>>GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.

FROM OUR HOME STUDIOS, I'M DAVID DUMKE.

>>AND I'M KATIE CORONADO.

>>TODAY, WE ARE JOINED BY MICHAEL CARROLL, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLLINGS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE.

WELCOME TO GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES, MIKE.

>>THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>>MIKE, THANKS AGAIN FOR JOINING US.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE HOLLINGS CENTER AND ITS MISSION?

>>THE HOLLINGS CENTER WAS CREATED IN 2004 BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS WITH A VERY BROAD MISSION OF PROMOTING DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND COUNTRIES WITH PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM POPULATIONS.

SINCE 2005, WE'VE HOSTED DIALOGUE PROGRAMS AROUND THE WORLD, BUT WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, CENTRAL ASIA, SOUTH ASIA, AND NOW RECENTLY SOUTHEAST ASIA AS WELL.

>>MIKE, YOU'VE BEEN WITH THE HOLLINGS CENTER SINCE 2013.

HOW HAVE THE DIALOGUES CHANGED OVER THE YEARS?

>>WELL, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED BEFORE MY TIME, MOST OF THE DIALOGUES WERE MATTERS OF BILATERAL POLICY FOCUS, WE WOULD HOST A LOT OF DIALOGUES THAT WERE US INSERT BLANK HERE WITH A PARTICULAR COUNTRY THAT WAS OF IMPORTANCE STRATEGICALLY OR IT IS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL POLICY.

STARTING AROUND 2012, 2013, ABOUT THE TIME I CAME ONBOARD, OUR FOCUS STARTED TO SHIFT MORE TOWARDS REGIONAL MATTERS.

WE DID A LOT OF DIALOGUES ON THE MENA REGION IN PARTICULAR ON REGIONAL POLICY ISSUES, BUT ALSO DIALOGUES ON CENTRAL ASIA AND SOUTH ASIA.

SINCE 2013, AND PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE TRIED TO SHIFT A LOT OF OUR PROGRAMS TO TOPICS OF MORE BROAD FOCUSED, GLOBAL FOCUS IN MANY RESPECTS.

WE'VE DONE A LOT OF PROGRAMS ON RESOURCE RESILIENCY, LOOKING AT ISSUES OF WATER, ENERGY, AND FOOD.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DIALOGUES NOW THAT HAVE FOCUSED ON CHALLENGES IN URBANIZATION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS INDEED A GLOBAL CHALLENGE, NOT JUST FOR COUNTRIES IN THE REGION, BUT FOR THE UNITED STATES AS WELL.

AND ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK AT TOPICS THAT HAVE HAD A MORE LONG RANGE FOCUS, LESS CRISES DE JURE, LESS ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR 30, 40, 50 YEARS, BUT RATHER ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT 30, 40, 50 YEARS, SUCH AS CLIMATE CHANGE, SUCH AS RESOURCE RESILIENCY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ISSUES OF CONNECTING EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY, JUST TO NAME A FEW VERY BASIC EXAMPLES.

OUR PROGRAMS HAVE TENDED TO FOCUS MORE TOWARDS THESE LARGER THEMES, THEMES WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE RATHER THAN BEING FOCUSED ON A BIOPIC ISSUE OR TOPIC.

AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT REALLY LEND THEMSELVES TO MORE COLLABORATIVE EXPLORATION AND COLLABORATIVE CHALLENGE SOLVE.

>>MIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE TOPICS THAT ARE CHOSEN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE GLOBALLY.

I WONDER, A, WHO CHOOSES THOSE TOPICS, AND DO YOU FIND THAT THOSE TOPICS UNIFY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR THAT CHANGE?

>>YEAH, THEY REALLY DO.

WE CHOOSE THESE TOPICS.

WE HAVE A TEAM IN THE HOLLINGS CENTER THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS ANNUALLY, WE'LL LOOK AT ISSUES THAT WE THINK ARE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AND STEM FROM PREVIOUS WORK THAT WE HAD DONE.

