Introduction to Pre-Negotiation - Report Example

INTRODUCTION TO PRE-NEGOTIATION Pre-negotiation can be defined as round of discussions that are conducted before proceeding to formal negotiations. The contents of pre-negotiations are based on different topics i.e. the parties to be involved in the formal discussions, the structure of the proceedings, and the agenda of the formal gathering. In this phase, the mediator approaches each party individually, and different proposals are discussed with them, afterwards shuttle diplomacy is practiced to reach agreements on the process and structure before the parties gather for the formal discussions. According to William Zartman, a leading scholar of international negotiations, Pre-negotiation begins when one or more parties considers negotiation as a policy option and communicates this intention to other parties. It ends when the parties agree to formal negotiations, or when one party abandons the consideration of negotiation as an option. In essential terms, pre-negotiation is the span of time and activity in which the parties move from conflicting unilateral solutions for a mutual problem to a joint search for cooperative multilateral or joint solutions. It is the diagnostic phase of negotiation. (Dr. Plamen Pantev., Negotiating in the Balkans: The Pre-negotiation Perspective. National Security and the Future Volume One, Number 1, 2000). Jane Gross Stein has differentiated between the pre-negotiation and actual negotiation, 'Pre-negotiation was generally characterized by important structuring activity. It set broad boundaries, identified the participants, and, in at least half the cases, specified the agenda for negotiation. Even in those cases where it produced only a rough outline of the agenda, it nevertheless reduced uncertainty and complexity by establishing what would be kept off the table. In every case, pre-negotiation framed the problem and set the limits of the negotiation to follow. According to Brain W. Tomlin, pre-negotiation is that period in relations when negotiation is considered, and perhaps adopted, as a behavioral option by some or all of the parties. The pre-negotiation phase itself is also a process marked by turning points that move the parties through various stages of pre-negotiation. A five-stage model of pre-negotiation includes identification of the problem, search for the feasible option, and reflect commitment towards negotiations, agreement to negotiate, and setting the parameters. (Dr. Plamen Pantev, Negotiating in the Balkans: The Pre-negotiation Perspective. National Security and the Future Volume One, Number 1, 2000). STAGES OF PRE-NEGOTIATION Irrespective of the nature of the dispute, the mediator and facilitator struggles to help the parties to reach an understanding with reference to procedural and structural questions, before the commence of formal negotiation process. This practice has several advantages as it provides the parties with sense and chance of success on the preliminary round. It is important to workout the procedural and structural questions so that the reluctant party can be understood the worth and significance of the practice and association. The objective of the pre-negotiation is to acquire the commitment of the parties to negotiate their differences and concerns. The objective is achieved by identifying the eliminating the obstacles to negotiations. There can be series of differences and obstacles which are likely to hinder the pace and prospects of pre-negotiation. The main hindrance is often that the parties fail to organize the negotiation in the required manner. There is possibility of existence of differences which is likely to turn the group unable to organize itself and present a consistent set of interests. Another obstacle is likely to be the lack of credible representative or spokesperson on the behalf of respective parties. There are likely to be many other substantial hurdles prior to the commencement of negotiation. Similarly the opening phase of the negotiation is likely to be problematic as well. Problems can be experienced because of the rigid and unwilling attitude and approach of the party towards resolution of the dispute. The attitude can because the parties share widen differences with reference to the nature of the problem. The important and primary step of the negotiation is to develop an agreement among the parties on the common definition of the problem. It is expected that if this stage is not achieved, the parties might boycott or abstain i.e. unproductive or inconclusive results. This is further responsible for the distraction of opinion and attention from the important issue of problem definition. The next step is to gather parties, and achieve their consent to negotiate. Prior to their agreement over the commencement of negotiation, the parties must come to certain conclusions. It is important that the parties agree over that present situation is not favorable, and that both the parties are looking forward towards the resolution of the dispute. The parties are required to decide upon the possibility of some fair settlement. Fair settlement is acceptance of general ideas of both the parties. A central element in the judgment that a fair settlement is possible is the realization that each side's ideal solution is not attainable. The parties should understand and acknowledge the efforts of the respective party towards the resolution of the dispute, and presence of any distrust should be avoided. These are some of the psychological concerns, are can often cause great impediment towards the resolution of the dispute. The parties should agree that it is possible to settle their dispute fairly given the balance of power between the parties. When the balance of power is very unequal it may not be possible for the parties to negotiate a fair outcome. Once the parties have expressed their commitment towards negotiations, the final stage of the pre-negotiation is worked upon i.e. to arrange for those