All of the following questions are addressed immediately below:
1. How would the US benefit directly from the establishment of Public Talks?
2. How could Public Talks really move adversaries closer together?
3. Would global publication of one's maximum negotiating positions make it difficult to compromise later?
4. Will Public Talks require a moderator?
5. Who decides which group of leaders represents each side of Public Talks?
6. Will Public Talks work when there are multiple parties in a dispute, or in situations when multiple interests exist both within a sovereign country and between nation-states?
7. Since public statements of opposing sides of a negotiating effort often talk past each other, isn't there a need for a formal third-party public voice to articulate what is possible?
8. Couldn't nations that censor free speech simply prevent the distribution of a Dialogue Document?
9. Are Public Talks similar to public diplomacy, international public relations or public outreach programs?
10. Aren't Public Talks similar to full-page ads and other paid messages employed by different political groups to either advance their agenda or to attack their opponent?
11. What are the financial requirements of this process, and who would pay for it?
12. Could this new policy compel the U.S. or other nations into negotiating with terrorists such as Osama bin Laden?
13. Could Public Talks be used to negotiate other issues besides conflicts between governments?
14. How would the emergence of Public Talks alter the way journalists cover international conflicts or negotiations?
Questions and Answers
1. How would the US benefit directly from the establishment of Public Talks?
One more diplomatic process would become available for the US, when all others have reached a stalemate.
2. How could Public Talks really move the positions of adversaries closer together?
When governments are held captive by their radical elements, peace negotiations become nearly impossible. Negotiators refuse to compromise and a lasting agreement is never reached.
Public Talks will allow governments to confront this dilemma in a new way. When the two governments in conflict publish their views and demands in Dialogue Documents, they will provoke national and international discussion about the terms for peace. This discussion, in turn, could change the very nature of the negotiations.
Within the two countries, the lines of conflict will become clear to the respective populaces. The governments in question will no longer have to impose terms of a compromise that were reached in a secret summit, and ideas for compromise will tend to flow upward from civil society. The majority of a population almost always has more to gain from compromise than from continued conflict, and once the terms of the disagreement are presented to the masses in the form of Dialogue Documents, the moderates will be empowered in the debate with the militants.
Public Talks will also increase international pressure for peace. If a government gives in to its militants and presents a Dialogue Document that is largely received as untrue or unfair, it risks international condemnation and would be pressured to adjust its positions to satisfy international allies.
Also, the public talks process will encourage governments to stop stalling on key negotiation issues. Confidential talks often break down because one side refuses to discuss a key issue until the other side takes a specific action. In Public Talks, both sides would publish their views on all key issues, and thus reveal their intentions to their own citizens and to the international community.
3. Would the global publication of one's maximum negotiating positions make it difficult to compromise later?
This concern also applies to traditional talks, yet with Public Talks the precise give-and-take to reach an agreement will be better understood. This will provide political cover for leaders who could show their constituencies the detailed trade-offs necessary to reach a settlement. This transparency contrasts sharply with secret negotiations, where hardliners often portray any concessions as a towering betrayal.
4. Will Public Talks require a moderator?
Perhaps initially, but not over the long term. The underlying objective of the rules and terms that shape this dialogue is to establish a level communication playing field, without a referee or moderator.
The inherent problem with a moderator is the same problem that third parties have when they are brought in to oversee private talks – this party (no matter how well intentioned) will be shaped by personal, political and cultural biases. If these private talks fail, blame is thrown around vigorously, and this third party will be subject to criticism. The criticism eventually reaches such proportions that it undermines the entire negotiations process.
Public Talks aims to avoid such a scenario by creating “rules of engagement” at the outset. Those engaged in Public Talks will be motivated primarily by arguments and principles, not complications brought on by personal agendas.
5. Who decides which group of leaders represents each side of Public Talks?
The same leaders who represent each side in private talks will be in Public Talks. This will normally be very straightforward – as when the parties to a conflict are very well established, as a result of either elections or a power struggle. However, there may be times when there will be two non-government groups representing different factions and both will want to be in charge in the Public Talks.
