Blog

While world news has been centered on COVID-19, an international dispute has been raging in northeast Africa. The spat could have a lasting impact on the African riparian nations who depend on the Nile River for water consumption, agriculture, and navigation.

The dispute revolves around Ethiopia’s 2010 decision to build the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile about 20 kilometers upstream from Sudan. The dam, an approximately $5 billion hydropower project with an installed capacity of 5,150 megawatts, will double Ethiopia’s electricity production, contain about 74 billion cubic meters of water, and provide a significant economic boost for a still struggling country.

In addition to the practical benefits of the dam, it has also become a symbol of national pride and identity, with many Ethiopians having invested of their own money in purchasing bonds to fund the project.

However, the GERD, which has the capacity to hold 88 percent of the mean annual flow of the Nile River, poses a potential threat to the water security of downstream Sudan, and Egypt. It can potentially impact drinking water, household usage, agriculture, fishing, water transportation and tourism. Egypt relies on 90 percent of its water supply from the Nile and about 57 percent of that comes from the Blue Nile.

Although disputes over water rights between Nile riparians have been going on for decades, including after a 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan, the GERD has created a new disagreement with new issues that need to be resolved.

Read more —>

Introduction
I write this column both as a tribute and as a plea to millennials. Millennials, for whom technology is almost a first language, have been trailblazers in its research, development, application and use. They have taught my generation so much and continue to do so, for which I feel in awe and eternally grateful. However, as the guardians of this new and ever changing world, I appeal to them to never forsake or neglect the richness and depth that real face-to-face communication, interaction and connection generates. As we become comfortable with conducting our affairs on-line, I make a plea to the indigenously technological millennials in particular, to restore a society that conducts its business and affairs face-to-face whenever and wherever practically possible, once life gets back to normal.

How rapidly our world has changed! I still remember (with great nostalgia I might add) the olden days when we could meet our clients and friends face-to-face and have cordial conversation, meaningful connection, direct discourse and productive dialogue.

All that changed in mid-March 2020 when, not just as a community, not merely as a society or not even as a nationality, but as humanity at large we were put under stay-at-home orders and lock down laws so as to contain the further spread of Covid-19. Overnight, our work with clients was relegated to on-line communications only, and we all rushed to master Zoom and other teleconferencing platforms so as to mitigate any interruptions to our services. With a sigh of relief, we continue servicing our clients’ needs almost as effectively as before the lock down (or so we might think).

As a negotiation and dispute resolution specialist trying to adapt to an entirely new mode of communicating, in complex, and at times, difficult conversations, I felt almost like a graduate student faced with a sudden realization that he needs to go back to school to relearn what he thought he already knew! For me perhaps the greatest revelation was that my initial premise that online communication is just a minor variation of face to face communication as I knew it, and barely a deviation therefrom – was an absolutely and entirely wrong premise! Online communication involves a completely new and different set of processes, methods, skills and techniques. Once I internalized this notion, I was ready to begin learning and to embrace online communication.

Yet even after acquiring a modicum of proficiency, and as many of my colleagues proclaim on-line negotiation and mediation to be the new normal even after life as we once knew it returns, I have nagging questions at the back of my mind:

Could President Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev have achieved the end of the Cold War without any face-to-face meetings and only communicating via teleconference each from their respective desks, and ensconced in their respective palaces of power?

Read more —>

Introduction
As business leaders, diplomats, professionals or family men and women, we often find ourselves in the middle of disputes and called upon to mediate a resolution. Having a road-map to navigate these delicate situations will add enormous value to your compendium of competencies!

In dispute resolution there is always the excitement of realizing the non-obvious, and the adventure of discovering the unknown!

Parties entering into mediation will typically assert their dispute in terms of their initial presenting positions and perceptions. It may take the form of: “They brazenly breached the contract” or “As a trustee, she exploited her fiduciary responsibilities and stole from the family trust” or “He deliberately misled me with wrong information to get me to sign the contract”

In these particular examples, three characteristics stand out. Firstly, there is the attribution of negative intent as in: “brazenly”; “exploited”; and “deliberately”. Secondly there is the declaration of judgement as in: “breached”; “stole” and “misled”. Thirdly, they have portrayed their counterparts as despicable villains. These are typical in initial presenting positions and perceptions in any mediation.

