 |
VIEW
THIS PAPER
in its published format
- 95 KB, pdf format
Negotiating
in the Balkans: The Prenegotiation Perspective
Dr.
Plamen Pantev
Director of the Institute for Security and International
Studies (ISIS)
Sofia, 1618 Sofia, P. O. Box 231, Bulgaria
tel/fax: (+359-2) 55 18 28
isis@cserv.mgu.bg
ABSTRACT
The issues, the activities
and the relations preceding the formal international negotiations
have increasingly become an area of a special theoretical
interest. The prenegotiation or the prenegotiation phase
is part of the broader issue of the dynamic interactive
process of international negotiations. The Southeast European
region or the Balkans, in particular its people and political
leaders, could utilize much of the conceptual experience
of prenegotiating in coping with the multitude of major
and minor real and potential conflicts and other issues.
Prenegotiations provide an opportunity to approach and
be involved in managing significant issues, including
conflicts, without taking the risk of formal commitments,
as well as facilitating the very negotiations in areas
as determining the participants, the agenda, etc. A basic
benefit from prenegotiations by all parties is the possibility
to understand better the specific mechanism of shaping
the partner's and the own party's commitment to negotiate.
Switching from the traditional bargaining model of negotiations
to the problem-solving model in the Balkans, utilizing
to the most the third-party capacity and the seminar and
workshop experience of dealing with particular issues
in an informal way are special accents in the prenegotiation
potential applied to Southeast European issues.
Introduction
The
complex, systemic interdependence of the national and
the regional levels of security in the Balkans and a similar
intensive relationship with the Euro Atlantic and the
global levels of security naturally make the conflicts
in the turbulent Southeastern Europe in the end of this
and at the dawn of the new century a special target of
conflict management interest. However, the 'magic clue'
to an effective conflict management and resolution in
the Balkans - hence, to the broader security in this region
of Europe is not just a short and concise political or
politico-military formula. It would not originate only
from the rich conflict realm of the Balkans and would
not just stem from the intensive interest of powerful
external to the region actors. Any longer-term conflict
resolution in the Balkans needs to address the roots and
the sources of the conflict-rich environment of the peninsula.
If, anyway, there ought to be a formula - it should be
a combination of a 'therapy' and 'region-building' approaches
to curing the actual conflicts and gradually draining
their sources by constructing a compatible European region
from the Balkans - prosperous and democratic enough, with
a modern economy and infrastructure to share equal responsibility
with the other parts of Europe (Pantev, 1998, pp. 240-259).
Negotiating
to prevent and manage conflicts in the Balkans, coping
with a vast array of post-conflict reconstruction and
reconciliation issues as well as channeling the region-building
activity in Southeastern Europe all necessitate an enhanced
international negotiation potential for all actors in
the area that need to be stimulated, educated and catalyzed.
The three different kinds of negotiating activity in the
Balkans have specific reflections on the prenegotiation
activity and theory and vice versa - an issue that further
needs to be scrutinized and thought over. The pace, the
contents and the direction of the negotiation process
is influenced by various factors: foreign-policy bureaucracy
in the individual negotiating countries, the personal
peculiarities of the very negotiators, the international-political
environment of the on-going negotiations and the different
pressures it creates for the negotiating parties, etc.
The system constituted by the interactive relationship
of the negotiating parties is certainly one of these factors
and all the prenegotiating activity before formal negotiations
have begun does matter in shaping and understanding the
actual negotiation process.
Though
an "encompassing" and "thorough" theory
of the processes of prenegotiation has not been formulated
yet there is no reason to refrain from using the achievements,
the propositions and the potential in general of this
vital precursor of practically all international negotiations
and apply them to the conflict-rich post-Cold War world.
The
research tasks of this article are the following:
First,
to sum up in short the existing opinions on the definitions,
stages and functions in the literature of this field and
share personal positions on these issues, stemming from
the literature in the field and from the analysis and
the conclusions of the various negotiation practices and
opportunities in Southeastern Europe.
Second,
to outline the theoretic areas within the discussed topics
which presently seem most urgent to be related to the
various issues of stability and belated modernization
and prosperity of the Balkan region. The need to solve
a multitude of individual issues in this part of Europe,
the broader and perspective task of knitting together
the fabric of the subregional security community call
for improved international negotiation processes, including
prenegotiations.
