Operating Principles for Public Talks" and are seeking, among other things, to get a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Public Talks is a globally oriented communication process that is designed to come into play after all other negotiations have collapsed. The scale of this process is extremely large, and that is an argument against it. But the fundamental premise is very simple in that it allows adversaries to challenge each other in a very public way with rules and terms that ensures an equal platform for both sides.

The closest precedent for Public Talks can be found in the fruitful communication process of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers of 1787 and 1788 where James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were responsible for establishing the Constitution of the United States.

The central motivation for Public Talks is its potential ability to influence American and world opinion. If one accepts that national leaders are motivated by rallying world opinion to their views, the logic behind this proposal is strong. These principles can be applied to the debate of health care and which leader could outperform in tackling an issue that has taken decades to resolve. If Barack Obama is willing to embrace the premise of Public Talks, are we one step closer to obtaining the first comprehensive health care program for the people of the United States?

According to John Connolly, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Dialogue, "Amidst the 'battle of ideas' taking shape today, US support for Public Talks will show the world community that Americans are interested in not just the symptoms of international conflicts, but also in the underlying causes."

Public versus Private talks should be a consideration in determining the next leader of the free world. And its ramifications are far more reaching than just one central issue, as we, as a country continue to vacillate on our involvement in the Middle East.