Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("aims to explain in a open-minded, reasonable way how diplomacy works in practice") made some excellent points about diplomatic (and other) negotiations.
Money quote(s):
" Do the Chinese/Russians/N Koreans think that a key aim of negotiation is to 'reach agreement'?
Hell no. They want to WIN, or failing that win as much as possible. Negotiation and 'agreement' are simply possible methods to get there.
So is another outcome - negotiations crashing in failure - that shows steely resolve, as the Poles this very week have been keen to demonstrate within the EU.
In other words, very often a negotiation is not about what it says it is about. On the surface it is about EU Emissions Targets, or Global Climate Change, or new World Trade regimes. In substance it is more likely to be about who decides what, this time round and on into the future." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Sometimes I wonder if U.S. diplomacy suffers from an internal, systemic flaw our negotiations must result in some, er, result. That in some fashion our diplomat's next annual evaluation simply must include a successful treaty or something.
And that for our political leadership the motivation is even stronger to get some agreement, any agreement.
Just once I'd like to see a U.S. diplomat publicly receive an award, a medal even, for refusing to settle for a bad deal.
"Most negotiations are all about one thing: who in fact is weaker?"
How one measures weakness doesn't matter at that point, the negotiation will settle who is the weaker negotiator.
"The whole point of Moscow's time-honoured diplomatic negotiating style is to project a sense of depersonalised inexorable doom for anyone or anything which gets in the way of whatever Moscow currently wants.
This can be countered, of course, by hanging in there very tough: some of it is bluff, and Russian diplomacy can be as inept as everyone else's. But the very fact that the Russians set about their business in this way helps frame issues and likely outcomes on their terms and projects toughness/determination. A handy way to start." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)
Again, sometimes you need to walk away from the table in order to win.
"(T)he reason why Carrots and Sticks work (or don't) in diplomacy has little to do with their 'objective' size and plausibility.
It's all much more 'subjective'. It's about how the person with the carrots/stick is seen by the supposed target, and even more about how both the carrot-sticker and the target perceive themselves and what they believe the other one believes about the problem, the balance of forces and how this situation plays into other situations."
See above: negotiations will hinge on who is the better negotiator. (And I make no great shakes about being much of a negotiator myself.) Of course, holding a strong hand makes up for a lot.