Third,
to add to the continuing theoretic discussion about prenegotiations
the argument, derived from the specific regional interrelationships
that during the prenegotiations the bargaining approach
to the negotiations should necessarily give way to the
problem-solving one. No matter how 'unrealistic' it may
seem for some local politicians or for some external to
the region powers, the 'tit-for-tat' approach of resolving
conflicts would require decades before evolution does
its job. The high complexity of the bargaining situations
in the troubled Balkan subregion of Europe, and the need
to overcome as soon as possible the retarded modernization,
calls for more imagination and creativity to change the
concept and contents of the functions, stages and the
expected outcomes of the ongoing or future negotiations.
Definitions
The
existing comparatively small literature about international
prenegotiation in the aspect of its definition may be
grouped into two major schools of thought.1
The first one conceives international negotiation as an
integral part of the international relations or a sub-field
of international politics. It emphasizes the prenegotiation
as an essential aspect of the context for negotiations
(Fisher, 1984, p. 56-57; Saunders, 1984, p. 47-56).
The
second one, seeking to develop international negotiation
theory, is by now divided into two contending views: a)
prenegotiation is an initial phase or stage in the process
of negotiation (Zartman & Berman, 1982, p. 81-86;
Zartman, 1989, p. 1-17); and, b) prenegotiation is a separate
process that structures the actual process of negotiation
(Stein, 1989, p. 8-43).
Harold
H. Saunders tries to link the issues of prenegotiation
and negotiation itself with the conduct of diplomacy and
foreign policy. The decisions made in the broader area
of diplomacy assume a direct meaning for the negotiations
and he tries to revert to the period before a decision
to negotiate is made. According to him prenegotiation
is a process, consisting of three phases: 1) defining
the problem; 2) commitment to negotiate and, 3) arranging
the negotiation. A fourth phase follows - negotiation
itself (Saunders, 1984, p. 51-56).
I.
William Zartman, a leading scholar in the study of international
negotiations, gives the following two definitions of prenegotiation:
"Prenegotiation begins when one or more parties
considers negotiation as a policy option and communicates
this intention to other parties. It ends when the parties
agree to formal negotiations ... or when one party abandons
the consideration of negotiation as an option... In essential
terms, prenegotiation is the span of time and activity
in which the parties move from conflicting unilateral
solutions for a mutual problem to a joint search for cooperative
multilateral or joint solutions" (Zartman, 1989,
p. 4). In an earlier study of the negotiation process
I. William Zartman and Maureen Berman identify prenegotiation
with what they call the 'diagnostic phase of negotiations'
(Zartman & Berman, 1982, Chapter 3).
Janice
Gross Stein considers prenegotiation a separate process,
different from the actual negotiation process, though
the former decisively structures the latter. Her conclusion
about the definition of the process of prenegotiation,
derived from five comprehensive case studies, is that
it "was generally characterized by important structuring
activity. It set broad boundaries, identified the participants,
and, in at least half the cases, specified the agenda
for negotiation. Even in those cases where it produced
only a rough outline of the agenda, it nevertheless reduced
uncertainty and complexity by establishing what would
be kept off the table. In every case, prenegotiation framed
the problem and set the limits of the negotiation to follow"
(Stein, 1989, p. 257).
Brian
W. Tomlin conceives prenegotiation as "that period
in relations when negotiation is considered, and perhaps
adopted, as a behavioral option by some or all of the
parties... The prenegotiation phase itself is also a process
marked by turning points that move the parties through
various stages of prenegotiation..." (Tomlin,
1989, p. 21). A five-stage model of prenegotiation is
most characteristic of Brian Tomlin's view, starting with
the decision of whether or not to negotiate: 1) problem
identification; 2) search for options; 3) commitment to
negotiate; 4) agreement to negotiate; and 5) setting the
parameters (Tomlin, 1989, p. 22-26).
Another
devoted student of prenegotiations - Jay Rothman, does
not clearly join any of the two different opinions within
the international negotiation theory. Building on existing
temporal, functional, psychological, strategic, process
and experimental derived definitions, he develops an 'integrated
definition' of prenegotiation: "... an integrated
process in which highly placed representatives of parties
in conflict prepare for negotiations by jointly framing
their issues of conflict, generating various options for
handling them cooperatively, and interactively structuring
substance and process of future negotiations"
(Rothman, 1990, p. 4).
A
leading expert of international negotiations - P. Terrence
Hopmann, when studying the issue of prenegotiations does
not formulate a particular definition. However, he highlights
three aspects of the prenegotiation characteristics that
matter significantly for the negotiation phase: 1) the
influence on the prenegotiation phase by the tension between
integrative and distributive approach to negotiations;
2) the opportunity to utilize the prenegotiation phase
for learning and better understanding the needs and interests
related by the negotiating parties to the problem to be
negotiated; 3) whichever doctrinal perspective is taken,
the prenegotiation phase is of real interest because of
the impact that it has on the bargaining process of the
subsequent negotiation (Hopmann, 1996, p. 174-180).
Raymond
Cohen underlines a wrong approach to defining prenegotiations
- the inclination to include everything in the evolution
of a relationship as part of the prenegotiation phase.
The consequences of this approach are the loss of the
analytical focus of the prenegotiation concept. The proposal
of R. Cohen about the definition of prenegotiation is
"the preliminary contacts, direct or indirect,
initiated to prepare for a negotiation that the parties
have already agreed to undertake" (Cohen, 1995,
p. 50). The three accents of this definition are: 1) the
agreement to seek a negotiated solution to an existing
problem; 2) the establishment of a personal relationship;
and 3) the activity to prevent surprises in the course
of the negotiations.
There are no proofs by now that the difference of views
transcend the academic debate and reflect decisively on
the practical side of both international prenegotiations
and negotiations. A further study of the various definitions
and the formulation of a comprehensive one may eventually
lead to more substantial conclusions about the practical
utility of prenegotiations.
Here
we wish to add two points which we consider of
key importance for the practicality of the prenegotiation
theory: first, prenegotiations may not be burdened
with the expectation that the participating parties should
switch from an informal interaction to a formal agreement
to commit to a negotiated solution of a mutual problem.
Perceiving prenegotiations rather as a learning process
that should be utilized to the maximum and trying to develop
a personal relationship increase the potential for a real
movement from conflicting unilateral approaches to joint
efforts to formulate cooperative multilateral solutions.
This 'looser' conception of the prenegotiations can also
be utilized to prevent surprises during the formal course
of the negotiations. Second, prenegotiations are of a
real practical meaning in case the parties share an integrative
or a problem-solving approach to negotiating a solution
of the mutual problem or take their time during the prenegotiations
to shift from a bargaining or a distributive treatment
of the disputed issue to a problem-solving or an integrative
one.
Identification
of the component characteristics and indication of the
functions of prenegotiations will also be useful to improve
the practicality of the prenegotiation theory.
Stages
The
different notions of when prenegotiation starts are reflected
on the definition of its stages. I. W. Zartman and M.
Berman identify the first phase of the negotiation process
as the 'diagnostic stage'. They admit the beginning moment
of the phase is not usually clear-cut. The diagnostic
phase lasts until the 'turning point of seriousness' when
each party has perceived the other to be serious about
finding a negotiated solution and the second or 'formal
phase' begins. They warn that phases tend to gray around
the edges (Zartman & Berman, 1989, p. 3). They also
admit: "what happens prior to prenegotiation is
related to negotiation too. But the initiation of the
prenegotiation process, by definition and by nature, begins
when one side considers the multilateral track as a possible
alternative to the unilateral track to solution in a conflict,
and it continues into the next phase when both parties
reach that conclusion" (Zartman and Berman, 1989,
p. 5).
Unlike
them, Harold Saunder's opening moment extends the period
prior to what Zartman and Berman consider the 'diagnostic
stage'. The first stage of the negotiation is 'defining
the problem' and it is linked by Saunders to the definition
of interests and objectives, i.e. to the issue of national
political decision-making. However, for the policy-maker
looking toward negotiating resolution of a conflict, according
to Saunders, the two are not separable. Unless and until
the parties share some common definition of the problem,
the incoming negotiations will certainly fail (Saunders,
1984, p. 51-52).
The
second stage of prenegotiation by Saunders is the 'commitment
to negotiate', i.e. reaching a commitment to a negotiated
settlement. Before beginning to negotiate, the parties
to an issue first have to come to the judgment that the
present situation no longer serves their interests. Simultaneously
they need to assess that the substance of a fair settlement
is available, it is manageable and if shaped - they could
live with it. Overcoming suspicion and accepting the balance
of forces in many cases takes place at this stage of prenegotiating
(Saunders, 1984, p. 54-55).
Once
parties have committed to negotiate, the third stage of
prenegotiations follows - 'arranging the negotiation'.
It has been widely treated in the literature. Its central
aim is to reach agreement on the objectives and procedures
for the negotiation. Doctrinal debates, agreement on terminology,
and details are involved in this phase, which may last
very long (Saunders, 1984, p. 56).
According
to Brian Tomlin the onset of the prenegotiation process
is marked by a turning point in their relations by adding
negotiation to the range of options being considered by
one or more of the parties involved. The first two stages
in his five-stage model precede the formal onset of the
process of prenegotiation. The first one is 'problem identification',
when at least one of the parties adds negotiation to the
array of options under consideration caused by a restructuring
of the values attached to alternative outcomes by one
or more of the parties in a relationship. In the second
stage, due to the 'search for options', one of the parties
chooses negotiation as the preferred option, at least
for the moment. This stage may be a protracted one. The
turning point here is the choice of negotiation. The third
stage of prenegotiation, 'the commitment to negotiate'
by one party, marks the shift from 'whether' to negotiate
to 'what' will be negotiated. Alternative negotiation
scenarios, reflecting varying degrees of scope for the
potential negotiation, and possible successive steps to
increasing commitment to a negotiated solution to the
policy problem are characteristic of this stage. Determining
the interests of various parties, including those of domestic
agencies and the details of the internal dynamics gives
way during this stage to a consideration of the interests
of the other parties to the potential negotiation. The
wish to begin defining the scope of the negotiation motivates
the shift of the attention of the parties. The turning
point of stage four - 'agreement to negotiate', is the
signaling of a communication of a desire to negotiate
by one party to the other(s). It is in this stage that
the parties must agree to pursue a negotiated solution
to the policy issue that divides them. The fifth stage,
the final one, of prenegotiation is 'setting the parameters'.
Although the parties may not reach agreement on all wished
parameters, their agreement to proceed with formal talks
means that the final stage simply merges into the first
stage of the negotiation process (Tomlin, 1989, p. 22-26).
Jay
Rothman derives a three-phase model of prenegotiation:
"(i) framing - the process by which
parties in conflict derive shared definition about conflict
parameters and build a will-to-negotiate; (ii)
inventing - the creation of cooperative strategies
for solving central aspects of the conflict as framed
to build a confidence-in-negotiation; and (iii) structuring
- based on insights from framing and inventing, parties
make joint decisions about the variables that must be
addressed in setting the table for formal negotiations
and build a momentum-of-negotiation" (Rothman,
June 1990, p. 5).
J.
G. Stein draws a conclusion that "sequencing of
stages in a process of prenegotiation needs further examination...
Definition of a problem, although not shared diagnoses,
and search for options constituted the first two phases
of the process of getting to the table. The placement
of the commitment to negotiate in the sequence is more
troublesome. The evidence suggests that when leaders consider
the process of negotiation a high-risk option, with potentially
large costs, the reduction of uncertainty will dominate
the process and order the phases" (Stein, 1989,
p. 251).
The
analysis of the prenegotiation process by using the stages
provides an opportunity to reconstruct the sequence of
decisions and interactions that lead two or more parties
to attempt to negotiate joint solutions on certain issues.
This serves the better organization of the formal negotiation
(Zartman, January 1988, p. 37; Druckman, June 1986, p.
327-360; Tomlin, 1989, p. 25-26).
Even
if this does not happen, certain stages have the potential
to bring parties closer to understanding each other and
at least improve the chances of getting to a commitment
to negotiate.
The
issue of the stages of prenegotiations assumes a particular
importance in the different kinds of Balkan prenegotiation
situations that need to lead to: a) coping with conflicts;
b) tackling post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation
developments; c) clearly constructive region-building
activities. This is an important issue that shows variation
also in terms of applying the bargaining or the problem-solving
approach.
Functions
Understanding
and improving the conduct of prenegotiations are closely
connected with the performed functions. I. W. Zartman
underlines the major focus of prenegotiation - the promotion
of a joint solution and a commitment to negotiate. J.
G. Stein considers such a focus the creation of structures
in which various kinds of activities can take place: bargaining
(integrative or distributive), concession/convergence,
etc. (Zartman, 1989, p. 6-14; Stein, 1989, p. 252-261).
The only function both I. W. Zartman and J. G. Stein thoroughly
agree on is the 'selection of participants' for the negotiation.
Otherwise they suggest different and practically significant
prenegotiation functions.
I.
W. Zartman points to the following:
(1)
Making the extent of the risk of undertaking negotiation
clearer, even lowering the risk. Thanks to the exchange
of information by the parties the 'unknown' is reduced,
the risks of wrong acts also decrease and there is knowledge
what to expect.
(2)
Assisting and coming to terms with the costs of concessions
and agreement, as well as failure - before firm commitments
are made. A better understanding of the costs also reduces
the risks of the unknown.
(3)
Convincing the other party that concessions will be
requited, not banked and run away with. The belief in
reciprocity has proved to be a key element in beginning
negotiations. A unilateral path to a solution may be
easily blocked, if one of the parties is sure the other
will not repay concessions with concessions (Zartman,
1989a). Both commitment and decision to negotiate require
requirement.
(4)
Estimating and consolidating the internal support by
each of the parties, preparing the home front for a
shift from a winning to a conciliatory mentality. This
is linked to efforts to change the public image of the
adversarial party, to put together a domestic coalition
of interests to support the termination of conflict.
Each of the sides has a role in the domestic politics
of the other. Reaching to the internal political process
of the other party and helping build a supportive coalition
for accommodation is an indispensable task of the side
that first concluded negotiation is a conceivable outcome.
This coalition-building with counterparts of the other
side is an informal one. J. G. Stein is very much of
the same opinion. She considers 'management of domestic
politics and coalition-building' a basic function of
prenegotiation. One is rightly reminded of Robert Putnam's
argument that politics of many international negotiations
can usefully be conceived as a two-level game: domestic
and international and the successful initiatives must
be in the 'win-sets' of both games (Putnam, 1988, p.
427-453). The prenegotiation process permits the parties
to build political support at home as well as to build
transnational coalitions.
(5)
Selecting and discarding alternatives. This function
of prenegotiation gives a chance to the parties to put
aside some of the salient possibilities for agreement,
to avoid the worst alternatives and begin to focus on
those that appear most promising. This function very
much overlaps with the two functions of which J. G.
Stein writes - 'specifying the boundaries of the negotiation
to follow' and of 'setting (or delimiting) the agenda
for the negotiation that follows'. The agenda creates
packages of items that permit trade-offs among the parties
and coalitions. Agenda definition is also an important
part of the risk management and a critical prerequisite
of the commitment to negotiate.
(6)
A principal function of prenegotiation is to build bridges
from conflict to conciliation, to provide change in
the perception, mentality, tactics, definitions, acceptability
levels and partners that have already been discussed.
Prenegotiation in the context of this function, for
example, may lead to temporarily suspending the conflict
activities, as well as to other forms of building trust.
The
analysis of prenegotiation through its functions provides
knowledge of the best formula and the respective details
to be reached during the negotiation. Very much this will
be due to the extended knowledge, the good results of
the learning process that prenegotiation constitutes -
about the other parties, about their interests, perceptions,
etc. This aspect of the function-analysis of prenegotiation
in Southeastern Europe should be considered with a special
interest in light of the inadequate knowledge of the issues
and parties in the area.
Application:
Relating Theory to the Case of the Balkans
1)
The very analysis of the negotiation processes by
the definitions, stages and functions of prenegotiations
may largely stimulate the thinking and approaches of the
participants in the international relations in Southeast
Europe (or the Balkans). The cognitive structure and perspective
of the foreign-policy makers in the region and of those
involved in the issues of the area assumes important features
that logically reflect on the relationship between the
parties. A multitude of theoretic and practical 'Balkan'
issues correlate. Here are two of these correlations:
a.
