SAUSALITO, California, 24 March 2004 — How should Arab leaders respond to the Bush administration’s plan to reform governments in the Middle East?
One approach would be to shift the focus back to the central issue of the region, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Arab leaders could advance this objective by publicly calling for the UN to adopt the following policy: After private negotiations in the Middle East fail or stall, the UN will encourage public negotiations. Before addressing a possible US veto, consider both the nature and potential ramifications of this policy.
The central instrument of this process would be a series of perhaps twelve-page magazine-size “challenge documents” widely distributed to many world capitals via a handful of national and international newspapers and/or magazines.
Simultaneous publication of these documents would take place on an official website. The UN would set terms and parameters for this public negotiating process whereby leaders of one side of an international dispute would have the ability to create their own formal document and challenge their adversary to respond in kind — without any guarantee of a response in kind.
The motive for an adversary to engage in this new form of peace process would not be some vague notion of goodwill, but rather, to head off erosion of public support worldwide. Refusal to take part in this public process would also risk worldwide acceptance of an adversary’s interpretation of history.
As a practical matter, if either Israel or the Palestinians initiated this process, it would be very difficult for the other side to reject participation. Influencing public opinion has become an increasingly powerful motivating force in world affairs. These UN-sponsored public negotiations would recognize this reality by establishing a defined structure that will encourage a direct and public clash of opinions between adversaries.
Thus, after face-to-face talks break down and the entire idea of a peace conference has been rejected, this third strategy becomes an option. UN-defined terms for this public process could call for each side’s initial challenge document to include its interpretation of history, moral arguments, core interests and negotiating positions. If both agree in advance, each side’s initial document could be distributed simultaneously. Then, alternating every two weeks, each side would proceed with its own challenge document, responding in the proscribed format. Encouraging both sides to make their cases in this defined format may tempt some to manipulate their version of events.
Nevertheless, this direct and equal clash of opinions, in sharp contrast to propaganda, has the potential to yield a greater public recognition of truth than is otherwise possible in today’s media environment. This unfiltered source of news constitutes a new media that will stand in sharp contrast to the many reports on conflicts we have experienced for years.
This process will generate significant media coverage including TV, newspapers, magazines, radio and the Internet. People everywhere may find this multifaceted perspective of enormous interest. The majority of both Palestinian and Israeli citizens will see more clearly than ever the stark and difficult compromises necessary for an agreement.
This will provide political cover for leaders who will show their constituencies the complex and detailed trade-offs necessary to reach a settlement.
In contrast, leaders emerging from secret negotiations are vulnerable to extremists who can portray one or two simple issues as a towering betrayal by the leaders who negotiated that deal. Personal trust between individual leaders would also become less important because commitments would be spelled out for all sides to witness. Indeed, a process that is less dependent on personal trust between leaders would contrast sharply with all forms of traditional negotiations. If this public negotiating process culminates in a single document signed by two former adversaries and distributed worldwide, confidence would increase that agreed upon terms would be adhered to — a key Israeli issue. Similarly, confidence would increase that terms of an agreement would not be reinterpreted in sharply divergent ways after the fact — a key Palestinian issue.
This new UN policy will define a new large-scale conflict resolution strategy that will engage citizens in international disputes as never before. A theory: With the glare of world opinion looking on, this step-by-step negotiating process will cause adversaries to take incremental steps toward one another. The US has consistently called for other nations to shape their laws to encourage business transparency. This new UN policy simply calls for diplomatic transparency.
Today the US is seeking help from the UN in bringing democracy to Iraq after largely brushing it aside on the road to war.
Those who argue for democracy in Iraq and against the public’s right to better understand conflicts between societies will create an edifice of unsustainable hypocrisy. Envision both the US and international reaction to a series of narratives unlike any we have ever seen. Every few weeks, prior to each new challenge document, both leaders and editorial pages worldwide would be urging each side to take steps toward the other. Once this deliberate, step-by-step process creates a momentum for peace, it could become unstoppable.
— John Connolly is the founder of the Institute for Public Dialogue in Sausalito, California, USA ([email protected])