BUT ALSO, WE SEEK OUT OPINIONS, IDEAS, AND CONCEPTS FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, FROM PARTNERS LIKE WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST WITH UCF, PREVIOUS DIALOGUE PARTICIPANTS.

WE CAST A VERY WIDE NET, AND WE DO THAT WITH THE AIM OF TRYING TO FIND THE TOPICS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY RECEIVING THE AMOUNT OF COVERAGE OR THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION THAT WE THINK IS REALLY CRITICAL.

AND WE FOUND THAT BY DEALING WITH ISSUES, LOOKING AT MORE OF A LONG RANGE FOCUS, YOU DON'T FALL AS MUCH INTO THE TRAPS THAT ARE OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THOSE CRISES DE JURE THAT I'VE MENTIONED.

IT ALLOWS YOU TO DANCE AROUND MAYBE MORE CONTEMPORANEOUS SUBJECTS THAT OFTEN ARE FOUND TO BE TOO CONTROVERSIAL TO DISCUSS OR MAY RESULT IN OVERT POLITICIZATION.

SO BY FOCUSING ON SOME OF THESE LONGER RANGE ISSUES, YOU REALLY DO FIND A LOT MORE THAT YOU CAN COOPERATE, COLLABORATE ON, BUT ALSO YOU CAN HAVE A DISCOURSE AND A DISCUSSION THAT YOU MAY NOT NORMALLY BE ABLE TO DO IF YOU WERE FOCUSING ON SUCH SMALLER OR RATHER SPECIFIED SUBJECTS.

>>AS AN ORGANIZATION, MIKE, THAT'S FUNDED WITH US GOVERNMENT MONEY, HAS THAT BEEN AN INHIBITOR IN ANY WAY OR HAS THAT HELPED WITH THE DIALOGUE?

>>ACTUALLY IT'S HELPED, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN A GREAT RESOURCE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO HAVE AN ORGANIZATION LIKE OURS.

OFTEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT SUBJECTS ON THE TRACK ONE OR FORMAL DIPLOMACY CHANNELS THAT CAN'T BE DISCUSSED.

IN MANY RESPECTS, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A BENEFIT TO EVERYONE.

NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN CONTROVERSY OR POTENTIAL FEAR OF US GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE OR OVERSIGHT IN THE TOPICS THAT WE PICK IN OUR DIALOGUE MEETINGS.

BUT I THINK WE USUALLY DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF STRUCTURING THESE MEETINGS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT BECOMES VERY READILY APPARENT VERY EARLY ON THAT THIS IS NOT SOME SORT OF GOVERNMENT MANDATED INITIATIVE, OR THIS IS NOT PULLING OR PUSHING TOWARDS SOME SPECIFIC POLICY AGENDA.

WE TRY TO LOOK AT ALL POLICIES.

WE TRY TO LOOK AT MULTIPLE AGENDAS, AND WE TRY TO GET TRUE UNDERSTANDING IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.

AND OFTEN THAT REQUIRES US TO TALK ABOUT OPINION SUBSETS THAT NORMALLY WE MAY NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT OR MAY NOT BE OF A PARTICULAR AGENDA.

SO BY DOING THAT, WE'VE CREATED AN AIR OF NEUTRALITY THAT I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO HAVE DIALOGUE.

NOT JUST SPEAKING, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME LISTENING.

>>CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW YOU DO THAT WITH TOPICS THAT MAY SEEM A LOT MORE CONTROVERSIAL AND LESS, I GUESS, EASIER TO NAVIGATE IN A DIPLOMATIC WAY, LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS, LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

BECAUSE A LOT OF THE COUNTRIES YOU WORK WITH HAVE THOSE MAJOR ELEMENTS IN COMMON OF A DIFFERENCE IN HOW THEY SEE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND ALL OF THOSE I MENTIONED.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT AND CREATE DIALOGUE WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S SO POLARIZING?