Negotiations and prenegotiations are directly linked
to the foreign-policy decision-making processes of the
local and external to the region interested countries.
Hence, through the specific foreign-policy decision-making
process of the different actors, authorities of highest
ranking are involved in the process of negotiating and
prenegotiating. The outcomes of this process reflect the
application of highest political authority and responsibility
of differing contents.
In
this respect, however, a major breakthrough is needed:
to involve informal actors - NGOs and academic institutions,
in the difficult learning process with which prenegotiations
are linked. The foreign-policy decision-making process
in and about the Balkans needs to be democratized by bringing
the nascent regional civil society and its expert community
in the process of negotiations and prenegotiations.
b.
Prenegotiating activity closely interacts with the domestic
politics in the different countries from and out of the
region that address and deal with 'Balkan' issues. A useful
reminder for the students and practitioners of coping
with these issues is the need to differentiate among countries
and domestic institutions. First, from the onset of the
conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia there have been states that
were not involved in conflict-generation. The Balkans
is not only Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, though
military force is there. Second, the political institutions,
including the foreign-political authority and decision-making,
are of varying nature in the Balkan countries. Though
most of the countries in the region are democratic, there
are differences in the proneness to the ill effects of
public opinion and nationalist sentiments in each of them
(Peterson, 1996).
2)
The understanding of the functions of prenegotiation
can throw light on other 'interlocking' concepts: management
and prevention of conflict, regime-maintenance and regime-building
(Zartman, 1989, p. 14-17; Stein, 1989, p. 239-244), involving
and interacting in organizations. All these concepts are
fundamental for the task of coping with the major issues
in the Balkans.
a.
Negotiations and prenegotiations are vitally needed for
the management and prevention of conflicts and crises.
Either a crisis or the need to avoid an impending crisis
usually leads to consideration by the conflicting sides
to the option to negotiate. J. G. Stein writes about conflict
management and crisis avoidance as of factors that "trigger"
the prenegotiation process, while I. W. Zartman qualifies
prenegotiation as crisis avoidance itself. An important
conceptual link between the theory of prenegotiations
and the need to prevent and manage conflicts in the Balkans
is the research study "Coping with Conflicts in
the Central and Southern Balkans" (Pantev, 1995).
The study analyzes the sources, classifies and outlines
the structure and the development of the Balkan conflicts.
It also makes some conclusions and makes policy recommendations.
The fundamental idea of the conceptual linkage is to shift
the perception of the other party from an "adversary"
towards a "cooperative partner" in the course
of the prenegotiations. Within the different stages of
prenegotiation a new thinking should be formed that the
solution of the ongoing issues can be found with and not
against the conflicting party. The conflict-rich Balkan
region is a fruitful terrain for exploring the achievements
of the prenegotiation theory, especially for the cases
of preventing violent conflicts. Each of the functions
of prenegotiation can be tested in the particular cases
of the region for the benefit of the individual countries'
foreign policies and of the area in general.
b.
I. W. Zartman points to a very significant conceptual
relationship: "Prenegotiation performs many of
the same functions as a regime, or vice versa. On issues,
covered by regimes, therefore, one might expect that prenegotiation
would be less necessary, shorter, or different in nature;
even conflict regimes, which provide rules of the game
for the conduct and limitation of hostilities, would offer
a framework for building and assessing many of the prenegotiation
functions. Yet regimes cover large areas of interaction,
whereas the success of negotiation depends on the identification
of specific definitions of problems, the selection of
participants and alternatives, and the establishment of
parameters and agendas... Thus, even within regimes, prenegotiation
is necessary to focus the ensuing process of agreement
on appropriate items, but this process should benefit
from some of the work already being done through the regime.
One would want to avoid the illusion that prenegotiation
would therefore be 'easier' on issues covered by regimes;
it is hard to use a comparative because there are no control
cases for comparison, and the prenegotiation may be difficult
nonetheless. Indeed, prenegotiation within regimes may
well be 'easier' only in the sense that it would not have
been possible at all if the terrain had not been prepared
by the regime" (Zartman, 1989, p. 15).
Though
the logic rather than the empirical testing, which is
quite occasional, proves this statement of I. W. Zartman,
it is nonetheless valuable because of the linkage established
between two major fields of social research - for a broad
framework of analysis such as regime and the study of
processes and activities of interaction such as negotiation.
