Pre-Negotiations §

1. What is Pre-Negotiation §

• The first step of Negotiation is pre-negotiation
  • The talks about the upcoming talks
  • Pre-negotiation is not outside of negotiation process
    • Its very busy for delegates/negotiators
  • conducted by negotiators
• Tasks of Negotiators during pre-negotiation:
  • Setting agenda
  • prepare necessary procedures to tackle certain issue
  • Bilateral (Informal)
  • Multilateral (Complex/Formal)
  • Bring party into discussion
    • Parties must agree to conditions for discussions
    • To avoid heated conflicts during negotiation
    • Encourage agreement by the end

2. Factors that Determine if Actors will Agree to Negotiate §

• domestic security (political security): winning or losing election
  • If joining negotiation will lose popular support, the leader won’t negotiate
• preconditions demanded by hard liners
• lack of (perceived) stalemate (other option is more beneficial)

  • (perceived) Hurting stalemate: enemy’s belief they will not able to move forward or any other options than negotiating

    • Forces recalculation of options

    💡 Ex: Cambodia-Thailand fighting, Thailand thought it could easily win, but it paid a big price → perceived stalemate

    • Cost vs Benefits: Tolerance against fighting, sanctions, morale
    • If a state is not in hurting stalemate and expect to win, it will not concede or stop fighting (Russia in Ukraine-Russia Conflict)
• parties believe that time is on their sides:
  • The longer you delay, the more options you have
• agreeing to negotiate is a sign of weakness (loss of bargaining power during the negotiation)
  • Agreeing to negotiate is accepting you have no other choice
• high stake sensitive conflict (religion, culture…)
  • Religious city, temple, holy grounds cannot be divided and shared
  • Negotiation is unlikely to occur
• Record of past hostility towards that party (Ex: Trump vs China)
• No interrupting incidents: terrorist attacks, protest

3. Problems of Agenda Content and Order §

• After parties agree to negotiate, state still need to know what’s on the agenda
• Content: A proposed agenda might be ‘prejudicial’ rather than ‘neutral’
  • It might indicate that one party has already conceded a vital point of substance.
    • The picking of a topic might benefit one party
  • A party could use the agenda contents to publicize its propaganda
    • Agendas will be public or leaked
    • A party put agenda items that has no hope of reaching concessions, but it aims to show off its own policies
      • If a larger power concedes to put content preferable to the smaller power, the small power will gloat of its power & influence
  • The opposing party can push a vague agenda
    • If agenda is left too vague, the party who didn’t want to discuss will have to have formal discussion to clarify
    • One party might talk about irrelevant issues instead
• Order: Parties believe they’ll have to give concessions on some items to receive some benefits.
  • Parties want items they think they’d win to come first
    • Create impression of strength and avoid trouble at home
    • Make opponent seek reciprocity in giving concessions now in hoping for benefits later
    • Fear of giving concessions first, but not receiving concessions later on
  • Solution: I promise to do X, if you promise to do Y

Five Procedural Issues that Need Resolving §

1. Secrecy §

• Secret Diplomacy: involves keeping the secrets of (Levels of Analysis of Foreign Policy)
  • The contents of the negotiation
  • Knowledge that negotiations are going on
  • The content of any agreement issuing from negotiations
  • The fact that any agreement at all has been reached
• Why: Each side has to settle for less than ideal
  • If radical government supporters hear the government is making concessions or being ‘bought out’ they might sabotage the talks from happening
  • Knowing actual position of opponent state might give advantage

2. Format §

Explain the different formats of negotiations and their strengths and weaknesses:

• Direct: will be employed when the parties have normal relations and in routine matters it might readily be agreed that an embassy will play a leading role
  • quick and for states with friendly relations
• Indirect: better for bitter rivals using mediator or good office
  • Normally both parties stay in close proximity such as in one hotel to help mediator
  • Strength: overcome the issue of losing prestige
• Bilateral vs Multilateral discussion
  • Parallel Bilateral is good for flexibility, speed, and secrecy
    • Weakness: secrecy means other allied parties might seek separate deals with rivals
  • Multilateral
    • Slow and time consuming
• A combination of Bilateral and Multilateral
  • Bilateral discussion first → share what is discussed in planery (multilateral) session
• Choice of format is thus heavily influenced by factors such as
  • the degree of urgency attending a negotiation
  • the state of relations among allies
  • the determination of the most powerful or most resolute among the parties as to which format will best suit its own interests.
    • Weaker states generally prefer to negotiate with the more powerful in a multilateral forum,
    • since the environment is more regulated and their chances of forming coalitions are greater

3. Venue §

• How are negotiation venues important to actors?

  • In friendly bilateral relationship: discussing low importance issues, selecting venue isn’t difficult
    • Home: Britain take pride in its own diplomats ⇒ venue negotiations at Britain
      • delivered quickly and securely to the right people, and are not distorted en route
      • If the state is able to persuade their rivals to send a delegation to their own shores,
        • it is a great practical convenience: having all resources it needs
        • Furthermore, it also suggests that it is the more powerful of the two so the traveler will suffer the loss of face.
    • Away

• How are negotiation venues usually selected?

  • Venue are usually selected based on neutrality.

  💡 Ex:

  Countries, such as Switzerland and Austria are both permanently neutral based on international law. The Congress of Vienna and The Hague served as examples.

  • In order to save face, states can choose a venue where they can meet somewhere geographically in between their own countries.
  • States can avoid any loss of prestige over the issue of venue by agreeing to alternate between their respective capitals.
    • Taking turns traveling is a reasonable solution after a diplomatic breakthrough.

4. Delegations §

• What issues concerning delegations do negotiators have to agree upon? How are those issues important?
  • The level: the higher it is, the more priority is put, and rapid progress is expected
    • Who is lead negotiator: if its a president or head of state
      • Shows you are committed about issue
      • No need to consult with top leaders
      • Weakness: cannot delay, have to make decisions on the spot → possible error
    • Lower-level talks can be better for delegates to speak personally and directly
      • Weakness: Many delays
  • The size:
    • if its too small, it implies lack of seriousness or purpose
    • If its too big, there problems of accommodation and security
  • The composition of a party by putting names on individuals and groups could hurt a party’s interest
    • Agreeing to negotiate with a group you don’t recognize could hurt your national image.
    💡 Ex: Israel viewed Palestinians as Jordanians, if it conceded Palestinians as a separate identity, it would mean accepting national self-determination of Palestine as a state. No delegates can come from the Hamas group

5. Timing §

• Why negotiators should or should not press for the commencement of negotiations as soon as possible.
  • Between Friends: When the conditions or offer is favorable because the deal won’t stay forever ⇒ must press for negotiation ASAP
  • Between Enemies: neither sides want to be initiator of negotiation because it shows desperation, weakness, and lack of choice
    • The other side interpret it as weakness and will make many demands → failed negotiation
    • Increase Bargaining Power: by delaying
• Why is it still hard to choose a mutually convenient date for the start of a negotiation?
  • Overlapping meeting schedule: many parties make scheduling very challenging
• What dates should be chosen and should be avoided? Why?
  • Unfavorable or inappropriate: meetings on special occasions, national holidays is not acceptable

References §

1. C02-DTAP-Diplomacy theory and practice By Geoff Berridge