The Institute for Public Dialogue is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to introduce a new political idea "Public Talks."  Public Talks is a form of international dialogue that is based on a series of formal rules and terms that will create a level communications playing field between two sides of a negotiating process.   This could be used to negotiate both political conflicts and large scale economic issues.

Public Talks is potentially a world communication process.  The establishment of Public Talks requires a nation or an established international organization to create the rules and terms for this process.

The Institute is focusing on a worldwide university event that is featured on publictalks.org that seeks to introduce Public Talks as a universal process.

A Central Principle:

The nation or organization that ultimately establishes the rules and terms for Public Talks would also define conditions that would need to be met before groups or entities could utilize this new process.  Once the criteria are met, a defining principle of this process will be very straightforward:  After private talks have failed, Public Talks will be encouraged.

Naturally anticipated objections to Public Talks, the importance of secrecy, departing from traditional negotiations etc, are addressed in substantial detail elsewhere on this site. 

Public Talks:  

Public Talks will harness a growing phenomenon of the 21st century:  The power and influence of American and world opinion. Proposing a new form of negotiations will cause dismay among some traditional diplomats yet there is a compelling logic to Public Talks: It only comes into play after traditional talks have failed.

Public Talks expands the knowledge of the central details of disputes between societies beyond leaders to make that information widely available for scrutiny by the public and the media.  Thus, as the understanding of the precise tradeoffs necessary to reach agreement becomes widely understood, public opinion will build for the two sides to take steps towards an agreement. 

The central communications instrument of Public Talks is a series of 8-16 page magazine-size "Dialogue Documents" distributed online and through one or two major print media within the directly affected regions.  The international community would have access to this information through the Internet and probably one large print media that would bid for exclusive rights to widely distribute these Dialogue Documents in specific areas.

Dialogue Documents will feature each side's interpretation of history, questions to one's adversary, negotiating positions and other content relevant to that international situation.  Later stages of this process will focus on the negotiating tradeoffs necessary for two or more parties to reach agreement. 

Once Public Talks is formally established, either side of a conflict fulfilling the recognized criteria could unilaterally present its Dialogue Document before a worldwide audience.  Although there may be no guarantee of a response in kind, if an adversary rejects a challenge, that party risks international acceptance of the other side’s historical narrative of that conflict.

Between any two adversaries, one side usually the party most dissatisfied with the status-quo, could be expected to build a worldwide media campaign around this process.  This party may use media interviews, demonstrations and other measures to bring widespread attention to their views and historical narrative.  

Creating Public Talks
  
Events surrounding the initial construction of the rules, terms and overall parameters for Public Talks would generate enormous publicity and public expectations. Leaders within many nations and societies in conflict would add their voices to the larger crescendo of media events calling for this new approach to negotiations.

An early step would be a decision concerning the inclusion of representatives of various nations and organizations to ensure widespread acceptance of the final rules and terms for Public Talks as a level communications playing field.

Media coverage surrounding the development of Public Talks would be potentially far reaching.  A new process that could potentially influence world opinion will be of immense interest to both political leaders and individual citizens in many places.  Thus, citizens and leaders worldwide would be aware of this process even before it begins to unfold.

Motive:  Why Adversaries Will Engage in Public Talks

The fundamental motive for adversaries to engage in Public Talks is not an idealistic notion of goodwill but rather recognition of the growing importance of public opinion.  An adversary's motive to agree to this public dialogue would be to head off erosion of worldwide public support.

Secret talks and special envoys will continue as before but each of these traditional initiatives may be infused with a greater sense of urgency than today. Once Public Talks are established, each side engaged in private talks will know that failure to agree may lead to the other side placing their version of the history of that conflict before the world public.  This powerful motivating factor may help to inspire adversaries to make the difficult compromises necessary for agreement.

Most of the following potential examples of Public Talk are addressed individually in the "Case Studies" section. This section is designed to show the many variations, and flexibility of this process. This list does not imply that Public Talks will or should take place in all of these very different situations.

Examples of Political Conflicts where Public Talks might be considered:

Burma
China-Tibet
Cuba-U.S.
Darfur
Ethiopia-Eritrea
Georgia-Russia
India-Pakistan
Iran-U.S./European allies
Israeli-Palestinians
NATO/Eastern Europe-Russia
Russia-U.S. suspended nuclear pact
Sunni-Shia in Iraq

If Public Talks were already established:  Even in nations where public opinion is of little consequence, such as North Korea. President Obama’s issuance of a Public Talks challenge to that regime could have a powerful effect on China, Russia and other nations who actively trade with North Korea.  That U.S. Dialogue Document could build strong support for sanctions within these other countries as all parties will understand more clearly why they should stand with the U.S.  As a practical matter, this plan will provide political cover for those foreign leaders who support the President’s call for action.

Examples of Economic Issues where Public Talks might be considered:

Climate Change
Trade Collaboration
Pollution issues

The growing need for nations to collaborate on long term economic solutions often places "short-term" political leaders in an untenable position.  They may recognize that a given best policy may require action and resources now while the real benefits are well into the future.

In these cases, Public Talks will allow citizens to better understand the long term consequences of inaction and the necessary trade-offs that their leaders are both accepting and acquiring.

New Foreign Policy Architecture:

Many economists have called for the creation of new financial architecture to address the country’s current crisis.  Similarly, Public Talks will constitute a new form of foreign policy architecture that will add to the options available during times of crisis. 

Consider Public Talks from the perspective of President Obama.  By opening up the central details of these conflicts, previously the sole domain of diplomatic elites, to the masses, Public Talks will alter the relationship of citizens everywhere to conflicts between societies. 

The President will anticipate widespread support for a process that encourages a structured clash of opinions because it will tend to yield a greater public recognition of historical truth.  Once the world public acquires a fuller understanding of the tradeoffs necessary for two sides to reach an agreement, there will be a strong motivation for each to take incremental steps towards compromise.

Acting to advance this big foreign policy idea will be an accomplishment of the President and his Administration furthering an avowed commitment to renew America’s diplomatic standing in the world.