It is prenegotiation that provides the link.
J.
G. Stein, analyzing the study of Gilbert R. Winham about
the prenegotiation phase of the Uruguay Round of GATT,
concludes that "prenegotiation can almost be considered
'business as usual', as part of a cyclical process in
regime maintenance" (Stein, 1989, p. 240).
The
construction or anticipated erosion of a regime, and impending
troubles relating to this, trigger the consideration of
launching or experiencing a new round of prenegotiation
- either as a strategy of building-up positive relationships
or of crisis avoidance.
The
Balkans are a good example of the developing prerequisites
of a particular regime-building - of a 'security community',
despite the parallel efforts of post-war regulation and
prevention of new violent conflicts. This issue has been
particularly studied and conceptualized (Pantev, 1994,
p. 55-63; Pantev, 1995a, p. 33-37; Pantev, 1997, p. 10-13).
Each
of the particular elements of the 'security community'
regime in the region requires further elaboration, interaction
of many Balkan and non-Balkan actors. Sometimes a very
sophisticated prenegotiation activity is required to manage
various risks, to make preliminary judgments about the
bargaining ranges and reservation points of others without
publicly committing to a negotiation. Prenegotiation is
needed for reducing the uncertainty and managing complexity
when there is a multiplicity of interests, parties and
roles. In particular circumstances, prenegotiations provide
lower exit costs than formal negotiations would do.
In
the prenegotiation phase the Balkan actors will have to
rethink many of their fundamental national security strategy
assumptions and formulae of 'national interests' and of
'national objectives' to cope with the requirements of
the regional security community regime.
c.
Probably the most politically desired aspect today of
prenegotiations by the countries in the region is in regard
to their permanent and stable involvement in successful
economic, political and military organizations2.
The
institutional order established by an international organization
with a positive record of efficiency is a much more preferable
option for the regional actors than a doubtful international
regime, which requires a lot of preconditions that neither
of the Balkan states (with the exception of Greece) can
provide alone or through a regional concert of nations.
The core need of the Balkan countries and people and of
the region in general is to overcome the economic and
technological retardness, modernize and catch up with
the civilization 'center' of developed countries. All
Balkan governments are confident the 'engine' that will
successfully drive them is the group of Western organizations
that proved their effectiveness: the European Union (EU),
NATO, the Western European Union (WEU), OECD, the Council
of Europe (CE), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The
whole range of prenegotiation activities that would bring
closer the formal acts of negotiation and involvement
in these organizations is of utmost importance and is
a priority political and national security strategy of
all Balkan countries.
Considering
the high financial costs of bringing the Balkan countries
in the family of successful Western institutions, the
partners from EU and NATO refrain from entering meaningful
prenegotiation processes and prefer to participate in
limited non-binding regime-building activities of certain
aspects of a prospective security community. The low level
of involvement of both the EU and the USA has very much
to do with the broader geopolitical and geoeconomic arrangements
in the region that bring Russia and Turkey to the table
of eventual substantial negotiation and prenegotiation
activities.
The
participation of all interested parties in the arrangement
of the regional order is not an impossible undertaking.
Much effort on the side of the Balkan countries is needed
to prove that the risks of involvement are successfully
restricted and do not overrun the costs - especially for
the leading Western states - members of the organizations
in question. Certainly there are risks of involvement
in the affairs of Southeast Europe. But there are also
bigger risks of not doing it. The outburst of the Kosovo
crisis and the NATO strike against FRY showed retrognostically
that much more could have been achieved on the preventive
side about the conflict if major neighboring countries
like Bulgaria and Romania have been integrated more closely
in both the EU and NATO. The ongoing events in Kosovo
signaled the start of a new strategic approach of the
Union and the Alliance to Southeastern Europe. The negotiation
and the prenegotiation instruments in bridging this strategy
with the keen interests of the local actors are open for
utilizing by those who are capable to do it.
The analysis of the political behavior of the Balkan states
in the post-Cold War period towards each other shows that
the vision of the neighbor through the 'bargaining' lens
tends to give way to a problem-solving approach, motivated
by the will to integrate in the EU and NATO. The incentive
of future membership in these organizations stimulates
the tendency of changing the perception of the 'neighbor'
as of a future equal member in the EU and ally in NATO.
