The Objective: The Institute for Public Dialogue is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to introduce a new international communication process: “Public Talks.”  A very concise understanding of this entire initiative can be gained by reviewing this page and the first two pages on our navigation bar:  “Why Congressional Hearings?” and “Opinion editorial.” Public Talks:  Following the construction of a defined set of rules and terms, Public Talks will become a new form of political dialogue that will create a level playing field between two adversaries.  This process is designed around a fundamental principle:  After traditional private negotiations fail or stall, Public Talks becomes an option.  A detailed description of this process was featured in a September 2007 opinion editorial in Roll Call.     The Challenge Document:  The central communications instrument of Public Talks is a series of 8-12 page, magazine-size "Challenge Documents" distributed online and through a very small number of major print media.  In short summary, Challenge Documents will feature each side's interpretation of history, questions to one's adversary, negotiating positions and other content relevant to international conflicts.  “I support (these) recommendations that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold hearings on “Public Talks.”  Professor Roger Fisher, Harvard Negotiating Project (Original letter) “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 . . . “  Mr. Chris Bronk, PhD, James A Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University  (Original letter) Motive:  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 engage in this public dialogue would be to head off erosion of public support worldwide. Once Public Talks is established, either side could unilaterally present its Challenge Document before a worldwide audience.  Although there would 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 the conflict.   The Senate Foreign Relations Committee:  The Institute for Public Dialogue’s proposal to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and a parallel proposal to the House Foreign Affairs Committee) asks these Committees to define a set of principles as to when Public Talks should and should not be used. Congressional hearings will also be needed to decide what organization should be empowered to construct the operating rules and terms for Public Talks.  Competing issues of legitimacy and function provide arguments for and against the United Nations, the European Union, Congressional committees, established NGOs, and other forums. “ . . . 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.”  Professor E. Phillip Morgan, Monterey Institute for International Studies (Original letter) “Public Talks is an approach to conflict resolution that is entirely different and far more expansive than anything else in the field.”  Gordon Feller, Urban Age Institute (Original letter) Potential Outcomes of Congressional Hearings on Public Talks:  The more carefully Public Talks is analyzed, the stronger the argument will become that it is in the interests of the U.S. to establish this alternative negotiating process. Public Talks will expand the available diplomatic options when U.S. officials are confronted with new crises. There are numerous possible outcomes of Congressional hearings on Public Talks. The need for acceptance of Public Talks by both the U.S. and the international community could, for example, lead the Senate to call on the United Nations to oversee the construction of the process.  An entirely different outcome might call for this structure to be created within the U.S. government with experts of international stature brought in to ensure that Public Talks  is widely accepted as a neutral platform.  “ . . . 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.”  Professor Patrick Hatcher, UC Berkeley, Political Science (Original letter) “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.”   Professor Mirta Mulhare, State University of New York (Original letter) Timing:  Following the publication of the previously noted Roll Call op ed that called for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to act on Public Talks, the Institute for Public Dialogue met on Capitol Hill with the staff of Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congresswoman Woolsey. Each office assured us that they would urge the respective international committees to meet with us to discuss possible hearings for Public Talks. A June, 2008 note: Once we receive a small number of additional endorsements for Public Talks, we will formally ask these members of Congress to follow through with this initiative.  In May of 2007, the Institute opened an office in Warsaw, Poland with the expressed purpose of introducing Public Talks by directing formal proposals for the establishment of this worldwide communication process to national leaders in Europe and the European Union.  The Roll Call op ed and subsequent events have caused the Institute to change this plan and, at this time, to focus all our efforts on advancing Public Talks within the U.S.      The Institute for Public Dialogue 2310 Marinship Way # 18 Sausalito, CA (415) 289-0110