Scowcroft

Introducing Public Talks

Overseeing Body

Opinion Editorials

Dialogue Documents

Introducing Public Talks
1:24 sec

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

Overseeing Body

One vision of events that will follow the introduction of Public Talks:

Leaders in and out of national governments will issue statements on Public Talks.

Calls to establish this negotiating platform will emanate from leaders of otherwise stalled negotiations.

Warnings from critics will ring out as advocates of secrecy will abhor the emergence of greater diplomatic transparency.

Public Opinion polls will commence in many nations.

Results of polls will show that citizens everywhere want more dialogue and they want to see the precise details of why many conflicts seem to drag on interminably.

Ideas will be proposed from diverse parties about many of the parameters for the Dialogue Documents including the length of the sections and what sections should be incorporated into each round of Public Talks.

Sharp debate will take place over the criteria for when a given society or group is allowed to challenge their adversary with this process.

Both of the above views are precursors of a potentially intense international debate as to how this platform will be developed and who will control it. There could very well be competing ideas put forth by different national leaders and it is thus difficult to predict where leadership on Public Talks will emerge.

Control over this process requires paying major print media to distribute Dialogue Documents which would cost several million in most instances. Governments and institutions would perceive these expenses, initially running to many tens of million dollars per year, as cost-effective.

There was a time in the past when one could have argued that the Overseeing Body for Public Talks should be the United Nations, yet this view is not as compelling as it once was.

Various international organizations and universities could play an important role in refining the rules and terms for Public Talks. Yet major nations would not endow these organizations with substantive overall control over Public Talks.

Only a process that was advanced, shaped and controlled by major nations would lead to the formal establishment of this new form of dialogue. Moreover, these powerful nations would recognize that the structure for Public Talks would need to hold up to public scrutiny and reflect both fairness and transparency.

This will compel representatives of participating nations to adhere to a high standard as all of the steps surrounding this creative process will be followed extremely closely.

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.

John Connolly
Executive Director