The excitement of realizing the non-obvious and the adventure of discovering the unknown lies in the mediator’s capacity to dig below the initial presenting positions, and to uncover the true and authentic issues that are really at the core of the dispute.

In this column I will share some tools and techniques towards that end.

Don’t Fall into the Assertion Trap
When presented with assertions, it is easy to be persuaded and influenced by them. The danger is that these beliefs then shape our approach to the mediation and our potentially negative reaction to one or more parties to the dispute. We lose our objectivity and neutrality, and in turn lose trust of the parties in us as the mediator, as well as in the process.

Read more —>

Introduction
Recent news of the assassination of a top-level Iranian leader by U.S forces sent shock waves throughout the Middle-East and beyond. If Iran chose not to retaliate, she risked looking weak; being perceived as not avenging the blood of her leaders and martyrs; being seen as allowing herself to be intimidated and bullied; and potentially setting a terrible precedent of not defending her sovereignty and citizens, thereby exposing her flanks to further attacks. For these reasons, retaliation was inevitable.

As Iran and the U.S descended into a potential cycle of attacks and retaliations, a pressing question on the minds of many was: How can we de-escalate an already severely escalated conflict so that we might avoid global destabilization and avert a cataclysmic war?

This question is not only pertinent to international relations, but personal, business and professional relations also: How do we de-escalate an already escalated conflict?

Regulate Emotions Through a “Cooling-off” Period
In the heat of conflict, parties experience abject anger. They feel grossly disrespected and deeply violated. They believe their honor, dignity and pride has been viciously attacked. At this highly emotional and volatile stage of conflict, actions and reactions are likely to be destructively impulsive and often irrational.

Before conflict can be resolved it first needs to be contained and managed so as to mitigate hasty decisions and hazardous behavior. For conflict to be managed and for rational thinking to take its rightful place, it is imperative to establish an initial “cooling-off” period. During this stage, parties are encouraged to exercise restraint and suspend all impulsive actions of attack or retaliation that could further exacerbate the situation.

To successfully implement an effective “cooling-off” period, a mutually trusted and respected neutral mediator who yields a degree of influence, should persuade all parties to suspend any further acts of aggression while tensions are eased to a more manageable level.

In the current U.S. – Iran crisis for example, perhaps someone like President Putin, who possesses power of influence over Iran, might have served as that neutral and encouraged them to withhold any immediate reckless retaliation. (It turned out to be Switzerland. See Wall Street Journal report).

Read more —>

Introduction
With the Holidays fast approaching, festive dinners and family reunions are very much on our minds. The merry partying however is often accompanied by a degree of pressure, due in part, to the potentially volatile human dynamics and family interactions.

With the very different personalities and vastly different opinions and beliefs, we wonder with dread, whether Uncle Jack will opine about his strong political views or if Aunt Mavis might start to pontificate about her religious dogma. These sorts of differences and dynamics mean that family gatherings can quickly become the perfect storm for clashes, conflicts and flare-ups.

However, with the danger also comes great opportunity! An opportunity, to practice and refine our skills so as to manage these potentially volatile conversations and emotionally charged situations effectively, constructively, with grace and with poise, rather than to flee from them.

Below are some strategies to help guide you.

Show Them You Are Taking Them Seriously
Often, when we hear an opinion that we strongly disagree with, our reaction is to viciously attack the “culprit” and then continue to self-righteously defend our own opinion as though we are the sole arbiters of truth. This of course only fuels the conflagration.

Always remember, other people’s views, no matter how opinionated, will never define you, but how you react to those views will. So rather than to strongly and immediately react to their opinions, suspend your reaction and judgement and spend some time really listening to them. Furthermore, demonstrate that you are indeed listening by paraphrasing and reflecting back to them what you have heard.

As an example, suppose that Uncle Jack is enthusiastically engaged in a monologue about how government regulation is necessary to protect consumers, and about how government benefit programs are always a good thing to protect those who are struggling. No matter how strongly you might disagree, resist the urge to react and attack, and instead show him that you are listening and taking him seriously.