This same issue arises with private talks. If some group is not seen as representative, various officials (from the Secretary General of the UN to the US Secretary of State to various European Prime Ministers) may voice their concerns publicly. One solution that these officials commonly propose is that elections be held to determine which is the proper representative.
Another internal solution to this problem could be that the two different groups realize that they may have no option but to work together.
It is anticipated that the issue of representation in Public Talks would be addressed by a UN committee charged with creating the terms for Public Talks. If some group violated UN guidelines, various political leaders, including the UN Secretary General, could object to that initiative. This could still be effective at alerting members of the world public and the disingenuous leaders that their Public Talk initiative does not meet the necessary criteria to be taken seriously.
6. Will Public Talks work when there are multiple parties in a dispute, or in situations when multiple interests exist both within a sovereign country and between nation-states?
Public Talks will not resolve all conflicts, but it will be suitable for multiple configurations of interests vested in a dispute. As long as all parties agree that public opinion within their own nations would play a principal role in shaping discussions, negotiations can proceed on these levels.
In cases when multiple parties are involved, each side would represent its argument in the exact same manner and will be allotted the same space as other interests in the Dialogue Documents.
In situations when a nation-state is in internal and external conflict , each side of the internal dispute would present its historical claims and express its interests in Public Talks.
The Sudanese civil conflict in Darfur is an example of a dispute that would contain these elements. Parties include not only the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels but also China and neighboring Chad. If a party refuses to participate, as always its lack of participation would promote the narratives of opposing accounts.
The benefits of engaging in Public Talks in disputes of this multilevel nature are many. When disproportionate power structures are involved, Public Talks creates a path toward a level playing field. Returning to the Sudan-Darfur example, this may play out when an international audience becomes engaged in the process. When the publics of stronger nations assume an interest in what happens in Darfur, they essentially become a proxy for the disempowered. This would not preclude those in Darfur from gaining a pulpit from which they can express their claims, but rather ensures that their concerns do not fall on deaf ears. The world would be listening with the intent of forming sound decisions that will yield equitable and humane solutions for all parties.
7. Since public statements of opposing sides of a negotiating effort often talk past each other, isn't there a need for a formal third-party voice to articulate what is possible?
Public Talks will create a prominent platform where both divergent and contradictory demands from negotiating partners will be featured in a transparent manner. In this environment, third-party voices (such as journalists, analysts and political leaders not directly connected to the process) would put forth proposals that could serve as a template for a final agreement.
The most effective of these third-party voices will address the core issues, while attempting to reframe the rhetoric of each side. These proposals will require a thoughtful analysis that spells out the compromises and trade-offs allowing all parties the chance to more fully recognize the subtleties and shades of gray involved in any agreement.
Yet these many informal third-party voices are very different than basing the entire process of Public Talks on a formal arbitrator. The danger here is the perception and reality that Public Talks are designed to impose an agreement. When such a perception exists, a party that fails to implement the agreement can be expected to use this issue as a major problem.
Also, an imposed agreement is politically exposed and more vulnerable to later attacks than a deal struck within a negotiating process in which each side is in full and independent control of their proposals and a final accord.
8. Couldn't nations that censor free speech prevent the distribution of a Dialogue Document?
Yes, they could – in areas under their control. But attempts to block this process internally may backfire, as the rest of the world would pay close attention to any banned information. Documents such as Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago were that much more powerful because they were banned in the Soviet Union – and thus endowed with heroic status.
Many authoritarian leaders will understand that Public Talks offer an opportunity to acquire supporters and allies that could ultimately play a pivotal role in helping to resolve conflict. Since Public Talks are only implemented after other models have failed, leaders will have nothing to gain from sabotaging such an opportunity. Sometimes, support from outside of a given region will be the only way forward.
9. Are Public Talks similar to public diplomacy, international public relations or public outreach programs?
No. Public Talks constitute a very specific process whereby either side of a conflict could challenge an adversary to engage in this structured dialogue. It is a two-way process.