>>THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TECHNIQUES THAT WE UTILIZE TO TRY TO PROMOTE DIALOGUE WHEN THERE ARE MORE SENSITIVE SUBJECTS.

ONE TECHNIQUE THAT WE UTILIZE AND AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE A SERIES OF AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN MEETINGS THAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE ALMOST LIKE A PRE-DIALOGUE PROCESS WHERE WE GET... AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF CONTENTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO COUNTRIES, WHERE WE ACTUALLY GET THEM TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY AS COUNTRY GROUPS BEFORE WE BRING THEM TOGETHER ALMOST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE AIRING OF GRIEVANCES BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY JOIN THE GENERAL MEETING.

AND ALSO, SO IT CAN IDENTIFY TO US WHAT THE PARTICULAR POINTS OF CONTENTION COULD BE.

THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE DO IS WE TRY TO DIVERSIFY THE OPINIONS AT A MEANING, BUT ALSO THE DISCIPLINES THAT ARE AT A MEETING.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN A MEETING WHERE WE TALK ABOUT MEDIA OR THE PRESS, WE TRY TO FIND JOURNALISTS THAT COME FROM A WIDE RANGE OF BACKGROUNDS.

NOT JUST ONE FROM A SPECIFIC COUNTRY, BUT FROM MULTIPLE COUNTRIES THAT DO MULTIPLE TYPES OF JOURNALISM.

WE EVEN SOMETIMES WILL BRING IN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENTS MAY BE MORE HOSTILE TOWARD THE PRESS, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND WE'VE OFTEN FOUND THAT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DIVERSIFY THE OPINION SUBSET, DIVERSIFY THE BACKGROUNDS, IT ACTUALLY MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE DISTRESSING ISSUES.

BECAUSE IN MANY CASES, THEY'RE LIVING IT ON A DAILY BASIS.

THEY CAN GET BEYOND THE INITIAL TALKING POINTS THAT YOU WOULD OFTEN SEE IN A LOT OF MORE FORMAL DIPLOMATIC SETTINGS.

IT'S A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TOOL SETS THAT WE USE DURING THESE MEETINGS THAT GET US TO A MORE FRUITFUL CONCLUSION AND START TO BUILD SOME OF THE NETWORKS THAT BEHIND THE SCENES AFTER THESE TYPES OF EVENTS ARE REALLY, REALLY CRUCIAL TO BUILDING TRACK TWO AND TRACK THREE DIPLOMACY.

>>YOUR DIALOGUES, MIKE, YOU'VE USUALLY INCLUDED A NUMBER OF AMERICANS, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS FROM THE COUNTRY OR REGION YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

WHO DO YOU THINK LEARNS MORE OUT OF THIS?

DO YOU FIND THAT THE FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS YOU'RE WORKING WITH ARE BETTER INFORMED BY US POLICY, OR IS IT THE REVERSE?

>>I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S MIXED, AND I THINK IT DEPENDS DIALOGUE TO DIALOGUE.

THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIALOGUE MEETINGS THAT I'VE WALKED OUT ON WHERE IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE AMERICANS WERE THE ONES THAT LEARNED A LOT FROM WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED.

WHEREAS CONVERSELY, THERE'VE BEEN DIALOGUE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE DONE WHERE I THINK IT'S THE FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY LEARNED A LOT.

WHEN WE DESIGN THESE THINGS, WE... LET'S BE HONEST.

A LOT OF THESE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS, IT'S USUALLY ONE COUNTRY KIND OF DICTATING AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THE OTHER COUNTRY.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF LISTENING.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CROSS DISCUSSION, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EVEN AT ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND.

WE GO INTO IT WITH THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY ALREADY KNOW THE KNOWLEDGE.

THEY'RE EXPERTS.

THEY KNOW THE KNOWLEDGE BEHIND IT.

SO HOW DO YOU BUILD UNDERSTANDING?

AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.

WE TRIED TO BUILD THIS AS A REAL PARTICIPANT DRIVEN EXPERIENCE.

IN A NORMAL MEETING, I RARELY TALK.

WELL, DAVE NOTICED THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I DO TALK A LITTLE BIT, BUT I TRY TO REMOVE MYSELF FROM THE CONVERSATION AND WORK MORE AS A FACILITATOR TO GET THEM TO CONVERSE WITH EACH OTHER.

NOT TALKING TO A DEIST, NOT TALKING TO A MODERATOR, BUT RATHER TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

AND IN DOING IT, THAT'S WHERE YOU REALLY GET A VERY GOOD MIX OF UNDERSTANDING AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET WHERE PEOPLE WALK OUT OF THINGS LEARNING MORE.

WE DO HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS TYPE OF SITUATION WORKS WHERE YOU MAKE IT MORE PARTICIPANT DRIVEN.

I WILL HAVE PEOPLE IN AFPAC MEETINGS SAY, "I NEVER REALLY TALKED TO SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE BEFORE."

WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE IN MEETINGS RELATED TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA SAY, "I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS PERSPECTIVE BEFORE."

THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD A SUCCESSFUL DIALOGUE MEETING.

IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A POLICY PAPER OR A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION OR NECESSARILY ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU GET THAT KIND OF OUTPUT FROM A PARTICIPANT THAT SAYS, "I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS PERSPECTIVE BEFORE, AND I NEVER REALIZED THIS PERSPECTIVE WAS EVEN THERE, " THAT'S WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED REAL LEARNING AND REAL UNDERSTANDING ON THE OTHER END.

>>SO MUCH IMPACTFUL DETAIL AND INFORMATION.

I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU MENTIONED, FRUITFUL CONCLUSIONS.

CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME OR JUST ONE PARTICULAR FRUITFUL CONCLUSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE HAD?

AND THE OTHER IDEA I HAVE, ARE YOU AN ACTING MEDIATOR?

WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION IS MORE OF A MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE IDEAS AND PEOPLE?

>>I WOULD SAY WE'RE MORE FACILITATORS THAN MEDIATORS PER SE, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR MEDIATION TO ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE.

IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE NECESSARY DESIRE INTENT, BUT IT OFTEN DOES OCCUR IN SOME RESPECTS.

TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, NOT TO GO BACK TO THE AFPAC PROGRAM AGAIN OF A FRUITFUL CONCLUSION, AFTER THESE DIALOGUE PROGRAMS, WE DO A LOT OF TRACKING TO SEE WHAT KIND OF AFTER EFFECTS MAYBE HAPPENING AFTERWARDS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THAT GROUP, WE WERE CREATING WHATSAPP CHANNELS FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

AND OVER THE COURSE OF THREE YEARS, ONE OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE DID EXCHANGED SOMEWHERE OVER THREE OR 4,000 MESSAGES AMONGST EACH OTHER, AND SOME OF THEM WERE JUST SIMPLE LIKE, "HEY, HOW YOU DOING" HAPPY HOLIDAYS, " THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE REAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS ABOUT CONFERENCES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO, ABOUT PROJECTS THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON.

WHAT WE'VE FOUND OFTEN WHEN IT COMES TO FRUITFUL CONCLUSIONS IS, IS DIALOGUE IS A LONG GAME.

IT'S NOT A SHORT GAME.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE QUANTIFIABLE OR SOMETIMES EVEN QUALIFIABLE RESPONSES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DIALOGUE.

IT'S A 10, MAYBE EVEN 20 YEAR PROCESS THAT IT MAY TAKE.

AND TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE FIRST PROGRAM WE EVER DID IN 2005, RIGHT BEFORE MY TIME, WAS AN AFGHANISTAN DIALOGUE.

AND IN THAT DIALOGUE INCLUDE TODAY SOME OF THE MOST SENIOR OFFICIALS IN AFGHANISTAN.

SO THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY THE LONG GAME.