negotiations. Agreement on these issues can be considered as success of mini-negotiation. The parties are required to define the objective of the negotiation in a manner that it provides agreement on the principles that will guide drafting of a settlement. The parties are required to reach an agreement over the draft and execution of general strategy for the success of negotiation. The parties are also required to make arrangements with reference to the negotiation proceeding i.e. setting a time and a location, identifying participants, or even deciding who will sit where. These physical arrangements can be termed politically sensitive and significance. It is important to understand that, Peace requires a process of building constructive relationships in a civil society not just negotiating, signing, and ratifying a formal agreement. In this regard the phase of the pre-negotiation is paramount and important for the resolution of the issue. Pre-negotiation refers to the times and the tasks apart from negotiation that have the purpose of beginning, sustaining, and nourishing a peace process by changing relationships and paving the way for negotiation or other peaceful steps to resolve conflict. According to some theorists, the process of pre-negotiation has been described as fairly specific set of tasks undertaken just prior to official negotiations. While formal negotiations plays a role in the peace process, many modern conflicts are not amenable to negotiation. It has been observed that, people are often unwilling to negotiate over issues of identity, justice, security, and dignity. Therefore the reason the goal of pre-negotiation is not just to commence negotiations, but to start a political process that can change relationships and lead to the end of violence, to peace, and to reconciliation. (Harold Saunders, "We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiation Phases," in Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffery Z. Rubin, (Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991), pp. 57-70). DIPLOMACY Diplomacy and Negotiations are practiced with difference in perspectives. The operation of diplomacy can be expressed in game-theoretic terms as zero and positive sum. The focus of Zero-sum perspective is to achieve the objectives at the expenses of other party. In the classic Prisoner's Dilemma Game, zero-sum outcomes occur when one party holds out and the other gives in. The Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict are examples of a Prisoner's Dilemma Game situation, where the absence of trust between the parties long prevented them from reaching mutually beneficial outcomes of cooperation. (Harold Saunders, We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiation Phases, in Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991). Zero-sum thinking is the blend of stakes perception in terms of relative gains, where a party measures its success in comparison with the position of the other party. The practice of Relative-gains thinking was exercised by the superpowers during Cold war, when keeping ahead of the adversary was deemed more important than achieving a particular goal, but it also is found between Indians and Pakistanis, Israelis and Palestinians, West Africans and Nigeria, and North and South Korea. The expected outcomes derived from Zero-sum encounters is that, results are biased and unbalanced, therefore the resolution has dim prospects of stability and leave behind negative impression on the loser party, which now struggles to achieve relative gains next time i.e. the European states and the United States have experienced similar situation after the Iraq War. If the negotiation is expected to be one time opportunity, the parties are likely to drive the hardest possible bargain. Diplomacy is the style of managing relations-that is, ongoing ties and contacts among states. Even if a party feels a need to prevail in a diplomatic negotiation, it is under pressure to do so in such a manner that the outcome does not impel the other party to seek revenge. Diplomacy should aim not at incidental or opportunistic arrangements, but at creating solid and durable relations. (I. William Zartman. Dimensions of Diplomacy. The Paul H.Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. John Hopkins University. 2000). Positive-sum perspectives are balance approach, where both the parties achieve something out of the discussion, the parties are found in the situation of the Chicken Dilemma Game. Parties are likely to achieve positive sums either through compensation or through reframing. Compensation refers to an exchange of concessions on different matters; one party's paying for a favorable outcome in one matter by granting the other party a favorable outcome on another. The key to successful negotiation is the more the items at stake can be divided into goods valued more by one party than they cost to the other and goods valued more by the other party than they cost to the first, the greater the chances of a successful outcome. Agreement to end the conflict in Namibia and Angola in 1988 was reached by purchasing a withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia and its consequent independence with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, thus achieving a full realization of both parties' goals. (Harold Saunders, Pre-negotiation and Circum-negotiation: Arenas of the Peace Process, in Managing Global Chaos. