Back channeling in political diplomacy

Tonight I attended a symposium on the French & American Presidential Connection: Communication and Coordination during Crisis hosted by Meridian International Center, a not-for-profit organization that builds "sustainable global partnerships through leadership exchanges, international collaboration and cultural diplomacy."

The symposium consisted of a round table discussion analyzing a draft study by Joseph Fitchett. Fitchett's report, The Presidencies: a Unique Dynamic between the U.S. and France, contains a dual thesis. The first thesis concentrates on the level of capacity both countries can politically and diplomatically work together. Fitchett's second thesis focuses on the degree to which the two countries can successfully maintain a working relationship based on perspective differences.

Fitchett argues his insight offers an "operational importance" involving the usage of "back channels," which can also be described similar to a "behind the scene" communication between two leaders. Back channels may be used to overcome obstacles, outflank opposition or remove an issue from bureaucratic hands.

A majority of the panel composed of highly experienced ambassadors, as well as Admiral Edouard Guillaud, Commander of the Legion d'Honneur and Commander of the Ordre national du Merite. I do wonder why there were no female panelists participating?

According to Fitchett, back channeling is not a tool of policy making or changing views, but is rather a management tool.

What I find intriguing is that one of Fitchett's key components to back channeling uses secrecy of content, not the channel itself, to ensure success. Did someone mention...secret?

How is a back channel implemented, in Fitchett's terms a 'tool of management,' if the current administration strongly advocates transparency? Can it be debated that secrecy is the antithesis of transparency?

Also, if back channeling respects an established viewpoint, then what is the purpose of a back channel if both parties advocate an already formulated objective? Wouldn't this conflict with the success of back channeling even before discussion begins? Wouldn't the intent of back channeling be to not only accept a difference in perspective, but also to reach a collaborative decision? What about the consensual give-and-take to reach a final balance between viewpoints?

I thank Meridian for organizing the symposium in a time where diplomatic and political efforts are being deemed necessary to overcome the current global economic crisis.