One such opportunity arose recently when we were able to do some work for the Institute for Public Dialogue on its Public Talks project.* Public Talks is a new, technology-based approach to diplomacy that could serve as a tool in the ongoing struggle to promote peaceful resolution to conflicts. You can learn more about the project here, while I have included an Op-Ed piece from founder John Connolly that I suspect you may see in your favorite newspapers soon below:
As the arc of Middle East talks bends through inevitable difficulties, various proposals will be put forth.
One proposal, advanced here, is for President Obama to take the long view of history by calling on the U.S. to create another form of international negotiations. Establishing this new paradigm would require a longer timeline than the one year established for these talks, yet it could set the stage for a new way of looking at the process of negotiations. And this could influence these current talks.
“Public Talks” constitutes a level communication playing field between two adversaries that would be shaped by formal rules and terms.
Developing this process requires an internationally recognized overseeing body, such as the State Department, to invite representatives of various nations and organizations to ensure widespread acceptance of this new structure. This body would define when recourse to Public Talks would and would not be appropriate.
Public Talks is a universal process with potential application in a wide range of issues where traditional negotiations have not been successful. Events surrounding the initial development of this world communication process will make this alternative well known before it is ever used.
The party most dissatisfied with the status-quo would be most likely to initiate Public Talks and potential examples of failed negotiations are many. Some different types of unresolved issues: Sunni-Shia in Iraq, Russia-Georgia and Burma-the opposition. This public negotiating process could also be used to address large scale economic issues such as climate change and trade.
The central communications instrument is a series of magazine-size "Dialogue Documents" from 8 to 16 pages distributed primarily online. In directly affected regions, a local print media could distribute hard copies. The international community would have access through the Internet and one or more large media outlets.
This challenge media would feature each side's interpretation of history, questions to one's adversary, negotiating positions and content relevant to international conflicts. Later stages of this process will focus on the negotiating tradeoffs necessary to reach agreement.
Why now? If not now when? If not the U.S. who? As Public Talks are developed, it will be widely understood that an entirely new process will be coming over the horizon and this awareness will infuse an increased sense of urgency into a wide range of ongoing talks.
Immediately after 9/11, a Pew Research poll indicated that 73 percent of Americans favored being exposed to both sides of political issues even if it meant hearing directly from our enemies. Thus, the American public may be overwhelmingly supportive of this negotiating alternative, after private talks have failed.
Once established, either side of a conflict that fulfills the overseeing body’s criteria could unilaterally present its Dialogue Document before a worldwide audience. Although there may be no guarantee of a response in kind, an adversary’s rejection of that challenge risks international acceptance of the other side’s historical narrative. Rejection could thus lead to one adversary allowing the other to define 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. An adversary's motive to accept a Public Talks challenge would be to head off erosion of public support worldwide.
*Disclaimer of the Day: While we have done some work for the Institute, we are not being paid for this post. We just happen to think that it is a pretty good idea and are happy to promote it in any way possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment