THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS: PRELIMINARIES

Bargaining over contentious issues may begin through a series of signals by the parties to the effect that they wish to enter into formal discussions. As the long history of "peace feelers" during the Vietnam conflict reveals, it may take a great deal of time, and military successes or failures, before both sides are convinced that formal bargaining is a better (or supplementary) means of pursu­ing objectives. But even once the parties have agreed to enter into negotiations, a number of preliminary points have to be resolved before any substantive discus­sion can take place.

Table 7-1 lists some of the preliminary issues involved in the negotiating process. уТЪе location of the talks is usually dealt with first] If the negotiations are between adversaries, then the customary rule during the past two decades /has been to select the city of a "neutral" state] Geneva has been the most popular location for multilateral conferences involving cold-war issues and disar­mament, and Vienna and Helsinki have been used to discuss limitations on strategic armaments, troop reductions in Europe, and overall European security.¹ If, on the other hand,(the negotiations are between states that normally maintain friendly relations, they will usually take place in the capital of one of the parties].

The parties to be represented at the negotiations often raise problems. The usual criterion is, Who is involved in an issue area? Those who have some stake in the outcome are normally invited. But often there is the problem of parties with no formal diplomatic status. The early stages of the Paris negotiations

¹² There were, however, secret negotiations between the North Vietnamese and Henry Kissinger in 1970-1972, which, though often meaningless, eventually became crucial once the North Vietnamese, partly abandoned by the Russians and Chinese, decided they could not achieve their objectives on the battlefield.

Table 7-1Formal Negotiating Process

177 The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

over Vietnam, starting in 1968, involved lengthy discussions about whether or not the Viet Cong could have representation separate from the delegation of North Vietnam. This complicated question then brought up a related issue: What should be the shape of the table around which discussions would take place? Negotiations about this problem went on for several weeks, until eventu­ally the United States accepted the Viet Cong as a distinct party to the negotia­tions. Finally/agreements have to be made on the problems of translation, publication of documents, the role of advisors, and, most important, whether or not the meetings will be open to the pressf

ЛМ1 these matters may occupy a great deal of time/ The average person may not be impressed with all the quibbling that goes on over matters that appear trivial .^But many of these preliminaries are seen by the delegations or governments as reflecting upon questions of fundamental importance, including their bargaining strength and prestige. The implications of each minor proce­dural decision may be great^>For example, the United States delegation initially opposed the seating of the Viet Cong as a separate party in the Paris discussions. It had to adopt this position because in previous public statements the American government had taken the position that the Viet Cong were organized and directed by Hanoi. To agree to the seating of the Viet Cong separately implied that the American view of the situation in Vietnam had been incorrect and that the Viet Cong did indeed represent a political movement indigenous to the Republic of Vietnam, quite separate from the government and Communist party of North Vietnam.

Before discussing the various ploys used in the substantive bargaining, we should point out that a number of conditions, or the "setting," surrounding the process may vitally affect the outcome. These are listed in Table 7-1. The first critical question to ask is, Are the meetings to be open or closed to the press? For reasons to be examined below, we could predict that if they are open, they will contain much propaganda, that the discussions will be prolonged, and that much of the rhetoric will be designed to impress the "folks at home," not the delegations sitting on the other side of the table. Are the meetings between two parties, or more? Is the situation perceived as critical by all the parties?Qf so, we could expect discussions to last only a short time. Closely related is the time that is perceived as available^. If the parties see the situation as running out of hand, requiring some solution, then there will be great pressure to focus on immediate issues and reduce the amount of careful probing of intentions and evaluation of each of the opponent's statements. (There may be a feeling that any solution is better than letting "events take their course" or permitting oneself the luxury of time to think matters overj¹³

¹³ Hitler often tried to create an atmosphere of crisis when he confronted foreign diplomats. In discussions with Chamberlain, Daladier, and others on the Czech issue, he made it clear that if some solution were not devised quickly, the Reichswehr would march. The unfortunate diplomats always negotiated in an atmosphere of crisis and in a time setting that Hitler had manufactured. The outcomes of these negotiations might have differed if the foreign diplomats, not Hitler, had defined this important part of the setting.

178 The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

і Finally, the negotiations may be expected to take on particular character-

' istics if at least one of the parties plays the role of an official or unofficial mediator. Mediation will be discussed in Chapter 15; suffice it to say here that the bargaining process becomes more complicated, but favorable solutions are more likely if one party can propose sets of alternatives different from those put forth by the main protagonists or can make certain that communication between the adversaries does not break down.

Поиск по сайту: