THE DALAI LAMA CHINA TALKS-UPDATE
Posted by Site Staff on Friday May 9, 2008
Anita Chang of the Associated Press on May 2,008 reports:
Talks were to begin on May 4, 2008 between The Dalai Lama and China regarding the violence occurring in the Tibetan region. The spiritual leader’s envoys are to meet with China’s United work Front Department; this body is directly under the Communist Parties Central Committee and deals with issues in Tibet and “containing separatist forces”
What is of great interest here is that immediately prior to the talks China once again began an attack on the Dalai Lama through its’ newspapers thus attempting to sway the public on who is the bad guy. This is a classic example of a style of negotiation seen in this region of the world. While preparing to talk with your adversary continue to verbally attack.
China’s problem here is the Olympic Games scheduled to begin soon. Generally the reason for this style of talking is to gain small concessions as the talk or negotiation continues with China doing nothing or giving smaller concessions. Talks of this nature occurred in the Korean skirmish and the Viet Nam peace negotiations. Eastern countries and mid-east countries rely on the fact that they are not in a hurry and have time to wait while Western countries are more apt to want things accomplished in a relative hurry.
The Chinese maintain the Dalai Lama has caused the violence and that he wants to remove Tibet from their control. The Dalai Lame disputes this and states that he wants violence to stop and is seeking meaningful autonomy for Tibet not independence. These talks are on an informal basis at this time. In 2006 more formal talks were held to no avail The Chinese claim the violence has been caused by the Dalai Lama’s clique and inner circle.
A difficult barrier to cross is the problem regarding whether formal talks should be held only if the violence stops and not before. It would be great if both sides could agree upon a mediator or negotiator such as Jimmy Carter or George Mitchell, but the parties are entrenched in not simply a dispute but a dispute involving religion, politics, power, and (Way of life in China). The Communist Party in China sees a geographic area bordered on China attempting to secede and declare independence from the Party. The Dalai Lama on the other hand takes the position of wanting not only a meaningful autonomy but also nationalism.
Even the Tibetan government in exile also feels the violence in Tibet may be too great for formal talks at this time Let us all hope that men of good will on both sides move toward resolving this
dispute and escalation, if any, is managed.
The newsletter believes that if the method of total inclusion and possibly shuttle diplomacy would be applied to this dispute their would be progress. This will take both sides to cooperate and someone of great world stature to step in.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR READERSHIP. PLEASE CONTACT US WITH SUGGESTIONS OR CRITICISMS. WE ENDEAVOR TO MAKE THIS NEWSLETTER AS GOOD FOR THE READERS AS IT IS FOR THE STAFF. CONTINUE TO READ THE NEWSLETTER FOR SUPPLEMENTS AND THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER. THE JUNE, 2008 ISSUE WILL CONTINUE THE NEGOTIATION DISCUSSION AND BEGIN EXPLORING POWER. THE STAFF WILL KEEP YOU APPRISED OF NEWS OR CHANGES IN THE TIBET/CHINA DISPUTE.
Volume 1 • Issue 04 - NEGOTIATION(S)
Posted by Site Staff on Saturday May 3, 2008
At it’s lowest terms negotiation(s) is talk (communication) between two or more parties attempting to resolve their problem, conflict or dispute. This occurs at corporate and international levels also.
The subject of negotiation an Alternative Dispute Resolution method (modality) is large entailing different styles, theories, procedures, tactics and abilities.
There are those who state that this method is about give and take; this newsletter’s opinion is it is more than give and take. Adjusting and re-adjusting one’s position is a big part. Concentrating on interests and needs not positions is important. It is good to place oneself into the other’s shoes to enable better understanding of the situation. Separating people from the problem is an important strategy.
The Principled Negotiation method, Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Fisher, Ury and Patton, 1983, Houghton Mifflin Co. is an excellent way to conduct negotiation in
an integrative style. The soft cover is inexpensive and is a quick read teaching tactics and styles. This book is worth its weight in gold and will open your eyes to significant negotiation methods.
Emotions play a large role in negotiating. Positive emotions lead to cooperation, better understanding and creativity. Negative emotions cause difficulty. One must be careful, however, that
positive emotions are not carried too far; positive is good as long as the parties stay in the here and now without overkill. Effects of emotion can well play a role in the outcome and results of the
negotiation. Anger is a problem, distorting one’s judgment and thinking. Making decisions in anger will more than likely cause negative and poor results. This is also true of the negotiator (if one is used). An angry negotiator will cause restriction in the process, skewing results. In anger people attempt to dominate, use power tactics and not focus on interest or needs. This all leads to a poor
session.
