A Journal of Foreign Policy Issues
Because of this, all the other pupils kept their distance from the conflicting parties or changed alliances in an effort to reestablish stability. Despite of all efforts made for reconciliation, stability wouldn't return to the pupils' community.
A third party's mediation, however, helped the ÒenemiesÓ find a way to coexist, continue their relations, and work together by choosing a simple solution: total separation. They mutually decided to split their clods, and after that formed different friendships.
This decision constituted their Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Both were given a better alternative, so there was no need to come to an agreement.
Conflict is a growth industry. How can you transform conflicts to be fought into problems to be solved? How can you turn confrontation into cooperation? As our world becomes increasingly interdependent, more and more people bump into one another more and more often. In a rapidly changing international context, a solution that seemed adequate last month may be out of date next week.
The United States' goal in 1980 of strengthening Saddam Hussein against Iran was made obsolete by Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Trade wars, global warming, ethnic conflict and exploding numbers of refugees are all problems that demand something more than a one-shot solution.
What is true in the marketplace is also true at home. A family's ability to deal constructively with interpersonal conflicts determines whether it stays together or breaks apart. On a global scale, cooperation is becoming the key to human survival. War is becoming an increasingly expensive and inconclusive way of handling acute conflicts. In an age of devastating weaponry, even bitter enemies must learn to work together in order to survive. In society-at-large, states, individuals, and organisations are realising that going to court is always costly and often futile, and they are turning to alternative methods of dispute resolution like mediation.
Cooperation does not mean an end to competition. We will not do away with our differences¯nor should we¯but we can deal with them more constructively. The world today is not necessarily the world that has to be. Who would have thought, forty years ago, that relations between France and Germany, Egypt and Israel, or the United States and Japan would ever be as they are now? Who could have foreseen, even a short time ago, that the political landscape in Central Europe would be anything like what it is today? Even one year from now, relations between the United States and China, between Iran and Iraq, among the five Central American nations or among the nations of the European Union may also look completely different.
We believe that it is worth thinking systematically about what is wrong with the world, how it might look if it were better, and, in particular, what specific steps people¯or any person¯can take to improve it. It is not that people lack the desire for a world that works well¯a world at peace in which democracy and human rights flourish¯or lack a foreign policy that favours such a world. Most difficulties occur at the much more pragmatic level of ends and means, of what might be called nuts and bolts.
International conflicts are not being handled as well as they might be. As we review newspaper headlines, it is apparent that nations tend to react to the actions of others, rather than act in forward-looking ways to achieve their own ends. Governments frequently show more concern for having the correct attitude toward a problem or for making an elegant statement about it than for bringing about beneficial change. Too often, foreign policy decision-makers fail to focus on the decisions of those they are trying to influence. There is a shortage of theory on how conflicts ought to be handled, and a shortage of practical skill in applying that theory to the real world.
Instead of just asking why things work or don't, we ask how individuals can affect the way things work. Instead of just learning how other people get things done, we consider ways that people both inside and outside government might influence international events.
Negotiation is the road that leads us from confrontation to cooperation. In most cases the difficulty lies not in a lack of potential substantive options, but in the failure to design, negotiate, and pursue a process that moves us forward from where we are now to where we would like to be.
For the aim of this article, we have compiled some extracts of famous works such as Famous Leaders, Getting Past No, Beyond Machiavelli, Getting It Done and Getting Ready to Negotiate. Professors Fisher and Ury both worked together on the best-selling Getting to Yes, a monumental job on negotiation. The way they decided to operate could be considered a new outcome or a third way in the negotiation process.
By following very closely the evolution in the Middle East, in Bosnia, in Ecuador, in Dayton, in Rambouillet and in various other places of the world where conflicts last for decades and create tensions between neighbouring countries, we can see that there are cases where it is not possible to find or even identify solutions. Because of this, reality management of crises is the new idea one encounters both in international mediation and international organisations.
The cornerstone of this idea is negotiation based on principles. Positions cannot help the promotion of any discussion. On the contrary, positions favour the winner-loser game, where parties are obliged to make concessions. At the end of any winner-loser game both parties leave the arena displeased. The winner believes that he could have pressed the other side harder for more concessions, while the loser feels humiliated and looks for a new opportunity to get revenge on his rival. Although we all believe that a signed agreement¯a result of mutual concessions¯is an adequate solution, in reality the problem is still there, threatening peace and creating tensions between parties.