IT MAY TAKE 15 YEARS FOR YOU TO START SEEING THE FRUITFUL EFFORTS OF A MEETING THAT YOU MAY HAVE HELD IN ISTANBUL IN 2005, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FAITH THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND THE ABILITY TO TRY TO TRACK IT AS BEST AS YOU CAN.

BECAUSE IN THIS AGE OF FISCAL QUARTERS AND QUANTIFIABLE RESULTS, IT'S OFTEN VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT THE FRUITFUL OUTCOMES WILL BE.

BUT IF YOU'RE PATIENT ENOUGH, YOU WILL SEE THEM.

>>NOW YOU'RE NOT A POLICY-MAKING SHOP, MIKE, BUT YOU DO WRITE REPORTS AND YOU DO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH THE DIALOGUES AND YOU IDENTIFY ISSUES.

IN THE COURSE OF THAT, I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHAT HAS SURPRISED YOU IN TERMS OF YOU'VE GOTTEN MORE OF A REACTION TO CERTAIN ISSUES THAN OTHERS.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT STAND OUT?

>>THE RESOURCE RESILIENCY ISSUES I'M OFTEN SURPRISED BY HOW MUCH THAT ACTUALLY GETS PLAY WHENEVER WE RELEASE SOMETHING AND MOSTLY BECAUSE IT'S SURPRISINGLY INCLUSIVE.

WE'LL ISSUE A REPORT SAY ON A DIALOGUE THAT WE DID ON WATER ISSUES AND IN MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, AND YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED HOW MANY COMMENTS WE GET BACK THAT ARE ALONG THE LINES OF, "ME TOO.

THIS IS A PROBLEM.

I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.

I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT, " THOSE TYPES OF RESPONSES.

SO I'VE ALWAYS BEEN REALLY SURPRISED BY WHEN WE'VE DONE DIALOGUES ON RESOURCE RESILIENCY, WHICH CAN OFTEN BE A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE ENERGY OR WATER RIGHTS OR THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.

I'M OFTEN SHOCKED BY HOW MUCH INCLUSIVITY THERE ACTUALLY IS WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

SO THAT'S AN OUTPUT THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN SURPRISED WITH WHENEVER WE ISSUE A REPORT.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE WE DID A LOT OF WORK ON COUNTER EXTREMISM A FEW YEARS AGO, AND WE PRODUCED SOME VIDEOS FOR SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE WILLING TO GO ON CAMERA TO TALK ABOUT NOT JUST COUNTER EXTREMISM, BUT HOW IT'S AFFECTING THEM AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING AS INDIVIDUALS TO DO IT OR TO TRY TO COMBAT EXTREMISM.

AND I WAS REALLY SURPRISED BY...

IN THIS AGE OF INTERNET TROLLING, YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A LOT OF BLOW BACK UPON US.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

THERE WAS MORE SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS COMING AFTER WE RELEASED SOME OF THOSE VIDEOS.

SO SOMETIMES I'M SURPRISED BY THE AMOUNT OF HUMANITY THAT ACTUALLY IS OUT THERE THAT'S JUST NOT RAISING THEIR VOICE OR FEELS LIKE THEY MAY BE ALONE.

IT'S NICE WHEN WE RELEASED SOME OF THESE REPORTS THAT YOU START TO SEE THAT THERE ARE REALLY A LOT OF COMMONALITIES AS OPPOSED TO DIFFERENCES.

AND IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HOPE, HONESTLY, THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SOLVE SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES TOGETHER IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT PLATFORM AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT IDEAS.

>>HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO SPEAK OUT?

A LOT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RESULT IN LIFE OR DEATH A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THEY SPEAK OUT, ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTS OR CERTAIN SITUATIONS, RIGHT?

HOW DO YOU GET THEM TO SPEAK OUT?

AND DO YOU PROMISE THEM THAT YOU'LL KEEP THEIR IDENTITY ANONYMOUS?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>>WE UTILIZE A MODIFIED NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION RULE.

