Section 6 (Other Topics)
Q58. Why is diplomacy so important in multi-lateral and bi-lateral negotiations? Do you think diplomacy alone is sufficient to prevail in negotiations? What then is also important?
By Linus Wong, National Junior College
Diplomacy has been a crucial means that states have used for centuries to achieve their national goals and to satisfy and defend national interests. Diplomacy gives a state a new method to consider as an alternative means of achieving their goals, a recourse from the utilisation of armed force.
In addition, diplomacy serves as a means whereby states may communicate with one another, maintain channels of dialogue and serve as the first platform upon which eventual people to people relations can be built upon.
 |
| UN HQ in New York, the world's main diplomatic organisation |
Furthermore in negotiations, diplomacy allows states a recognised and acceptable way in which they may achieve their goals. Diplomacy allows states to reach a compromise that would be best able to satisfy all concerned parties. Most importantly, diplomacy serves as the primary way upon which peace can be built, maintained and defended.
As important and crucial diplomacy is in order to prevail in negotiations, there are other aspects required in a successful negotiation. In this, I would like to clarify that prevailing in the negotiation means that one side is able to triumph over another in negotiations, the side that prevails would thus be the one that gains the greatest benefits from the negotiations. This could perhaps be seen as adopting the Bismarckian way of looking at diplomacy and negotiations.
These include but are not limited to:
1. The country, state or organisation that one represents is very important. The strength of what one represents gives one an advantage in a negotiation. It could be political strength, economic strength or even military strength. Negotiating from a position of strength is lends the negotiator a strong hand and a firm backing which may make the course of the negotiations easier.
(For example the strength that a negotiator of the United States of America has as compared to a negotiator from Somalia)
2. The possession of a moral high ground in certain situations is critical. When negotiating on issues of human rights, conflicts and especially crimes against humanity, the party that possess the moral high ground naturally is able to argue and negotiate from a position of strength and credibility.
(For example the US riposte at the Soviet Union at the United Nations Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis)
3. One’s position as part of the negotiation. If the negotiator is representing a victimised country, a country that has suffered injury, his place at the negotiating table would thus be strengthened due to the nature of the circumstances. If the negotiator represents the aggressor nation, the nation perceived by the international community to be in the wrong, his hand would be stifled and weakened at the negotiating table. The ability to take the offensive in a negotiation is at times largely predicated upon the party that one represents and the situation at hand. If one is representing a party in a compromising position, one might be forced to take a defensive position in the negotiations, resulting in a lower possibility of one succeeding.
(An example would be the USA having to take a defensive position in diplomacy after its invasion of Iraq)
4. Lastly, negotiations are often predicated upon the ability of the negotiator and his personality. A negotiator able to establish a strong rapport with others, one that possesses strong interpersonal skills, a firm and resolute person that commands respect and trust would have a higher probability of prevailing in negotiations. A negotiator that is able to control and manipulate the situation at hand as well as his fellow negotiations, one that is able to use his persuasive skills to alter opinions and to bring his opponent towards his stance is a successful negotiator. Experience also counts in the field of diplomacy. The art of turning white to black, to convince, to win over people is critical and absolute essential in order for a negotiation to succeed.
(Professor Tommy Koh’s reputation as a powerful and successful negotiator, especially during the formulation of the UN Law of the Sea)
 |
| A 6th century Chinese painting of emissaries to China |
However, if one were to take a different approach towards the idea of prevalence in a negotiation, if one were to accept that a negotiation prevails when all sides are able to agree upon a compromise, a compromise that benefits all parties and does not favour one more than the other, a different set of criteria and attributes must be brought up.
For that sort of success to occur, the negotiators must be able to find common ground, to seek balance and moderation, to look for similarities rather than differences and from there thus try to work out a moderated agreement.
Therefore, as the art of diplomacy is complex, multi-faceted and always contingent upon various factors and circumstances, the key attribute to succeed in a negotiation I would say is the ability to narrow the differences and heighten the similarities.
No comments:
Post a Comment