This leads to a change in the contents of the discussions
during the prenegotiations from normal and traditionally
exploited bargaining sessions to much more problem-solving
ones.
Mistrust,
selective and distorted perceptions, negative attitudes,
poor communication, a competitive win-lose orientation
aiming to bring capitulation from the adversarial party
have rarely produced a well structured incoming negotiation
process. On the contrary, higher levels of escalation
of conflicts and wars have long haunted the aftermath
of the initial political discourses in the region.
Thanks
to the incentive of homogenizing the political scene of
the Balkans by eventual joint membership in the same successful
economic, political and military organizations, there
are high chances the multitude of prenegotiation activities
on various issues to switch from the win-lose to the win-win
cooperative problem-solving orientation. To get the job
done an important catalyst is required: the readiness
of the EU and NATO and of their leading members to play
effectively that role. Without external economic, financial,
political and institutional investment, the turning point
from a bargaining to a problem-solving attitude at the
prenegotiation phase and the very negotiations will be
hardly attained in the Balkans. This new wisdom for the
regional actors also stems from the lessons of the tragedies
in Bosnia and Kosovo - there is a realization that if
a problem-solving negotiation approach has been undertaken
by the parties that were involved in the conflicts the
inevitable outcome could have been reached at much lower
costs than the wars caused.
This
opportunity calls for two significant activities (Fisher,
1989, p. 206-238) that may support the prenegotiation
interactions in the direction of assuming a problem-solving
approach - especially for the cases of preventing new
violent conflicts and of solving other stability issues
in the region:
First,
utilizing the seminar and workshop3
experience of dealing with particular issues in an informal
way before relating to a more formal treatment of the
issue in the negotiation process. The potential of joint
analyzing and forecasting (Pantev, 1989, p. 219-225) the
development of the issue may additionally improve the
chances of giving-up hard bargaining in a zero-sum set
of options and drive through more knowledge of the consequences
of positional bargaining to the thinking and practice
of problem-solving. Representatives of decision-making
elites will be indispensable for shaping the additional
knowledge that is required - academics, advisers, ex-high-ranking
officials, politicians who have retired or stepped-down
from powerful positions, intelligence experts and strategists
who have a disposition to conceptual thinking.
The
second opportunity is to utilize the third-party consultant
role for effective problem-solving prenegotiation aims.
The major external players in the Balkans - the EU, USA
and Russia, may undertake the functions of inducing motivations
for problem-solving, improving the communication among
the parties, assisting in producing the diagnosis of the
various issues and assisting the interaction. The roles
of aiding the regional actors to analyze and deal with
fundamental attitudes and issues in their relationship
undoubtedly sets standards of an internationally acceptable
behavior for the third-party consultants. At the end of
the day all should find creative problem-solving thanks
to the improved communication, analysis, prediction and
knowledge of the issues at stake.
Conclusions
1.
Presently the Balkans are involved in several major regional
initiatives that require negotiation activity: "the
Sofia Process" of the Balkan countries that started
in July 1996 for stability, cooperation and security in
the region; "the Royaumont Initiative" of the
EU, 1996, for stability and cooperation; "the Southeast
European Cooperative Initiative" (SECI) of the United
States; and a lot more that erupted on the eve and during
the Kosovo crisis and the strike against FRY. All they
need is deeper conceptualizing and structuring so that
the theoretic potential of prenegotiation is more intensively
utilized.
2.
Further structuring of the conceptual achievements of
prenegotiation is required as well as additional deductions
with the objective of formulating a practical theoretic
dictum about what to do and seek during and from prenegotiation.
3.
Improving the cognitive model of why and when during the
phases of prenegotiation the parties can abandon the normal
bargaining and move towards an integrative problem-solving
strategies and tactics. This is extremely important for
learning how to "teach" the states to rely more
on cooperation in their international relations, especially
in Southeastern Europe.
REFERENCES
NOTES
|
|
 |
|
|
Cover picture
was taken with permission from
Miro Andrić's book "Hrvatsko podmorje",
Zagreb: Car Herc, 1999, p. 8.
(Motive; 5m. below sea level,
island Palagruža)
|
|