Recent negotiation in Alaska between the American and Russian Presidents has as we all know been dominating the news. We are not privy to what exactly was or was not achieved, but it seems it may have been more of a general sounding out of what might be achievable than a fruitfully negotiated outcome as far as world peace is concerned. Donald Trump is perhaps nevertheless to be commended for opening a channel of communication. (The ‘jaw jaw’ and not ‘war war’ adage).
What this ‘summit’ in Alaska has brought into focus is that, regardless of whether parties are negotiating a house purchase, a business deal or indeed international affairs and world peace, the negotiation process requires a good deal of prior preparation to maximise what can be achieved. For instance did the two presidents and their teams carefully conduct prior planning to determine:
-
- the exact agenda;
-
- clear objectives (something the Russian delegation were arguably clearer on);
-
- what is really driving the position and attitudes of the Russian delegation (i.e. ‘going below the line’)?
To negotiate a settlement also of course requires the involvement of everyone authorised to agree settlement terms. Due to the very nature of this dispute however there can be said to be some method to the apparent madness of not having had both parties present in Alaska but rather ‘at arms length’ for now. At least until more tangible proposals emerge which could conceivably be in a zone of settlement for hopefully ending the conflict.
Mr Trump has rather placed himself in the role of a ‘neutral’, with the Ukrainian President due to meet the American President in the White House on Monday August. It also needs to be kept in mind that for any resolution to be workable it will require the involvement of everyone needed to facilitate the settlement agreement. So it is gratifying to see this has also been factored in to this current attempt to achieve peace, European leaders also being scheduled to meet in Washington on Monday 18 August.
Success is likely to require that the focus is on seeking to meet underlying interests rather than on who’s ‘right and wrong’. This will necessitate a future focussed approach involving creativity, with careful regard to all parties’ needs and concerns, for a settlement to be effectively crafted for mutual benefit. (A moment’s pause to contemplate how a ‘win-win’ outcome can be achieved in these circumstances and one can appreciate the degree of creativity going to be needed here).
Another crucial consideration is that any agreement has to be achievable and durable over the long-term to be truly worthwhile. Otherwise, as seen for precedents throughout history, the risk remains that any settlement may only be planting the seed for further trouble for future generations.
Recent negotiation in Alaska between the American and Russian Presidents has as we all know been dominating the news. We are not privy to what exactly was or was not achieved, but it seems it may have been more of a general sounding out of what might be achievable than a fruitfully negotiated outcome as far as world peace is concerned. Donald Trump is perhaps nevertheless to be commended for opening a channel of communication. (The ‘jaw jaw’ and not ‘war war’ adage).
What this ‘summit’ in Alaska has brought into focus is that, regardless of whether parties are negotiating a house purchase, a business deal or indeed international affairs and world peace, the negotiation process requires a good deal of prior preparation to maximise what can be achieved. For instance did the two presidents and their teams carefully conduct prior planning to determine:
- the exact agenda;
- clear objectives (something the Russian delegation were arguably clearer on);
- what is really driving the position and attitudes of the Russian delegation (i.e. ‘going below the line’)?
To negotiate a settlement also of course requires the involvement of everyone authorised to agree settlement terms. In that sense Mr Trump has rather placed himself in the role of a ‘neutral’, with the Ukrainian President due to meet the American President in the White House on Monday 18th August.
Due to the very nature of this dispute there can be said to be some method to the apparent madness of not having had both parties present in Alaska but rather ‘at arms length’ for now. At least until more tangible proposals emerge which could conceivably be in a zone of settlement for hopefully ending the conflict.
It also needs to be kept in mind that for any resolution to be workable it will require the involvement of everyone needed to facilitate the settlement agreement. So it is gratifying to see this has also been factored in to this current attempt to achieve peace, European leaders also being scheduled to meet in Washington on Monday 18 August.
Success is likely to require that the focus is on seeking to meet underlying interests rather than on who’s ‘right and wrong’. This will necessitate a future focussed approach involving creativity, with careful regard to all parties’ underlying interests, needs and concerns, for a settlement to be effectively crafted for mutual benefit.
Another crucial consideration is that any agreement has to be achievable and durable over the long-term to be truly worthwhile. Otherwise, as seen for precedents throughout history, the risk remains that any settlement may only be planting the seed for further trouble for future generations.
