Comments relevant to the Institute's proposal for Congressional hearings on Public Talks:
Professor Roger
Fisher, founder of the Harvard Negotiating Project: “I support (these) recommendations
that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold hearings on “Public
Talks.” original letter
Mr. Chris Bronk, PhD, James A Baker Institute
for Public Policy, Rice University:“I sincerely hope the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will hear your concept, as well as others,
as it collaborates with the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Institute for
Peace and other agencies of the foreign affairs community . . . “
original letter
Senator Akaka, Hawaii: "The idea of Public Talks is intriguing and warrants further discussion. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider legislation related to this issue.”original letter
Huffington Post: "A Truly Original
Foreign Policy Idea: Public Talks" original
article
Gordon Feller, Urban Age Institute: “Public
Talks is an approach to conflict resolution that is entirely different
and far more expansive than anything else in the field.” original letter
Professor Patrick Hatcher, UC Berkeley, Political
Science: “ . . . It is unique in that (the Institute) suggests
using the media to make public a set of terms before, and while, they
are negotiating, hence reaching a larger audience who can use public opinion
for peace.” original letter
Joel Hefley, Republican member of the House from Colorado
(1987- 2007) Chair of the House Ethics Committee:" I know how frustrating
it can be to have the normal diplomatic process break down with no place else
to go . . . I feel that it (Public Talks) should be fully explored. I would
therefore encourage the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign
Affairs Committee to hold hearings to explore the viability of Public Talks." original letter
David Smock, Vice-President of the Center for
Mediation and Conflict Resolution, United States Institute of Peace, a
non-partisan institution established by Congress: “The notion
of Public Talks is a very interesting idea and worthy of further exploration.” original letter
Professor Mirta Mulhare, State University of
New York:“The strategy you suggest would represent an evolutionary
summit, bringing out negotiations into the open and introducing the people
into the process. The possibilities for use are endless.” original letter
Professor E. Phillip Morgan, Monterey Institute for
International Studies: “ . . . your proposal to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee for a new form of dialogue (“Public Talks”) represents
a serious, innovative departure from past practice by which political conflicts
are represented, defined and treated (or not) in the public arenas of the US
and multilateral organizations.” original letter
Opinion Editorials
Anyone seeking to perform due diligence on this initiative would benefit from analyzing the following opinion editorials and articles going back over 25 years. It will be perhaps illuminating to compare and contrast the Emerson College article from 1987 below with “Public Talks in Nine Points.”
While the terminology evolved over time, the core of the idea itself remains unchanged, all of the previous descriptions were confined to a format that allowed for only a brief outline.
None of these earlier renditions are equivalent to the far fuller exposition on this web site today. All of these sites are very similar to this one and will therefore contain substantial numbers of comments, documents and indeed, this collection of op eds.
Moreover, none of these earlier renditions provide any overall context, historical background or the vision of the events contained on the pages of this site.
As the above list was crafted for the first time over the 4th of July weekend, 2011, (Some of these works were also scanned for the first time) it is apparent that the diversity of issues in these publications addresses the concern that this initiative might be advancing some undisclosed political group, cause or agenda. It has not and does not. (There are a few more op eds in the same vein that I am yet to locate.)
In 1988 I moved to California from New York amidst the cacophony of noise surrounding the Bush/Dukakis campaign and began writing about how the Dialogue Document could be used as the centerpiece of a structured “Print Debate” between candidates. The next page of this site, Dialogue Documents expands upon this issue.
John Connolly
Executive Director
Institute for Public Dialogue
To the Staff at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Today’s many negotiating stalemates give rise to the need for a process that allows one side of a conflict to unilaterally put their historical narrative and larger story in a defined format before the world public.
A new communication platform that focuses the power of world opinion on the precise issues that are preventing agreement between adversaries creates the foundation for a unified policy for foreign affairs:
After private talks fail, the U.S will encourage Public Talks.
