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.

The 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.

Read more —>

Protecting Yourself Against a Nefarious Negotiator

Introduction
In Venezuela in recent months, the opposition led by Mr. Juan Guaido has been working assiduously to remove President Maduro from office. Many western countries, including the United States recognize Mr. Guaido as the legitimate leader of Venezuela while Russia and Cuba recognizes Mr. Maduro.

As part of this effort, and likely engineered by the United States, secret negotiations between the opposition and President Maduro’s inner circle were taking place to plot a coup to depose Maduro and to install Guaido. The premise was that this inner circle including top military leaders would support the coup.

A key figure in Maduro’s “inner circle” that was negotiating with the opposition was General Padrino Lopez, one of the most powerful men in the country with sweeping influence over the armed forces. The United States and the opposition firmly believed they he, among other powerful key figures, were strong supporters and negotiating partners with whom to work out a plan to overthrow Maduro

These talks produced a 15-point plan for a peaceful handover of power that would be implemented by the military. Under the deal, Mr. Maduro would be allowed a dignified exit from the country. In fact, Washington believed that these talks were so far advanced that an aircraft was already waiting on the runway at the Caracas international airport to fly Maduro to Cuba.

Then suddenly, without warning, this negotiated agreement collapsed and President Maduro remained in power with full support of his armed forces with no signs of any breach whatsoever.

It turns out that the apparent conspirators on the Maduro side led by General Lopez were in fact double agents with no intent to ever negotiate a coup with the opposition. They were nefariously mining for information to channel back to President Maduro to help him crush any attempt to overthrow him.

Although this example is borrowed from a political landscape, we face similar nefarious negotiators in our business negotiations too.

Read more —>

Small Steps and Quantum Leaps in Negotiation

Introduction
A couple of weeks ago an item of news received little attention, being eclipsed by the release of the Mueller Report. Although perhaps not very significant in its own right, it provides an important opportunity for negotiation scholars and practitioners to analyze and learn from.

On March 22nd, 2019, President Trump reversed a decision by his Treasury Department to impose additional large-scale sanctions on North Korea. “I have today ordered the withdrawal of those additional sanctions!” tweeted the president without much further explanation.

A New York Times article on March 22nd stated: “[This Decision] created confusion at the highest levels of the federal government, just as the president’s aides were seeking to pressure North Korea into returning to negotiations over dismantling its nuclear weapons program”.

Cogent arguments were contended against the president’s decision. Some argued that the reversal of the Treasury Department’s decision conveyed a state of disarray in U.S policy – not an image that we wish to project to friends or foes. Others were concerned about not exerting a policy of maximum pressure on the North Korean regime, without which they are unlikely to unwind their nuclear weapon program. Another reservation expressed was that the reversal would tarnish and undermine the world’s opinion about American resolve.

Can an argument be made in favor of the president’s reversal of the Treasury Department’s “large-scale sanctions” decision?

Be Consistent in a Dispute Resolution Process
When embroiled in a dispute of any kind, careful and deliberate consideration needs to be given as to the appropriate process best suited to resolve that dispute. Is it to be negotiation or mediation? Or is it perhaps litigation or war? Is diplomacy more appropriate or would a campaign of threats, pressure and intimidation be more effective? (See also: Choosing the Appropriate Dispute Resolution Process).

Once an appropriate process has been decided upon, it is important to implement that particular process exclusively, without contaminating it with elements of other processes.

Read more —>

The Kim-Trump Summit 2.0 Could the Negotiations Have Been Salvaged?

Introduction
With all eyes on the second summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un last week (other than those riveted to the Michael Cohen testimony), surprise and disappointment supplanted hope and optimism as the talks ended abruptly with the President walking out.

The hope was for significant movement beyond that which was accomplished at the Kim-Trump Summit 1.0 in Singapore in 2018. In that first summit, the parties appeared to have agreed to “work towards the complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, which was vague, ambiguous and interpreted very differently by the two leaders. Nevertheless, those talks were important in that they started a process of mending fences and opening up dialogue.

The hopes for the Kim-Trump Summit 2.0 were dashed when North Korea insisted on lifting of sanctions in their entirety in exchange for merely dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex – unacceptable to the President. Interestingly, the two sides could not even agree on the reason for the breakdown, as the North Koreans argued that they were only talking about partial lifting of sanctions and never insisted on lifting of all sanctions at this time.

Could these negotiations have been salvaged?

A Different Approach
Any successful negotiation requires positive, constructive and productive dialogue and exchange before any proposals can be discussed. This dialogue and exchange should not only be about the overt presenting issues but also carefully navigated around the more sensitive covert personal issues that could potentially obstruct a deal. Any accord that addresses only the overt issues, but violates the covert personal ones is doomed to failure!

Read more —>

Negotiating Price From a Seller's Perspective

Introduction
In the sale of non-commoditized products and services, price negotiations can be a conversation fraught with tension. Buyers want the best deal possible and fear exploitation while sellers fear objections, push-back and potential loss of sales. In this equation, the buyer is usually in a stronger position due to his ubiquitous supply of alternative providers.

A frequent mistake that sellers make is allowing the price conversation to occur too early in the process. There are tactics that purchasers will typically deploy in the hope of engaging in the price talks prematurely.

A common tactic for example is to pressure the seller for a “ballpark” price too early in the process. The danger is that out of eagerness to get the work, the seller risks under-quoting, and having to come back later with a significant price increase is much harder.

Another potential pitfall is feeling anchored to your “ballpark” figure despite scope creep beyond what you accounted for in your initial “ballpark” calculation. A further risk is that the buyer makes a snap decision based solely on price before having had a chance to really understand and evaluate the value of the product or service that you are offering.

It is vitally important for sellers to be skilled at navigating the price talks effectively!

Sales Versus Negotiation
From the moment that a potential buyer has acknowledged a need and is talking to the seller, the process has transformed from lead generation and sales to one of negotiation. The skills that need to be deployed at this time are no longer sales skills but negotiation skills.

Read more —>