Open diplomacy, negotiation under the scrutiny of the public, has long fascinated students.1 Conference diplomacy is one form, though not the only one, of open diplomacy, and to its study Professor Birn made a contribution in CSSH for July 1970; as appropriate in this journal, his essay was accompanied by comments from Professor Singer. Enlightening though both essays are, these remarks are provoked by the belief that their main point is not established. Professor Singer's, while in form a comment on Professor Birn's, made little reference to it. Indeed it had comparatively little to say about conference diplomacy at all. Rather it was a restatement of what some students of public opinion believe that the effect of public opinion on the conduct of foreign policy has been. There are few areas in which large and unsupported generalizations are more freely advanced. Neither in Professor Birn's paper, nor in the history of modern international relations, is there evidence to substantiate them. Before we can consider the effect of public opinion, we need some general model of conference diplomacy. The term 'conference', as commonly used, is applied to a meeting of a group of nations. One might have a conference of two, but one would hardly describe it as such. Now specific issues in international affairs are not usually of primary concern to more than two parties. Therefore they are not dealt with in conferences. When a dispute between two states over a specific issue is coming to a head, they are not able to take part in a conference, least of all a disarmament conference; they are arming. In their very nature, the subjects of conferences are general-disarmament, monetary arrangements, the law of the sea, or the like.2 Yet if every state in the world were content with the international situation, we may reasonably suppose that the level of armaments would give no cause for concern. A disarmament conference is possible, and offers 1 Elaborate notes are out of place in a short analytical piece such as this. Many of my citations would be those listed by Professor Singer. General references would take us no further; more specific comment would take me too far afield. 2 The peace conference after a general war is clearly a special case. It seems likely that its character as a conference, given to it by the fact that there are several participants, will dominate its character as a settlement between victors and vanquished.