What is a principled negotiation? How does it differ from other methods and where does its advantage lie? As we have already mentioned, a principled negotiation is a means of reaching agreements without giving in. According to this negotiation process, all parties should respect and take into consideration the other side's bottom line. The bottom line of each side defines the lowest limit a given side can accept as its fallback position. Any attempt to push the other side beyond its limits could bring the negotiation to a stalemate, if not cause a breakdown.
We all know that only by working with principles can we promote peace, stability, mutual understanding and respect. We start negotiating in an effort to reach an agreement. We should keep in mind that concessions lead the parties, according to the theoretical construction of this negotiation method, to bitterness and alienation. If we are truly working at signing an agreement at the end of the negotiation, a good and appropriate solution would be a real and honest interest in improving mutual gains and the relationship between the two parties. For this reason, it is also very useful to bear in mind a second important element, except the one referring to each side's bottom line.
All parties have a Best Alternative to Negotiating Process (BATNA). For the outcome of a negotiation to be truly considered a success, you should come up with an option that is better for you than your BATNA. If this is not the case, you should walk away from the negotiations. What is your BATNA? Your BATNA is the only standard that can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavourable and from rejecting terms which would be in your interest to accept. The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you would obtain without negotiating. If you have not thought carefully about what you will do if you fail to reach an agreement, you are negotiating with your eyes closed. Protecting yourself against a bad agreement is one thing; making the most of the assets you have in order to produce a good agreement is another. Your BATNA is again your point of reference.
Negotiators believe that resources that determine their negotiating power are wealth, political connections, friends and military might. However, the negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive the option of not reaching agreement is to each side. Vigorous exploration of what you will do if you do not reach agreement can greatly strengthen your position. Attractive alternatives are not waiting for you; you usually have to develop them.
Generating BATNAs requires three operations: a. Creating a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached, b. Improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives, and c. Tentatively selecting the one alternative that seems best. By following these steps, you have created your BATNA.
The desirability of disclosing your BATNA to the other side depends upon your assessment of the other side's thinking. If your BATNA is attractive, it is in your interest to let the other side know. At the same time, you should take into account that the other side is also developing its own BATNA. The more you can learn of their alternatives, the better prepared you will be for the negotiation. If both sides have attractive alternatives, the best outcome for both sides may well be not to reach an agreement. In such cases, a successful negotiation is one in which you and they amicably and efficiently discover that the best way to advance your respective interests is for each of you to look elsewhere and not to try to reach agreement.
But what if the other side is stronger? If the other side has more guns, you don't have to turn your negotiation into a gunfight. Instead, you should change the game by negotiating on principles.
Developing your BATNA is perhaps the most effective course of action you can take in dealing with a more powerful negotiator. While you try to discuss interests, the other side may state their position in unequivocal terms. What can you do to turn them away from positions and toward the merits? There are three basic approaches: 1. What you can do. How you can concentrate on merits rather than on positions. 2. What they may do. Use your skill to step aside and turn their strength into your ends. 3. What a third party can do. If you cannot change the process to one of seeking a solution based on merits, perhaps a third party can.
A mediator can separate the people from the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. A mediator can present a paper of principles so that parties do not concentrate on positions but on merits.
Both theory and experience suggest that the method of principled negotiation will produce, over the long run, substantive outcomes as good as or better than you are likely to obtain using any other negotiation strategy. In addition, it should prove more efficient and less costly to human relationships. It is not easy to change habits, to separate emotions from the merits. From time to time it is worth remembering that you are propably attempting to negotiate in a different way, a better way. Through this process you are not obliged to choose between the satisfaction of getting what you deserve and of being decent. You can have both.
When you are dealing with people there is no strict framework for the best negotiation method. Theoretically there are some good ideas and negotiating methods you can use for reaching an agreement. According to recent experience, the process which could lead to an agreement without giving in is a discussion on merits and not positional bargaining.
In conclusion, we would like to underline that all parties involved in a negotiation process must share and respect at least two fundamental elements: the same principles and merits as well as the same international legal framework. A theoretical presentation of the negotiation process could enrich ideas, but it could not improve negotiators' skills. Only when you know what you are doing and what you are looking for, can you develop skills and determine the aims you are trying to achieve. The most important thing is to negotiate and, in the end, reach an agreement without giving in and without harming relations with the other side. Working together does not mean an end to competition, but it could mean better relations with your neighbours and maintaining mutual respect.