Members of Congress  
Comments  
Opinion Editorials  
Newsroom  
Objections Addressed  
Q & A  
Rules & Terms  
A New Media  

Huffington Post: "A Truly Original Foreign Policy Idea: Public Talks"
original article



The Honorable Barack Obama

Dear President Obama: 

Your speech in Cairo echoed your earlier calls for dialogue with Cuba and other nations.  All of this is in alignment with your appointments of special envoys to other regions including the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This is affirmation that your administration is open to dialogue with friends and foes alike.  These traditional negotiations will take the form of direct private talks, talks overseen by envoys and in some cases the peace conference.  But what happens if they fail or stall, as they have with your predecessors?

The logic behind the Institute’s proposal to the Senate Foreign relations Committee and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is very straightforward. The establishment of a new form of negotiations, Public Talks, is in the interests of the U.S. and the international community because it creates an option after traditional negotiations have collapsed.

We are confident that when the full ramifications of Public Talks are laid out before you, the U.S. will energetically advance this new process.  Your support for establishing Public Talks will truly “unleash historical momentum on its own.” 

Sincerely,

John Connolly


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

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 endlss.”
original letter

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




Members of Congress

Members of Congress

The historic responsibility of members of Congress is to distill ideas from the citizenry and to bring these into the American political process. 

Unlike many issues that live or die on Capitol Hill, the international implications of Public Talks are very different. U.S. rejection of Public Talks will lead to proposals to other organizations and nations, starting with the European Union, to establish what will potentially be a world communication process. 

The advancement of Public Talks in Congress may turn on vision.  Vision not only of this new process, but the many elements that would surround the original creation of the terms, rules and overall structure for Public Talks. 

The rationale objective to seek a widely accepted level communication playing field would lead the organizing committee – perhaps overseen by the State Department – to invite representatives from many nations to participate.  This very involved process will naturally create categories of varying uses of Public talks.

Yet this development process will create something else: unprecedented worldwide expectations for this new form of political dialogue.  For the first time ever, average citizens in many nations and continents will realize a simple truth: If diplomats fail to reach agreement, we will have access to the many details of disputes between societies as never before.

 



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 . . . “ original letter


The Honorable Hillary Clinton

Dear Secretary of State Clinton:

You started your tenure as Secretary of State by making the statement “This is going to be a challenging time and it will require 21st century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities.”

Public Talks fulfills your criteria as both a 21st century tool and as a process that takes advantage of the rising power and influence of American and world opinion to bring about solutions to international problems. It is our expectation that the State Department could play a key role in the development of this new form of international dialogue.

Over the coming weeks, the Institute for Public Dialogue will be approaching current and former State Department officials and asking them to review Public Talks. 

Who among these foreign policy experts will bring Public Talks to you attention?  Our clear expectation is that both you and President Obama will see the far reaching utility of having the U.S. establish this negotiating option.

Sincerely,

John Connolly



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

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