You have now demonstrated that you have listened to him, understood him and are taking him seriously. (Note that this does not mean that you agree with him. Understanding someone is not tantamount to agreeing to them at all. As such, demonstrating an understanding is a valuable concession which costs you nothing).

Read more —>

Introduction
Negotiation is more than just a process of getting our needs met. How we negotiate can potentially determine our social, business, diplomatic and international outcomes, reputations and relationships.

It follows that poor negotiation practices such as ineffective communication patterns; inefficient bargaining; destructive tricks and tactics; nonconstructive processes that lack purpose; scant and limited information development; and adversarial posturing and positioning are extremely costly in terms of value-optimization, reputations and relationships in addition to lost opportunities.

Let us look at two quite recent landmark negotiation failures that cost the parties and stakeholders enormously due to poor negotiation practices, and what might they have done differently to improve the outcomes

Two Examples
New York State vs. New York Teacher’s UnionThe Negotiation Failure:
In 2010, New York State required its school districts to change their teacher evaluation systems to more effective ones. The school districts and their associated unions were tasked with unveiling their new systems by January 2013. New York City stood to gain millions in aid and grants if this deadline was met from which the school districts and teachers unions could ultimately benefit. The school districts and the New York United Federation of Teachers became involved in an intensely adversarial negotiation until on January 17th 2013, a catastrophic deadlock was announced and the governor of New York imposed a teacher’s evaluation system that neither party was happy with. The aid and grants never materialized.

The Poor Negotiation Practices:
There is historically very bad blood, enormous suspicion, negative perceptions and lack of trust between management and unions. To try to continue substantive negotiations on such a negative platform is doomed to fail. These negotiations were no different. The teachers unions and school districts saw themselves at odds and in competition with one another and were never able to bridge their differences to their mutual benefit. The poor negotiation practice was trying to negotiate the substantive issues without addressing the seriously eroded relationship between them.

A Better Approach:
Before effective negotiation can occur there should have been a productive exchange about each side’s perceptions of the other, their fears and concerns. This dialogue needed to happen in an environment of respect with each side deeply listening to each other and demonstrating immaculate understanding of the other (even if they did not agree). They should also have jointly explored the risks of not reaching agreement. Only then, might they have worked collaboratively to find joint solution to their conflicting needs on the issue of the new teachers’ evaluation system.

Time Warner vs. CBSThe Negotiation Failure:
In 2013, Times Warner engaged in negotiations with CBS over licensing fees being charged by CBS to air CBS programs, particularly sports coverage to which CBS owned rights. Times Warner felt they were paying too much and wished to reduce them.

Read more —>

Introduction
Last month, President Trump made a seemingly impulsive decision to buy Greenland. He put out word of his intention which was met with a definitive, unequivocal and final message from Queen and Country of Denmark that “Greenland is open for business, not for sale!” That brief two-way volley was the extent and the death of those negotiations. The President’s approach lacked grace, finesse, and dare I say skill, and brought to mind images of a “bull in a china shop”.

Negotiation is seldom a quick event, but rather a journey with some twists and turns until the final destination is reached. A solid negotiation structure needs to be carefully constructed before a productive and optimal outcome can be ensured.

How then, might have these negotiations been approached differently in a way that would better have accomplished the interests of the United States?

Why Greenland
In early preparation for these negotiations, the first question that needed to be asked, understood and articulated is: “What specifically are the United States’ interests in Greenland?”

Greenland lies within the Arctic Circle and is situated where the Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Sea meet. Due to climate changes and massive ice melts, new shipping routes have opened up between the Bering Straits and the Atlantic Ocean through the Arctic Sea. This gives both China and Russia quick and unfettered access between Eastern and Western hemispheres, of which both are taking advantage militarily and economically. Although the U.S does have the Thule air force base within one thousand miles of the region, a U.S. interest might be to have a stronger presence in the area where east meets west to help balance Chinese and Russian footprints and influences there.

A second important interest of the U.S in Greenland might be its rich supply of rare earth elements such as terbium, dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium and natural uranium. These rare earth elements are widely used in technology, military, electric cars and wind turbines.

Read more —>

Introduction
In recent news, Prime Minister Modi of India imposed direct rule over the Indian part of Kashmir, which for the past seven decades enjoyed semi-autonomous governance. It is unclear however, as to what prompted New Delhi to make this apparently unprovoked move towards Kashmir.