These other public programs generally take the form of a government bureau (or perhaps an NGO) that seeks to influence public opinion by advancing their views and agenda with a specific audience. These programs are a one-way process that critics often label as propaganda, since there is no attempt at candor and balance.
10. Aren't Public Talks similar to full-page ads and other paid messages employed by political groups to either advance their agenda or to attack their opponent’s?
Not at all. Paid messages are crafted in order to focus attention on one or two issues. Public Talks represent a multifaceted process carefully defined by rules and terms to create a level communication playing field between two adversaries.
11. What are the financial requirements of this process, and who will pay for it?
Costs would be influenced by several variables, including the scale and reach of a given conflict. The regional distribution path would call for at least one print media from each side. International distribution would involve a small number of large newspapers and/or magazines. In both cases, successive issues of print media may be needed to catch up with demand. In neither case would more extensive distribution be an absolute requirement, because interested parties would have access to this information through a public website.
Many institutions and foundations have a long history of supporting peoples affected by conflicts, and would thus have a similar motive to underwrite Public Talks. If the UN, US or EU created the process, they would undoubtedly participate in the funding.
While researching what has become Public Talks, the founder of the Institute for Public Dialogue met with advertising executives at Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report. Amid these discussions it emerged that if public demand for Dialogue Documents exceeded normal sales projections, an entirely new dynamic would take place. If sales for the issues containing a prominent Dialogue Document could be expected to exceed 20-25% above normal, the increased ad revenue would cover the costs of distribution. If this increase approximated 40-50%, it would potentially offset all printing expenses, which could bring the total costs of that Public Talks process to near zero.
If one envisions the natural circumstances surrounding Public Talks, it is not difficult to imagine that there will always be some group taking active steps to bring as much public attention as possible to the process. Their incentive to do so is entirely clear.
12. Could this new policy compel the US or other nations into negotiating with terrorists such as Osama bin Laden?
No. Clearly, established parameters would eliminate such a scenario. Neither the American nor world public would be fooled into accepting such a self-defeating process.
13. Could Public Talks be used to negotiate other issues besides conflicts between governments?
Yes. Once established, there may be other large-scale problems that public dialogue can resolve. On January 2, 2006, there was an editorial in the New York Times entitled "How to avoid another transit strike: Make arbitration mandatory when talks stall." From the text of this op-ed: "The city, meanwhile, lost an estimated $1 billion during a frigid holiday shopping week that saw seven million commuters stranded."
If this theoretical public negotiating process were to unfold between the transit management and the unions, the citizens of New York would watch very closely – and polls measuring these events would prove to be decisive in the outcome of such Public Talks.
14. How would the emergence of Public Talks alter the way journalists cover international conflicts or negotiations?
Journalists would certainly continue to select, interpret, edit and report on all aspects of these conflicts. Just as efforts to negotiate a major conflict are considered front-page news around the world, Public Talks would also warrant substantial press attention. But there is a subtle difference in the way a Public Talks would be covered. Journalists would realize that the documents they are reporting on would soon be in the hands of citizens worldwide. Coverage would span the dialogue itself, the fairness of presentations, and world response to them.
An example will illuminate this point: When Public Talks was being developed in the mid-80s, one of the main issues was Apartheid in South Africa. On January 8, 1987, from Lusaka in Zambia, the ANC held a widely covered press conference that called on whites to join it in forming "a massive democratic coalition" to end Apartheid. The headline that appeared in the Washington Post the next day read, "ANC woos S. African whites with call for coalition." While the headline in The New York Times from the same day was: "South African Rebel Leader Calls For Widening of Armed Attacks."
In essence, these two papers interpreted this key event in diametrically different ways. Public Talks will tend to diminish the editing and interpreting influence of journalists. At the same time, the overall level of political discourse may rise since the Dialogue Document will constitute a definitive set of benchmarks from officially recognized leaders that other reports will build upon.
|
