Secrecy

Open Letter: President Obama

Open Letter: Members of Congress

Precedent

A New Media

Objections Addressed

Case Studies

Rules and Terms

Comments

About Us

The Idea: Public Talks

Introducing Public Talks 1:24 secs

Professor Roger Fisher, 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

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

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

 

  

Why a University Event?


It is the historic responsibility of universities to bring forth new ideas. The event we are asking you to participate in is, by all accounts, entirely unprecedented. The effort at any given school requires virtually no resources and very little time. The strength of this event is in numbers that could precipitate a national and indeed international story. Most importantly, this event could set a chain of events into motion that would establish a new form of international negotiations.

Where did this idea come from?
(This section contains personal observations by John Connolly, the author of the Senate proposal.)

Back in the early 1980s, airplanes were being hijacked and many terrorist acts were committed by various groups in order to bring world attention to their cause. Although there had been terror attacks at earlier times, there seemed to be an enormous burst of activity, much of it coming from South Africa and the Middle East along with other areas around the globe.

It was clear these acts of terror were not militarily significant but were rather designed specifically to grab world attention. Various groups wanted to demonstrate that they had a serious grievance that needed to be addressed, and they were making sure that the world public knew about it. I remember very distinctly a Newsweek cover with the single headline “What can be done?”

The idea for Public Talks began with a single question: What if there was another way that these groups could grab world attention by challenging their adversary to respond in kind to a highly structured document widely distributed in various magazines? This document would have that side’s version of the history of the conflict and other elements relevant to the process of a public negotiating process.

On the University Campus:

Thus was born the idea of Public Talks, which was originally called "negotiating in public." The Dialogue Document was originally called an IMC or Independent Media Communication. These efforts brought me to universities around Boston, Philadelphia and New York between 1985 and 1988. Later, I moved to California in 1988 and continued to meet people around universities as I refined the idea.

Several professors wrote me letters (some of which are now on this site under “Comments: Part Two”) Many professors saw the whole concept as an authentically new way to look at international negotiations. Moreover, many of these same professors affirmed that introducing a level playing field between adversaries would create an entirely new phenomenon that would engage citizens in the details of disputes as never before. And this engagement could lead to a truer sense of democracy where matters of war and peace and life and death were no longer the sole domain of our political elites.

During that same time, I had the opportunity to meet various foreign policy experts. I would briefly summarize their reaction as being deeply offended. They were generally shocked that someone could suggest an alternative to traditional negotiations. Moreover, people with power, member of Congress etc, were also very negative towards anything that would upset the status-quo. The only group at that time that was supportive of this public negotiating process was on the university campus.

From time to time, I published the occasional article, usually in the context of South Africa (which at that time was the most prominent example of the failure of private talks). One op ed was published a few days before the first Gulf War in 1991 in the Daily Californian, the newspaper that covers UC Berkeley: www.publictalks.org/downloads/DailCal.pdf.

One interesting aspect about this 18 year old piece is that it replicates the current description of Public talks almost exactly.

There was one category of individual on these college campuses that consistently saw “negotiating in public” as a viable and indeed important idea. It was student government presidents primarily but also student leaders of organizations in general. As this happened again and again, the reasons became clear: These individuals were leaders in their respective areas and they needed to influence local public opinion to achieve their various objectives.

Thus, their vision of this process was not as consumers of information who suddenly came upon a Dialogue Document in a major magazine or newspaper, but as the implementers of a larger multifaceted strategy where this document was the central instrument around which many other media initiatives would take place.

As time went on, these student leaders became perhaps the single most important influence on many of the early elements of this project. It is clear today as one reviews the oldest letters and published articles that the idea for Public Talks has remained the same from the very beginning.

John Connolly
Sausalito, CA

Why Students?
2:34 secs

 

Africa:

Egypt

South Africa

Asia:

India

China

Europe:

Ireland

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

North America:

Mexico

United States

Oceania:

Australia

New Zealand

South America:

Argentina

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Peru



Mr. Doug Turner. Republican gubernatorial candidate for New Mexico and formerly an International Affairs Fellow for the Council on Foreign Affairs: “I am intrigued and excited about the new concept for public diplomacy that your organization has outlined in its proposal for ‘Public Talks.’ . . .”
original letter

Congresswoman Woolsey, Democratic member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs: “Public Talks is an interesting proposal that should be looked at closely and discussed as an alternative to conflict. . . . Innovative thinking, like that of the Institute, is essential to moving towards a stable and secure future for all the world’s people.”
original letter