We have already talked about negotiating procedure and its elements: having limited the negotiating space and defined a best possible alternative, we said that, compensation dynamics take negotiation to another level, in which Morgenthau's three precepts interact, and allow the negotiator to choose two paths: cooperation or confrontation.
Let's start, then, with the model of confrontation (o distributive bargaining). This modality, popular until the 1970s, follows a zero-sum paradigm: the negotiator seeks absolute advantage, the largest part of the pie, and to this end, he uses a series of mechanisms that enhance the use of force over persuasion and commitment.
On the one hand, there would be the threat and advertisements. If the warning is associated with potential harm, the threat specifies the possible harm that one interlocutor could cause to the other. There are a series of risks inherent to this strategy: whoever exercises them must be credible in their invocation, have the capacity and will and do so in any case without hesitation or ambiguity. The maximum expression of these tactics would be the ultimatum.
- A clear example of a threat would be the Missile Crisis of 1962. On October 14, a plane flying over the island of Cuba detected missile launchers pointing toward the United States. The Soviets, in just five months, had managed to deploy an entire arsenal capable of devastating the American country. It was one of the most tense episodes of the call Cold War. In serious conversations, Kennedy demanded that Khrushchev immediately withdraw the missiles, threatening even with invading the island and dismantling them on their own. Fear of nuclear war eventually led the USSR to dismantle the base.
- The warning is more subtle; It's more abstract, in a way. This is the case of the recent wake-up call from Brussels to Spain. Due to the existing blockage in the judges' government, President Sánchez has put on the table an option that would allow him to bypass the Popular Party in the renewal of the CGPJ: rReduce the necessary majority from 3/5 to an absolute majority, which would allow the block of the motion of censure to proceed in this sense, given Casado's refusal to negotiate with Podemos. Brussels warns: judicial independence must be guaranteed; A deterioration in the rule of law could delay the delivery of recovery funds…
- When the word ultimatum is pronounced, the mind escapes to a date: 1939. In an expansionist context of authoritarian regimes, Germany, afflicted by the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles and the ravages of the Great Depression, observed the rise of Adolf Hitler. In his irredentist line, the Nazi leader undertook the Connection and annexed Austria, thus building Greater Germany. Immediately afterwards, he would head towards Czechoslovakia for the question of the Sudetenland, which would be settled at the Munich Conference of 1938. Only the occupation of Poland would lead the British Government to react: thus began the Second World War.
Along with the three tactics indicated, there would be the Awards and concessions. There is practically no difference between the two: the reward, it is true, seeks to induce a certain behavior; while the concession would be something like an asset that helps the negotiator to avoid blocking the round. In any case, both have an identical purpose: to encourage, to make the interlocutor see the negotiation and, therefore, the agreement as feasible.
The risks entailed by rewards and concessions are less pronounced than those of threats and warnings, but that does not mean they do not exist. At this point we should refer to what Bassols calls the “false legend” of concession, and that is that in practice conceding tends to be confused with giving up. However, the good negotiator knows that creating value where there is none a priori is more advantageous than castled in a position that would block the negotiation:
The essential secret is to exchange values of low cost for us but of high esteem for the other party, for values of high interest for us, which for the other party have a low cost.
It is what is known as the Homans axiom: concessions must always be made rational way, which implies a full knowledge of the status of the negotiation at all times. Furthermore, a second risk should be added to the above: when the attitude of the counterparty is granted or rewarded (if not in the short term, then in the long term), a feeling of distrust arises in the interlocutor. It may seem contradictory, but the protective attitude that many developed countries have exercised, in the course of negotiations, with developing countries has generated a certain distrust towards the former on the part of the latter. Exercising, therefore, a responsible posture that implies, at every moment, equality between interlocutors is essential not only for the negotiation, but also for the future relationships that can be maintained with the counterparty. Tit-for-tat: Treat others as you would like them to treat you.
- Regarding awards, an illustrative example would be the outcome of the Vietnam War. Around 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson established contact with the northern region to begin negotiations and end the conflict. During the course of these, the United States offered a prize of one billion dollars for the reconstruction of the country, provided that the terms of the draft agreement presented by the White House were accepted. The North Vietnamese rejected it, accusing the Americans of “acting in a depraved and cynical manner, believing that money is everything, and that other values are secondary.”
- We can find a case of concession again in the current health crisis scenario. During the negotiation of recovery funds, there was a authentic confrontation between two sensibilities, or blocks, of the community project: the called frugal, with the Netherlands and Austria leading the way; and the Mediterranean strip, with Spain and Italy as the main affected by the pandemic. After hard days of contact, consensus was reached, and although the frugal they granted Regarding the number and method of supervision of the funds, the distribution of payments and certain conditionality was imposed.
These are the peculiarities of the confrontation model. At the other extreme there would be cooperation. Popularized since the 1980s, it is based on a non-zero sum paradigm: it seeks balance, expanding the pie as much as possible for the optimal benefit of both parties. Therefore, in this case, persuasion and commitment are the Morgenthau values that prevail. It is about finding an imaginative formula, capable of breaking down the party's objectives and integrating them into a consensus solution that also generates added value. One might think, out of pure good nature, that cooperative negotiations are always preferable, but in reality, It is the circumstances that recommend one model or another. Only dialogue and equality of arms should underlie as a common denominator.
(To be continued.)
Graduated in Law and Public Administration and Management from the University of Seville, I found my vocation for International Relations a few years ago, which led me to pursue a postgraduate degree in Diplomacy at the Barcelona Center for International Studies. I like international politics, languages and, above all, writing; I have published on several occasions on legal topics, but now I seek to do so in this field, underlining the philosophical (and even moralizing) function of the discipline. I promise it will be mild, do you follow me?