As a negotiation analyst, I would posit that this was a reaction to a perception that a solution to the Kashmir dispute would be imposed, if not for an immediate and decisive action on the part of New Delhi.

Allow me to explain:

The Etiology of India’s Direct-Rule Decision
Last month when President Trump met with Pakistani Prime Minister, Imram Khan, he said; “If you would want me to mediate or arbitrate [the Kashmir dispute], I would be happy to do so”. This was after he claimed that he had been asked by Indian Prime Minister Modi to “mediate or arbitrate”.

This claim that Modi had invited Trump to mediate caused a major storm in the politics of India. Government officials strongly denied that Modi had ever requested or would ever request mediation from Trump.

India and Pakistan have resolved their differences through third-party mediation in the past. For example, in the Indus Rivers dispute over water distribution in the Indus system of rivers between India and Pakistan. This dispute resulted in the Indus Waters Agreement mediated by the World Bank and is still in effect today. Another example is the Rann Kutch boundary dispute between India and Pakistan, successfully mediated by British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Why then, such vehement opposition on the part of India to mediate the Kashmir dispute.

Read more —>

Introduction
With the North Korean negotiations in retreat, the trade war with China raging, the Iran Deal unraveling, and the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada still not ratified, there seems to be a pattern of failed negotiations.

This pattern should compel us to ask “why?” and to carefully examine current American foreign policy negotiation and dispute resolution strategies.

A useful framework with which to begin this inquiry is to explore the three different approaches to negotiation and dispute resolution. They are: power- based; rights-based; and interest-based.

The Power-based Approach
The term “Power-based negotiation” is somewhat of an oxymoron, because when power is used in a negotiation environment, it is usually not used to negotiate a resolution, but rather to impose. The more powerful party imposes and enforces their demands on the weaker party, using threats, intimidation and force, often because they can.

A familiar example of using power as a negotiation tactic is the imposing of sanctions on North Korea to enforce America’s demand for total, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization. Another common example is military action.

Although there are certainly situations which call for a power-based approach, for example where there is an immediate existential threat, it should nevertheless be used with great caution and restraint in other situations. Often parties, when subjected to a power-based approach will be resistant, defensive, resentful, and will perceive themselves as being bullied. This approach, when used exclusively, very seldom produces the desired acquiescence.

The Rights-based Approach
Another approach to the resolving of disputes is a rights-based approach. One party believes he is in the right and the other party is in the wrong, or one party feels she is innocent while the other is to blame.

Read more —>

Introduction
In Venezuela in recent months, the opposition led by Mr. Juan Guaido has been working assiduously to remove President Maduro from office. Many western countries, including the United States recognize Mr. Guaido as the legitimate leader of Venezuela while Russia and Cuba recognizes Mr. Maduro.

As part of this effort, and likely engineered by the United States, secret negotiations between the opposition and President Maduro’s inner circle were taking place to plot a coup to depose Maduro and to install Guaido. The premise was that this inner circle including top military leaders would support the coup.

A key figure in Maduro’s “inner circle” that was negotiating with the opposition was General Padrino Lopez, one of the most powerful men in the country with sweeping influence over the armed forces. The United States and the opposition firmly believed they he, among other powerful key figures, were strong supporters and negotiating partners with whom to work out a plan to overthrow Maduro

These talks produced a 15-point plan for a peaceful handover of power that would be implemented by the military. Under the deal, Mr. Maduro would be allowed a dignified exit from the country. In fact, Washington believed that these talks were so far advanced that an aircraft was already waiting on the runway at the Caracas international airport to fly Maduro to Cuba.

Then suddenly, without warning, this negotiated agreement collapsed and President Maduro remained in power with full support of his armed forces with no signs of any breach whatsoever.

It turns out that the apparent conspirators on the Maduro side led by General Lopez were in fact double agents with no intent to ever negotiate a coup with the opposition. They were nefariously mining for information to channel back to President Maduro to help him crush any attempt to overthrow him.

Although this example is borrowed from a political landscape, we face similar nefarious negotiators in our business negotiations too.

Read more —>