If there were some sort of failure we would be hearing everyone talking about their own role there and trying to explain what they did and how they fought for their country's interest. The fact that the negotiators have not let out any details and the Presidents themselves have been quiet about what happened there is a sign that there was significant progress. Of course we all love democracy, who isn't for democracy but democracy can create very difficult conditions during negotiations. You could see it in the recent round of negotiations in the Middle East. Having to keep the Parliament together in Israel, in a sense a daily referendum, makes negotiations almost impossible.
Leaders have to sell a peace plan.
I think sometimes leaders have to make very difficult and unpopular decisions in order to create peace. For example what de Gaulle did in Algeria, or what Rabin did in the first stage of peace with the Palestinians had to be silent negotiations, because no matter what the details of the different peace plans are, a lot of different political segments have an interest in attacking it and breaking down the negotiations. Democracy and public debate is good, but sometimes there are very crucial moments, when leaders have to demonstrate leadership and make sometimes difficult, not necessarily popular decisions that for the long run are the best for their people, and for their regions. In January I visited Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabagh. In terms of peace in this region you really have to break down a lot of perceptions of the other side in terms of how dangerous is war or peace to the opposite side.