IT'S COMMONLY KNOWN IN THE BUSINESS AS THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE, BUT WE MAKE A FEW TWEAKS TO IT JUST TO SERVE CERTAIN PURPOSES.

WHEN WE HOLD A DIALOGUE PROGRAM, THEY ARE PRIVATE, THEY'RE CONFIDENTIAL, AND WE DO NOT RELEASE THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE IN THE DIALOGUE, UNLESS THEY ALLOW US TO.

WE DO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

WE DO ENCOURAGE THE PARTICIPANTS TO...

ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING CAN BE SHARED OUTSIDE OF MEETINGS.

WE JUST SEEK THAT THEY DON'T ATTRIBUTE TO ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THAT INDIVIDUAL'S EXPRESSED PERMISSION.

AND WHEN YOU CREATE THESE KIND OF CLOSED DOOR, INVITATION ONLY ENVIRONMENTS, NOT ONLY DOES IT MAKE THE ENVIRONMENT FEEL MORE SPECIAL TO THE PARTICIPANT, BUT IT REALLY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN ALLOWING CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS TO OPEN UP IN ENVIRONMENTS THAT THEY MAY NOT NORMALLY SHARE THEIR OPINIONS IN.

THERE REALLY IS A LOT OF EFFORT THAT WE PUT INTO A DIALOGUE PROGRAM ON SETTING THE BEST POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S NOT JUST THE ATTRIBUTION RULE.

I KNOW IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS, BUT CERTAIN THINGS LIKE LIGHTING, NATURAL LIGHT, THE WAY WE ORGANIZE THE TABLES.

CERTAIN FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS ACTUALLY PLAY A HUGE ROLE TOO IN GETTING PEOPLE TO OPEN UP.

AND THEN BY THE POWER OF MODERATION.

AND BY THAT, I MEAN THE MODERATOR.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY HELP STEER CONVERSATIONS TO TRY TO GET SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS TO OPEN UP.

BECAUSE AS A MODERATOR, YOU KNOW THE EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAVE AND HOW VALUABLE THAT EXPERIENCE MAY ACTUALLY BE AT THE TABLE.

IT'S A COMBINATION OF ENVIRONMENT, MANAGEMENT, CERTAIN TOOLS THAT WE USE IN OUR DISPOSAL THAT GET PEOPLE TO OPEN UP.

AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF 90 TO 100% PARTICIPATION IN ALMOST EVERY MEETING THAT WE DO, EVEN IF IT'S ONLY JUST A LITTLE BIT.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES THOUGH, YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S IN THE FIRST OR SECOND SESSION WHO'S VERY QUIET AND THEN THEY OPEN UP AND IT REALLY OPENS UP.

THAT'S A SIGN THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING IF SOMEBODY FEELS COMFORTABLE ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN START EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS.

>>WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMOTION AND CONNECTION HERE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME IF YOU'VE EVER FELT THAT STRONG CONNECTION THAT TAKES YOU HOME AND KEEPS THOSE THOUGHTS GOING BECAUSE YOU NOW HAVE ATTACHED YOURSELF TO A MISSION THROUGH YOUR WORK?

BECAUSE IT SOUNDS VERY SYSTEMATIC AND A LOT OF PSYCHOLOGY INVOLVED IN GETTING PEOPLE TO OPEN UP.

BUT HOW DO YOU KEEP YOURSELF SANE AND MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE CHANGING LIVES, BUT THAT BALANCE THAT'S NEEDED WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S SO HUGE IN PEOPLE'S LIVES?

>>YEAH.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE DIFFICULT, AS YOU EXPLAIN HERE, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE TAKING A 30,000 FOOT VIEW OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS REALLY IMPACTING PEOPLE IN THEIR LIVES.

SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DIALOGUE, OFTEN YOU WILL GET CAUGHT IN THE WEEDS OF THE MANAGEMENT ASPECT OF IT AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

OFTEN FOR ME, THE MOMENT WHERE I KIND OF FEEL LIKE, "YEAH, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

THIS IS IMPACTFUL," WILL COME AT SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A DINNER, OR WILL COME AT SOMETHING WHERE A PARTICIPANT WILL PULL YOU OVER TO THE SIDE AND GIVE YOU THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE REALLY WORKING.

