JAN MEL POLLER: NEGOTIATIONS
Many years ago, Science News or Scientific American had an article on negotiation strategies. Their conclusion was that the best strategy was “Tit-For-Tat”. If your negotiating partner is cooperative, then be cooperative. If not, pay back the same way. Many business courses also support this view.
Negotiations include actions as well as words. Actions can be used to apply pressure, to show friendliness or convince the other party to negotiate. There are three area of negotiations and concern today: Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Iranian negotiations and American financial policy.
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
The history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is one of failure to reach a successful agreement. Many of these negotiations were made under pressure of the United States. A common thread on both sides was the failure to have the citizens agreed to the deals being made. No sooner had Arafat made an agreement to make peace with Israel then he started the Intifada that killed over 1,000 Israelis.
Israel, in an attempt to have peace with the Palestinians, show good faith, under pressure from the United States withdrew from Gaza, removing all soldiers and settlers. In return, the Palestinians of Gaza launched an incessant rocket attack, launching about 12,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel. Rockets were launched into Israel from Lebanon. So were terrorists.
The response to good faith efforts to induce the Palestinians to make peace was a 100% failure. What did work was Tit-For-Tat. Going to war against Lebanon, no matter how badly executed, did enough damage that the attacks pretty much stopped. After the 12,000 rockets from Gaza, Israel launched an offense. Palestinians died. Facilities and infrastructure were ruined. The rocket attacks from Gaza pretty much stopped.
In both those cases, words did not work. Both Gaza and Lebanon had been warned that if the attacks from their soil didn’t stop they would be subject to military action;.
Today, Israel is under immense pressure from the United State, the EU and other places to make concessions to restart the “Peace Process”, to induce the Palestinians to talk to the Israelis after refusing to do so for years. The Palestinians are not subject to this pressure by the United States or the EU. Past results have no bearing on what is being done now. The American Administration, like so many people, think that if Israel just gives enough, the Palestinians will make peace and peace will ring throughout the world. The Israelis were asked to release about 100 terrorists, including killers, to the Palestinian Authority. Reluctantly Israel agreed and announced that they would release them in three groups. The first group was released. The result: more terrorist attacks and more dead Israelis.
Following Tit-For-Tat strategy, what should Israel do? I have some straightforward, simple ideas:
1. Cancel, not suspend, the release of terrorists.
2. Cancel all talks until the terrorism is stopped
3. Resume talks only after the Palestinians agree to recognize a Jewish Israel.
The Palestinians have to make a concession and the latter point is a basic concession. If they won’t do that, there is no point in pretending that there are negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.
Iran and Nuclear Weapons
Iran has an unbroken history of gaining time with deceptive negotiations. The past Iranian negotiator, Rouhani, proudly tells people that while negotiating about Iran’s nuclear program he was deceiving the world.The American response has been to try and get them to negotiate. Apparently, the Administration has made concessions to Iran in an attempt to induce them to talk:
1. They can keep their enrichment facilities
2. They can continue to enrich uranium to 20% fissile level
3. They do not have to sip enriched uranium to another country
This lets them pretend to have meaningful discussions while they proceed to make nuclear weapons.
Instead, the Administration should be increasing sanctions and military threats until Iran accepts terms that negate the concessions.
What we do not know is the motivation behind the administration. It can be naiveté. It can be a desire to see a nuclear armed Iran.
Negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans on Fiscal Policy
Here we have the most uncooperative negotiations possible. President Obama and Speaker of the Senate Reid have taken a consistent stand of “No Negotiation”. They have taken steps to make people aware of it like closing memorials and scenic overlooks where it costs more to close than keep open.
Only some Republicans are willing to use a Tit-For-Tat strategy. Most want to go for a “pretty please” strategy in the belief that giving President Obama everything he wants will result in Obama making concessions and the public will like them more.
As we have seen, giving inducements to make people negotiate, to yield hard-liner positions does not work. It gives them victory. Victory gives them incentives to do a “No Negotiation” strategy on every point of contention.
The Republicans could have given a Tit-For-Tat:
1. Announce to the Democrats and the country that when the Democrats are ready to negotiate, they are too.
2. Nullify all concessions and inducements to negotiate to date.
3. Ask the Democrats who made the decision to shut the government rather than negotiate
Of course, the Republicans did not do that.
Conclusion
We need people who know how and are willing to negotiate. When our negotiators are willing to make concessions and get nothing in return except words without action, they will lose. They are losing.
Comments are closed.