In negotiations specific tactics, methods and styles have gained some notoriety:
- CHERRY PICKING- utilizing examples favorable to one’s position while excluding (ignoring) other results or positions.
- BATNA- (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), Fisher, Ury and Patton, Getting To Yes. Always be ready with plan B. If you have to walk away then have another plan to protect your position that you can go to.
- FRAMING- defining a problem and what it is. Aspects of a problem, dispute, conflict viewed as important while others are looked at as not important. How one perceives a problem or situation.
- Refraning- redefining one’s view or outlook on a problem. Looking at a situation in a different way.
- HARD BARGAINING- refers to adversarial, competitive methods and styles. This is different then Principle Negotiation.
- RIPENESS- a dispute/conflict is “ripe” for resolution/settlement when the parties reach a stalemate. Parties seeing that all options will not get what (even at the least) they need. At this point parties will likely be ready to negotiate, gain or obtain at the least part or some of their interests or needs.
- GRIT- (gradual reduction in tension) coined by Charles Osgood. This refers to gradual de-escalation where a party makes a small concession in the hope that the other party will do the same. If refused the concessioning party should try again. These concessions do not have to be big ones or significant.
- SOFT BARGAINING- cooperative, conciliatory, focusing on reaching an agreement without destroying a relationship or “burning bridges”.
- GAME THEORY-assists in a possibly destructive relationship by framing, managing or transforming allowing certain benefits; most discuss the arms race (deterrence) when speaking of this process, but it applies in all forms (methods) of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
- WIN/WIN-where all parties walk away from the negotiating table with (if not all) of what their interests or needs called for then at least enough to satisfy; this is accomplished through concessions, compromise and the negotiation process.
- WIN/LOSE-When one party wins everything they needed to satisfaction and the other party does not. This can be accomplished through Principled Negotiation, hard bargaining or soft bargaining. In reality, however, this newsletter’s opinion is that Principle Negotiation, hard bargaining and having a BATNA are the best methods to protect one’s position interests and needs. Negotiation involves procedure (process), behavior and substance (content). During the negotiation process all three of these Areas (process, behavior and content) must be satisfied.
- ZERO-SUM GAME-the win/lose approach is the same; someone has to lose When there is only so much to go around (finite) no side can get all they need and resolution can only be brought about through compromise or concession if this does not occur and there is stalemate, then, as discussed escalation may well take place, which can grow to conflict or be resolved through some form of concessions by both or one party.
PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION
Fisher, Ury and Patton in their publication, Getting To Yes, developed numerous strategies and tactics to enable a successful negotiation. They are:
- SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM-.aim at dealing and focusing on needs and interests not the parties.
- OBJECTIVE CRITERIA-insist on standards such as comparative prices in the market or industry. Do not accept anything that is thrown out by another party as correct. Comparable in the real estate market is important in negotiating on a home. Knowing your market or pricing area is important. Do some scouting around so you know the values in your interests or needs before entering negotiation. Going in without some knowledge of what is going on in the area of your needs or interests is not wise and leaves you open to being taken advantage of.
- GOING TO THE BALCONY-stepping back, get yourself together and focus on looking at the problem objectively. Work hard on channeling thoughts away from the session as though you are on a balcony above the stage taking in all that is going on. Step back from your emotions as much as possible, think clearly and consider all options having your BATNA available.
- STAY CALM DO NOT COUNTERATTACK OR REACT TO OTHER’S ATTACKS-stay with the problem at hand, avoid personal problems of the other and totally focus on solutions to the problem. Always consider alternate solutions.
- BATNA-best alternative to a negotiated agreement; have it ready to use if necessary. There are those who believe Principled Negotiation is not adequate in an intractable dispute or conflict and that other methods must be employed. It is this newsletter’s opinion utilizing strategies in Getting To Yes is important to gain a foundation in the process and then should other strategies or methods be required use them. A party can gain a strategically, good position by implementing the five tactics above.
NEGOTIATOR
The parties may decide to use the services of a third party (negotiator) to assist in the process. This is fine and along the lines of an arbitrator or mediator. Choosing a negotiator and paying for it is no different then in mediation.
Being cautious about who is chosen is important. This newsletter’s opinion is that word of mouth is the best way to find competent professionals. Even with a quality negotiator it is important to ask about style and experience in the area of the problem / dispute / conflict
CAVEAT—If you are a world traveler doing business or simply negotiating for yourself know the following: Not all cultures or societies bargain by looking at need/ interests. Some are more concerned with relationships, saving face, repairing damaged relationships or enhancing them. In some cultures/societies emotions are important and interests or needs take a back seat. The State of Hawaii still adheres to emotions and relationships as being of importance. Should you be in an Asian or island community and you require mediation or negotiation you had better thoroughly check to find out the customs with regard to emotions, needs or interests. It may behoove one to check this issue out prior to making the trip.
Forewarned Is forearmed.
WHAT TO AVOID
Stay away from the following:
- Emotion, in particular anger
- Mediator or negotiator style which does not fit your needs
- Destroying a relationship (burning bridges)
- Polarization; avoid refusal to consider ideas, options or new thoughts—avoid being positional
- Allowing others to sway your thinking.
- Mediator/negotiator muscling; do not allow this to occur (speak up)
- Power moves; leverage in bad faith
- Thinking about one’s needs, interests without considering the others
- Not focusing on the process you one is involved in; stay in the now
- Conflicts of interest; mediator, negotiator or arbitrator’s Prior involvement with other parties or oneself
THANK YOU FOR READING THE MAY 2008 ISSUE OF escape litigation.com. THE NEXT ISSUE (June, 2008) WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON NEGOTIATION AND BEGIN TO EXPLORE THE IMPORTANT AREA OF POWER. CONTINUE TO CHECK THIS WEBSITE FOR WEEKLY, DAILY SUPPLEMENTS AS IMPORTANT GERMAINE NEWS OR INFORMATION IS DISCLOSED.
PLEASE FORWARD THROUGH OUR EMAIL IDEAS, QUESTIONS OR INQUIRIES AND SUGGESTIONS. CRITICISM IS WELCOME.
THE DALAI LAMA AND CHINA: DISPUTE / CONFLICT RESOLUTION OR JUST TALK?
Posted by Site Staff on Saturday April 26, 2008
Ashwini Bhatia of the Associated Press reports today that China offered to meet with the Dalai Lama’s envoy to discuss issues between Tibet and itself regarding Tibetian independence and recent violence in that region of the world.
The Dalia Lama stated, ”we need to have serious talks about how to reduce the Tibetan resentment within Tibet”. The spiritual leader commented, ”but just mere meeting with some of my men in order to show the world that they are having dialogue, then it is meaningless”.
China then for some odd reason commenced verbal attacks on the Dalai Lama. It is believed by many that China’s latest offer involves positioning itself for the coming Beijing Olympic Games.
This newsletter’s point for the supplement is that good faith and earnest reasons for requesting Lama/China talks are of the utmost importance. If China is simply placing itself in a position of trying to look good by feigning a serious interest in resolution of the
present dispute which could escalate into a conflict then that is not good.
Let us all hope that, in fact, China’s representatives do in good faith meet with the Dalai’s Lama’s envoy to begin communications which lead to furthering peace.
THANK YOU FOR READING THIS LATEST SUPPLEMENT. THE NEWSLETTER WILL POST IMPORTANT MATTERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WITH REGARD TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MATTERS. PLEASE READ THE UPCOMING MAY, 2008 NEWSLETTER.
CONFLICT PROVENTION, HUMAN NEEDS and CONFLICT/DISPUTE
Posted by Site Staff on Thursday April 24, 2008
The newsletter presents this supplement to readers so they may obtain a greater understanding of disputes and conflicts increasing knowledge to further analyze and understand these processes and empower the ability to avoid litigation. Abraham Maslow, psychologist developed a Hierarchy of Basic Human Needs explaining in terms of survival not only what they are but also placing them in order of importance and development. A Theory of Human Motivation by A.H. Maslow, 1943 originally published in
Psychological Review, 50,370-396.
The positions of Abraham Maslow and John Burton, “Conflict-Dispute Distinction” In Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York St. Martins Press, Inc. July, 1990 are that matters, which are intractable such as basic human needs, cannot be resolved through traditional Alternative Dispute methods requiring greater effort and levels of organization utilizing all available methods with the inclusion of all stakeholders. Disputes on the other hand are issues, which can be resolved through traditional Alternative Dispute Methods.
Maslow describes in a triangular hierarchy physiological needs and psychological needs. Food, water and shelter being physiological followed by the need for safety and security, love/belonging. Self-esteem and finally personal fulfillment through self-actualization. John Burton would add freedom, cultural security, participation and distributive justice. One theory regarding protracted or intractable conflict is unmet needs are critical and fundamental. Problem-solving workshops, facilitation or focus groups maintaining concentration on unmet needs can assist in moving toward some form of resolution. Underlying causes however must be sought out and dealt with.