THAT'S WHEN I KIND OF KNOW, "WAIT, WE'RE REALLY HAVING SOME IMPACT HERE."

AND THEN YOU MIGHT GET A STORY FROM ONE OF THE PAST PARTICIPANT MAYBE A COUPLE OF YEARS DOWN THE LINE.

AND THEY'LL TELL YOU HOW THE MEETING THAT THEY HAD SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR WAS SO IMPACTFUL FOR THEIR WORK.

IT GOES BACK TO THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MENTION EARLIER IS THAT DOING THIS AND STAYING SANE REALLY REQUIRES AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF PATIENCE.

AND THAT'S REALLY HARD TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE A WORLD THAT IS SO FILLED WITH GLOBAL CHALLENGES THAT SEEMS SO INSURMOUNTABLE ON A DAY-TO-DAY LEVEL.

AN ANALOGY I'VE OFTEN USED, AND I APOLOGIZE IF IT SOUNDS SILLY, IS THAT IF YOU'RE SWIMMING OUT IN THE OPEN WATER, YOU'RE NOT FOCUSING ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE NEXT STROKE, THE NEXT BREATH.

AND SOMETIMES YOU FORGET WHEN YOU'RE DOING THAT HOW FAR YOU HAVE ACTUALLY SWAM.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO STEP BACK AND TAKE THAT KIND OF LARGE VIEW OF THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING AND REALIZING YOU MEAN WHEN YOU HAVE A FRUSTRATING DAY IN A DIALOGUE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THINGS ARE GOING NOWHERE, THAT IT MAY ACTUALLY BE GOING SOMEWHERE AND YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES QUITE YET.

PATIENCE IS KEY AND UNDERSTANDING SOMETIMES YOU'RE GOING TO FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE IS ALSO KEY TOO.

NOT EVERY DIALOGUE PROGRAM WE'VE HAD HAS WORKED.

NOT EVERY OUTCOME HAS BEEN FRUITFUL.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE FAITH ALMOST THAT THE GRAND SUM TOTAL OF THE WORK IS GOING TO TURN INTO SOMETHING REALLY MEANINGFUL.

SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THAT THAT KEEPS YOU GOING AND KEEPS YOU SANE.

>>MIKE, YOU YOURSELF, YOUR BACKGROUND IS SOLIDLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

HOW CHALLENGING HAS IT BEEN TO WORK IN CENTRAL ASIA?

AND HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE TWO REGIONS?

>>VERY CHALLENGING TO SAY THE LEAST.

CENTRAL ASIA HAS NEVER BEEN MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.

I'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN SOUTH ASIA, A LOT OF WORK IN THE MIDDLE EAST, BUT CENTRAL ASIA IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MORE ON THE PERIPHERY OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

THERE ARE DEFINITELY A LOT OF CHALLENGES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MENA AND CENTRAL ASIA.

ONE THAT I CAN NOTE FOR SURE IS THAT IN GENERAL, IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT OFTEN TO GET PARTICIPANTS FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO OPEN UP AT MEETINGS.

I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT IS.

IT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH POTENTIALLY POST-SOVIET MENTALITIES, A DIFFERENT STANCE ON EDUCATION, AND ALSO REGIONAL TENSIONS.

SOME OF THE STATES IN THE REGION ARE IN VERY CONTENTIOUS RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND THERE'S I THINK A NATURAL LEVEL OF DISTRUST SOMETIMES IN INTERNATIONAL OR EVEN REGIONAL MEETINGS.

THAT'S BEEN THE BIGGEST THING THAT I'VE NOTICED, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE, AGAIN, BECAUSE IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE HOSTED, THE CHALLENGES ARE SURPRISINGLY COMMON AND SIMILAR.