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996). Parties opt for diplomatic negotiations when they have reached a stalemate regarding a problem or conflict and fail to handle it themselves. In addition, the persistence of deadlock is likely to cause much pain and trouble to both the parties and the feelings of discomfort are suffered mutually. However it is important to understand that existence of the deadlock is not the required reason for starting negotiations. The negotiations can be successful if the parties have devised a mutually acceptable outcome from their discussions. This pull factor complements the push factor that impelled the parties towards diplomatic discussions. The notion of a mutually hurting stalemate is most readily understandable in conflicts, but it also applies to cooperation where two or more states pool their efforts when unilateral efforts to handle the problem fail, and the costs of that failure rise. (Harold Saunders, Pre-negotiation and Circum-negotiation: Arenas of the Peace Process, in Managing Global Chaos, eds. Chester Crocker, Fen Hampson and Pamela Aall, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996) pp. 419-432). DETAILED CASE STUDY: NEGOTIATION AND WAR CRISIS This dispute between Israel and Egypt was over the locations of border markers on 900 square meters of sand between the two countries. This dispute came in the wake of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in which Israel agreed to withdraw from Sinai and a bilateral commission was established to demarcate the new Israeli-Egyptian border. The Taba area, which is on the Red Sea along the Gulf of Aqaba, was one of several areas in which border marker locations were disputed. Negotiations between Egypt and Israel about the exact location of these markers failed. The original dispute was then bogged down in a further dispute as to whether arbitration or conciliation procedures should be followed, as provided in the Camp David peace treaty of 1979. Talks were suspended in 1982, and it wasn't until 1986 that the two countries finally agreed upon arbitration. In 1988, the arbitration commission finally decided in favor of Egypt, after many delays and mutual threats between the two countries. Israel then withdrew from Taba. (Mediation Defuses Potentially Explosive Situation: Old mistrusts wilt in Minnesota as ex-foes reach pact on herbicides. Consensus. Published by the Public Disputes Network. November 1988). Israel and Egypt were engaged in five wars with each other between 1954 and 1979. When, in 1979, they finally sought to change their relationship to one of peace and cooperation, the relationship was already marked by a long history of negative attributions for the other's aggressive behavior. Their adversarial approach to the Taba dispute was therefore quite understandable and predictable. However, if Egypt and Israel had taken an integrative approach to defining the problem, they might have framed the Taba dispute as a dysfunctional relationship between the two countries which hindered a bilateral, creative problem-solving process. They might have recognized that the real problem lay with both the parties. (Rothman, Jay. Conflict Management Policy Analysis, Confrontation to Cooperation, by J. Rothman, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992). PRE-NEGOTIATION: A MISNOMER The proceedings of pre-negotiation, if conducted with sincere efforts, is likely to produce productive results during the course of formal discussion. The validity and success of pre-negotiation is not process dependent, instead it is mainly based on the attitude and approach of the parties. It is a common observation that the process shares minor weightage in comparison with the over all discussion process, however the role of the importance and significance of the pre-negotiation can not be ignored or underestimated. The process of pre-negotiation is in actual the first step towards development of understanding between the parties, and of course it ids the success of this small step that will eventually lead towards the resolution of mighty differences. (Zartman and Bermin. The Practical Negotiator, 1982, pp. 60-63). Also, the pre-negotiation phase is the reflection of the fact, that both the parties have accepted the existence of the dispute or issue between themselves, and have also accepted the fact that dialogue process is the proper approach towards its resolution. Therefore, the process of pre-negotiation is the acceptance of the willingness of the parties to negotiate and compromise. (Zartman and Rasmussen. Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, 1997, pp. 96-102) Pre-negotiation is itself a small step towards the resolution of complicated issues, it is therefore not encouraged to make high expectations from the practice of pre-negotiation. It is just the approach towards solution of problem, not the exercise of solving an issue. REFERENCES 1. Dr. Plamen Pantev., Negotiating in the Balkans: The Pre-negotiation Perspective. National Security and the Future Volume One, Number 1, 2000. 2. William Zartman. Dimensions of Diplomacy. The Paul H.Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. John Hopkins University. 2000. 3. Harold Saunders, Pre-negotiation and Circum-negotiation: Arenas of the Peace Process, in Managing Global Chaos. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996. 4. Harold Saunders, We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiation Phases, in Negotiation Theory and Practice. Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991. 5. Rothman, Jay. Conflict Management Policy Analysis, Confrontation to Cooperation, by J. Rothman, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992. 6. Harold Saunders, "We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiation Phases," in Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffery Z. Rubin, (Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991), pp. 57-70. 7. Harold Saunders, Pre-negotiation and Circum-negotiation: Arenas of the Peace Process, in Managing Global Chaos, eds. Chester Crocker, Fen Hampson and Pamela Aall, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996) pp. 419-432. 8. Mediation Defuses Potentially Explosive Situation: Old mistrusts wilt in Minnesota as ex-foes reach pact on herbicides. Consensus. Published by the Public Disputes Network. November 1988. No.1. P. 3 9. Zartman and Bermin. The Practical Negotiator, 1982, pp. 60-63 10. Zartman and Rasmussen. Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, 1997, pp. 96-102. Read More