Building Bridges by Resolving Differences

Negotiation Strategies July 2019 Contact Us

American Foreign Policy from a Negotiator's Perspective

Dear Clients and Friends, In recent American foreign policy, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations. This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies - and to apply those lessons to our own negotiations. In this July issue of Negotiation Strategies, I share some of my thoughts. With Best Wishes, Raphael Lapin

American Foreign Policy from a Negotiator's Perspective

Introduction

With the North Korean negotiations in retreat, the trade war with China raging, the Iran Deal unraveling, and the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada still not ratified, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations. This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies. A useful framework with which to begin this inquiry is to explore the three different approaches to negotiation and dispute resolution. They are: power- based; rights-based; and interest-based.

The Power-based Approach

The term “Power-based negotiation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, because when power is used in a negotiation environment, it is usually not used to negotiate a resolution, but rather to impose. The more powerful party imposes and enforces their demands on the weaker party, using threats, intimidation and force, often because they can. A familiar example of using power as a negotiation tactic is the imposing of sanctions on North Korea to enforce America’s demand for total, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization. Another common example is military action. Although there are certainly situations which call for a power-based approach, for example where there is an immediate existential threat, it should nevertheless be used with great caution and restraint in other situations. Often parties, when subjected to a power-based approach will be resistant, defensive, resentful, and will perceive themselves as being bullied. This approach, when used exclusively, very seldom produces the desired acquiescence.

Rights-based Approach

Another approach to the resolving of disputes is a rights-based approach. One party believes he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong, or one party feels she is innocent while the other is to blame. Rights-based disputes usually end up in an adjudicated forum where a judge or arbitrator decides who is in fact right and who is wrong and liable. In the international setting, these kinds of disputes are usually brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague or the National Security Council of the United Nations for arbitration. In the United States, rights-based litigation is the most common means of resolving disputes. Despite its ubiquity, it is expensive, time consuming, on public record, and destroys valuable relationships. It should be used when culpability is clear; the cost justifies the outcome; a precedent needs to be established; or a deterrent against future violators needs to be set.  In general however, it is best to litigate only when efforts at all other dispute resolution processes have been exhausted.

Interests-based Approach

If negotiation can be defined as the process of searching for joint solutions to conflicting needs, then Interest-based negotiation is arguably the most authentic approach to negotiation and dispute resolution. As opposed to a power-based approach where the objective is to impose demands or the rights-based approach where the focus is to adjudicate a resolution based on rights and liabilities, the interest-based approach seeks to deeply understand the parties’ needs and to construct innovative solutions that meet the interests of all parties to the greatest extent possible. Of the three approaches, the interest-based approach takes the most skill and technique, and requires an analytical, open and creative mindset. An interest-based approach should be used in transactional negotiations and in dispute resolution where there may be ambiguity in culpability; where diplomacy and settlement is a better alternative than war or litigation; and where the preservation of relationships is important. In the international arena, interest-based negotiation was used very successfully to resolve a fifty year bitter boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru. (For a full and personal account of these negotiations by Jamil Mahuad, former President of Ecuador, see “Beyond Reason”, by Roger Fisher and Dan Shapiro, pg 183).

American Foreign Policy and the Three Approaches

Whether dealing recently with North Korea, Iran, China, Turkey or Mexico, the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy has been a power-based approach to diplomacy and negotiation. It has sought to impose it’s demands by wielding huge economic and military power to force our counterparts into submission. Rather than yielding, these countries have become more defiant than ever. This approach has also cost the U.S. allied relationships, trust, and created the perception of an isolationist America in an ever increasingly interdependent world. Perhaps a better U.S negotiation philosophy could be built around the interest-based approach. We should assure our counterparts that although we might use power as a means to bring them to the table, our approach at the table will not be to assert and impose our demands, but rather to deeply listen and develop a cogent understanding of their needs, fears and concerns and to work diligently to address those as long as U.S. vital interests are satisfied as well. This approach will advance the U.S as a leader not only in politics, power and economic wealth, but will position it as a global leader in diplomacy too.

Lessons Learned

Be aware of the three approaches to negotiation: Power-based; Rights-based; and Interest-based Make a conscious and deliberate decision as to which approach is the most appropriate in your case Use litigation as a last resort only when other efforts have failed Develop the skills, technique and process to become an effective interest-based negotiator We should always assure our counterparts that we will listen carefully to them and develop a cogent understanding of their needs, fears and concerns and will work diligently to address those as long as our vital interests are satisfied as well.

About Lapin Negotiation Services  Lapin Negotiation Services offers training, consulting, advising and executive coaching in negotiation, business diplomacy and dispute resolution services. Our proprietary and aggressively results oriented services are designed to help your leadership, teams and individuals master the essential negotiation, relationship-building and conflict management skills that increase revenues, decrease the high cost of conflict and build strong working relationships. Learn more about Raphael Lapin's book, "Working with Difficult People" by clicking on the image above

Our Skilled Specialists will: Help your organization build a highly effective negotiation competency and culture which translates into increased revenue and strong business relationships. Train and prepare your sales teams using our propriety "Investigative Selling" approach. Provide advice, strategy, guidance and representation in live negotiation challenges Facilitate, mediate and advise in dispute resolution. Create a culture of collaboration by guiding, facilitating and training teams and divisions to engage in dialogue, to negotiate and to partner.

Lapin Negotiation Services 10940 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 888-964-8884 info@LapinNegotiationServices.com

‌