There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
> […] then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations.
This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.
But my original proposition keeps everyone honest and pragmatic which was the reason for the proposal. I truly believe in transparency as a way to keep everyone honest and not treat other people as childish that they can't understand complex matters.
A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations.
This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.