YOU WILL HAVE A SITUATION AND UZBEKISTAN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE REALLY INDICATIVE TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN KYRGYZSTAN.

AND SOMETIMES IT CAN BE REALLY CHALLENGING IN THOSE MEETINGS TO ACTUALLY GET SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS TO ACTUALLY SAY, "WAIT A MINUTE, THE SAME THING'S HAPPENING HERE."

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE FIRST MEETINGS I HELD AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WAS ON CENTRAL ASIA, AND IT WAS LOOKING AT ECONOMIC ISSUES IN ONE OF THE SESSIONS.

WE HAD PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY COULDN'T CONDUCT BUSINESS OVER THE BORDERS BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNEW WHEN THE BORDER WAS GOING TO BE CLOSED TO TRADE.

AND THE FUNNY THING ABOUT IT WAS AFTER OUR MEETING, IT CREATED THIS LITTLE NETWORK OF TRADERS WHO WOULD LITERALLY CALL EACH OTHER ON THE PHONE AND ASK EACH OTHER WHETHER OR NOT THE BORDER WAS OPEN FOR TRADE, AND THEY WOULD MAKE THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON THE COLLEAGUES FROM THE MEETING THAT ACTUALLY MAY HAVE HAD INSIGHT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BORDERS WERE OPEN.

THAT'S JUST AS A SMALL EXAMPLE, BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

CENTRAL ASIA IS A CHALLENGING AREA TO DO IT.

>>WHAT CAN YOU LEAVE OUR AUDIENCE WITH ABOUT THE STATE OF THE PLACES WHERE YOU FOCUS YOUR ENERGY IN THROUGH THE HOLLINGS CENTER AND WHERE YOU SEE THE FUTURE OF OUR WORLD GOING WHEN IT COMES TO CONFLICT AND POTENTIAL DIALOGUE?

>>I THINK I WOULD SAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE'RE DEALING WITH CHALLENGES FROM THE PANDEMIC.

I MEAN, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY OUR CRISIS DE JURE RIGHT NOW.

BUT ONE THING THAT I'VE NOTICED AND I THINK THAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE GOING FORWARD, NOT JUST NEXT YEAR, BUT IN THE YEARS BEYOND, IS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INTENSE DESIRE TO RECONNECT.

AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE OF THE MENA REGION.

I THINK THAT'S TRUE OF CENTRAL ASIA.

I THINK THAT'S TRUE IN SOUTH ASIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, UNITED STATES, GLOBALLY.

AND I'M ALREADY SEEING SIGNS OF THAT.

AND IT MAY NOT BE AS TRANSLATABLE IN ZOOM MEETINGS OR IN SKYPE CALLS, BUT I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO ENTER A PERIOD WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INTENSE DESIRE BY MANY PEOPLE TO START WORKING ON THE CHALLENGES THAT WE KNOW ARE GOING TO BE LONG RANGE IN THE FUTURE.

THAT INCLUDES CLIMATE CHANGE.

IT INCLUDES RESOURCE RESILIENCY.

IT INCLUDES US LIVING IN CITIES.

IT INCLUDES WITH US DEALING WITH ISSUES OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

SO I THINK THE FUTURE THAT WE CAN EXPECT IS ACTUALLY COMING OUT OF THE PANDEMIC ARE A REALLY POSITIVE ONE, WHICH GOING INTO THE PANDEMIC, I DON'T THINK I HAD THAT OPINION.

I THINK WE'RE ON THE BRINK OF A NEW GLOBAL INTERCONNECTEDNESS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DRIVE IT IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION.

>>MIKE, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING ON.

AND I THINK YOU EXPLAINING THAT THIS PAUSE IN LIFE GLOBALLY MAY BE A GOOD THING AND ACTUALLY OBVIOUSLY EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF DIALOGUE.

THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR JOINING US TODAY.

>>IT WAS MY PLEASURE.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>>AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK ON ANOTHER EPISODE OF GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.