One might ask, “what does this have to do with Alternative Dispute Resolution? The answer is disputes can generally be resolved through traditional Alternative Dispute Resolution methods,
whereas conflicts are involved with unmet human needs such as food, water, territorial security, personal security, self actualization, self esteem and wellbeing; national security fears result in conflicts. It is important to recognize these differences in order to differentiate. Recognition of these differences will enable persons to better understand disputes and conflicts furthering abilities to manage or resolve same.
Former President Jimmy Carter in the Camp David Accords-Conciliation, Shuttle Diplomacy, escape litigation, February 17,2008 supplement chose to keep the principle parties separated
while shuttling messages and negotiations back and forth. John Burton in Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York St. Martin’s Press, 1990 uses the term “conflict provention” to describe conflict prevention through looking at assumptions made in unmet basic human needs enabling analysis of the underlying causes of a conflict. By dealing with underlying causes and resolving them Burton believes conflict (provention) prevention can occur not only for the present but the future.
When involved in arguments or disagreements find the underlying causes not symptoms and move to reconcile them.
THANK YOU FOR READING THIS SUPPLEMENT AND FOR YOUR ONGOING PATRONAGE. COME BACK AND READ THE MAY, 2008 NEWSLETTER ISSUE. WE WILL BEGIN WITH NEGOTIATIONS.
CONFLICTS / DISPUTES
Posted by Site Staff on Monday April 21, 2008
There are distinctions between conflicts and disputes. Many use both words interchangeably. This is not correct.
We begin with what is known as a dyad at the smallest level; a disagreement between two parties. A labor dispute would likely be differences of opinion between employers and employees and/or the union over wages, benefits or management.
To differentiate these terms one can look at Word Wars I and II. These wars involved many countries throughout the civilized world and were conflicts. “On the other hand” as Tevia would Say (of Fiddler on the Roof fame) the Korean War in the early 1950’s was a dispute involving fewer countries and fought over a geographic line of demarcation (38th parallel) not an entire way of life or the preservation of an entire existence of a people. Conflicts are grander in scale requiring more facilities, usage of numerous Alternative Dispute Resolution modalities and techniques.
India and Pakistan are involved presently in a dispute; should this dispute escalate it may well become a conflict. Escalating disputes if not properly managed can certainly become Conflicts.
Former Senator George Mitchell’s experience in Ireland, escape litigation.com newsletter supplement, March 2008,vol.#1,issue# 2 involved a dispute between Protestants and Catholics. This was not a conflict in the newsletter’s opinion or in the sense of John Burton. John Burton, “Conflict Resolution as a political Philosophy” in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. ed, Dennis J.D. Sandole and Hugo Van Der Merwe, Manchester University Press, 1993,Pp55-64 which distinguishes between dispute settlement and conflict resolution revolving around deprivation of basic human needs, interests and rights which are not negotiable.
Disputes involve resolution of disagreements where there are alternatives and options. With conflict this is not the case. There are questions that remain such as Darfor, Korea, the Balkans. A dispute, which could become a conflict at any moment, is that of the Israeli, Palestinian problem. Unfortunately throughout the world today there are numerous disputes which unattended, could become conflicts.
If one uses the standard of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, United Nations Charter then one could argue that some of these disputes as above are in fact conflicts;
Since there are many signatories to this bill, numerous countries are obligated to intervene with escalation a possible factor.
The importance of this supplemental discussion is that disputes and conflicts are generally handled differently. A dispute between two people or factions can be mediated or arbitrated to it’s finality. Conflicts on the other hand involve numerous different levels of Alternative Dispute Resolution modalities and techniques at the same time with all the stakeholders. This involves not only inclusion but also a more sophisticated organizational plan, which will likely involve tiers of mediators, arbitrators and negotiators to enable the stakeholders to find common ground.
THANK YOU FOR READING THIS SUPPLEMENT.IT IS A PLEASURE TO SERVE YOU. OUR STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO POST INTERESTING AND VALUABLE NEWSLETTERS AND SUPPLEMENTS.BE ON THE WATCH FOR MAY’S NEWSLETTER WHERE WE WILL BEGIN THE DISCUSSION ON NEGOTIATIONS.THIS WILL NOT MEAN THE END OF DISCUSSIONS ON ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION.THE STAFF WILL ENDEAVOR TO POST IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING INFORMATION CONTINUOUSLY ON ALL SUBJECTS.
