Issue No. 598
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
8 - 14 August 2002 Issue No. 598 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Under public scrutiny
New conditions require not just a radical reappraisal of negotiating strategies, but of the whole negotiating process, writes John Connolly
Recent changes in US policy towards the Middle East have pushed aside all meaningful peace initiatives. Without a significant level of US pressure no reasonable person expects progress on the negotiation front. Yet is it reasonable for the international community to accept this status quo? Given today's poisoned atmosphere, and the failure of all the established negotiating strategies, we must envision an entirely new peace process.
President Mubarak might consider calling on the UN to create another forum for negotiations where, in selective situations approved by the Security Council, the UN will encourage public negotiation after private negotiations have failed or stalled.
The central communications instrument of this process could be a short series of 12 to 16 page magazine-size "challenge documents" widely distributed to major capitals via a handful of international newspapers and/or magazines. The UN could set terms, parametres and defined sections for this inherently neutral process whereby leaders of one side of an international dispute create their own formal document and challenge their adversary to respond in kind. Essentially, the United Nations would design the form of this new media, while participants would present the substance of their case before the public within their own challenge document.
The UN's terms for such public negotiations might 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, the initial challenge documents might come out simultaneously. Then, alternating week-by-week, each side would proceed with its own challenge document, responding in the prescribed format.
Wait a minute, critics will cry, many in the US administration will not want public opinion to play any direct role and will thus veto this plan in the Security Council. While this is a legitimate objection, it may be trumped by an overarching US goal. At a time when there is an ongoing battle of ideas against American values, a new US-supported process giving voice to both sides of the conflict will send a clear signal affirming America's commitment to historical truth.
What about the American and Israeli dismissal of Arafat as a negotiating partner? Face-to-face talks require trust and enhance the power of individual leaders to say yes or no. In contrast, the inherent nature of this proposed public process creates a transparent platform that will feature positions and supporting arguments for all sides to witness, thus minimising the importance of any given leader.
What if one side initially refuses to participate? The other side could proceed with their challenge documents in the absence of any agreement whatsoever. A key motive for participants to engage in this process would be to favourably influence world opinion. The motive for an adversary to respond in kind would be fuelled not by goodwill but by the desire to head off any erosion in public support, especially American support. Refusal to take part in this public peace process would also risk the acceptance of an adversary's interpretation of history. Thus, once one side puts its case before the world public, it will be difficult and potentially damaging for the other to fail to meet that challenge directly.
Will the public be interested in these documents? This direct and unfiltered source of news will constitute a new medium. These documents will stand in sharp contrast to the stories of conflicts filtered through the prism of journalists. The overall process will generate a wide range of media coverage, including TV, newspapers, magazines, radio and the Internet. The content of the challenge documents will be replicated quickly through the Internet. People everywhere, recognising the life and death nature of these dramatic communiqués, may find this multifaceted perspective of enormous interest.
Encouraging both sides of an international dispute to make their cases in this defined format will undoubtedly tempt some adversaries to spin 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 possible today. And ultimately, the side that refuses to engage in this process will be seen as trying to hide the truth -- an untenable position.
Citizens within and outside the Middle East will see more clearly than ever the stark and difficult compromises necessary for an agreement. One side will be able to outline the specific conditions under which it will accept a range of terms from the other side. In turn, this will provide political cover for leaders, who can then show their constituencies the complex and detailed trade-offs necessary to reach a settlement. This process may prove more helpful in reaching an agreement than the high-pressure atmosphere of secret talks at a summit conference, where the issue of individual personalities is more likely to intrude.
If this public negotiating process culminates in a single document signed by both Israel and the Palestinians and distributed worldwide, confidence would increase that agreed-upon terms would be adhered to -- a crucial Israeli issue. Similarly, confidence would increase that the terms of any agreement would not be reinterpreted -- a crucial Palestinian issue.
The UN would also have an additional mechanism in place that could play a role in defusing the next crisis as the direct weight of public opinion causes two adversaries to take incremental steps towards the other's position.
The writer, based in California, specialises in the ways in which American public opinion is influenced.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
