Then again, reaching an agreement might never have been Cameron’s goal. While so-called “win-win” outcomes are increasingly considered to be the ultimate purpose of every negotiation, what if the negotiating parties contemplate a win-win outcome that actually harms non-participants to the talks, or is against the law? What if the outcome is beneficial but contrary to the principles of the negotiating parties?
Imagine that you are at a negotiating table and want the other party to agree with you. A strategy that could work would be to stress how the outcome is beneficial to everyone involved. But the outcome you propose might not be fair, or realistic, or you might be consciously lying. So, although based on interests, such a proposal will not be easily accepted.
Indeed, when one ponders how many issues there are to consider, it becomes obvious that negotiation is a type of communication that involves far more than interests. Principles, morality, and simple respect for the truth guide agreement as much as interests do.
Some would argue that successful negotiators require only tact – the ability to use principles to conceal one’s true interests. If this were correct, the United States was right to wage war on Iraq on the basis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. But it is now widely accepted that the way in which the US negotiated its way into war was a mistake – one that has cost it enormous credibility as a negotiating partner.
In fact, the US often stands for high principles, such as freedom and democracy, and incorporates them successfully into its foreign policy. Defending economic aid to Europe after World War II, General George C. Marshall, then US Secretary of State, gave an inspirational speech that argued that US policy is not directed against “any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” The Marshall Plan was as much about principles as it was about protecting US interests.
Even if the Cameron government’s rhetoric seems to be focused on “interests,” its negotiating positions also reflect higher principles, just as other countries’ do. The United Nations and other organizations bear witness to countries’ commitment to principles of justice and solidarity, and to their willingness to set aside their narrow agendas to serve higher causes. Negotiation should address these causes no less than it speaks to interests.
None of this is to deny that interests do, after all, play a role in negotiations, or that interests can affect morality. Immanuel Kant famously argued otherwise – that morality should be free of non-universal interests. But the contemporary philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues that moral norms are valid as long as people accept them freely after having considered the consequences of their implementation for the satisfaction of interests. Of course, consideration of interests means just that: they must be taken into account; they do not have to be entirely satisfied.
In some cases, the defense of interests alone might seem appropriate – for example, in certain business transactions. The more complicated a negotiation, though, the more difficult it is to disregard complex issues such as values and norms or the importance of being sincere. As Aristotle said: “that which is true and better is naturally always easier to prove and more likely to persuade.” Failure to provide proper arguments and reasons for a negotiating position could lead to a breakdown of communication among the parties.
If negotiations truly need proper argumentation of this sort, it surely makes sense that many differences are resolved outside the context of negotiations. Likewise, certain “negotiations” are not negotiations at all, but are better understood as processes of extortion and blackmail.
In today’s globalized world, true negotiation is necessary. Countries and peoples form an interconnected web of interests that cannot be easily disentangled and satisfied in an isolated manner. Resolving disputes requires mutually accepted principles that guide how individuals and countries interact. Negotiation is the path toward successful conflict resolution, but it should be conducted according to basic rules of true and open communication.
Countries and peoples should stop debating the interests that often divide them and start discussing the principles that unite them. As long as communication is conducted truthfully and with respect to values, norms, and objective facts, negotiations will be able to achieve consensus and agreement.
Alexios Arvanitis, a researcher at Panteion University, has
co-authored scholarly articles on interests, rights, and negotiation.
Alexios Arvanitis:
談判的真諦
雅典——當人們和國家談判時，他們常常談論其利益，似乎隻有靠利益才能達成協議。去年12月份，英國首相戴維•卡梅倫在布魯塞爾召開的歐盟峰會上投了否決票，他說“談判的內容不符合英國的利益，所以我不同意，”似乎協議是否能達成隻取決於各方利益是否得到了滿足。
再說，達成協議可能根本不是卡梅倫的目標。盡管所謂的“雙贏”結果日益成為每次談判的最終目的，但是如果談判各方商定的雙贏結果實際上損害未參與談判者的利益，該怎麼辦？如果談判的結果對各方都有利，但是違背談判各方的原則，該怎麼辦？
想象一下，你坐在談判桌旁希望其他各方同意你的觀點。強調談判結果對談判各方如何如何有利是一種行之有效的戰略。但是你提出的談判內容可能並不公平，或者不現實，亦或根本就是你有意撒謊。因此，即使基於利益，這樣一份提議也將難以接受。
實際上，當一個人深思多少問題需要考慮時，顯然談判是一種交流，關注的遠遠不只是利益。原則、道德和對真理的尊重與利益一樣能促成協議。
有人會說，成功的談判者隻需要機智的手段——利用原則隱藏其真正利益的能力。如果這是正確的話，基於薩達姆•侯賽因構成的威脅，美國對伊拉克發動戰爭就是正確的了。但是現在人們普遍認為，美國發動戰爭的談判方式是一個錯誤——這一錯誤使美國作為談判一方失去了大量的信譽。
實際上，美國常常象征著自由和民主等高原則並將它們成功地融入了其外交政策中。為了為二戰后的歐洲提供經濟援助辯護，時任美國國務卿喬治•C•馬歇爾將軍發表了鼓舞人心的演講，稱美國的政策不針對“任何國家或主義，而是針對飢餓、貧窮、絕望和混亂。”馬歇爾計劃既保護了美國的利益，也捍衛了原則。
盡管卡梅倫政府的措辭似乎專注的是“利益”，其談判立場還是反映了較高的原則，這一點與其他國家是一樣的。美國和其他組織見証了各國致力於公平和團結的原則，見証了各國願意將自身的狹隘議程擱置一邊，追求更高的事業。談判在解決利益問題的同時，還應該處理這些事業問題。
這並不是否定利益終究會在談判中發揮作用或者利益會影響道德。伊曼努爾•康德有一句很著名的話，意思剛好與之相反，稱道德不應該受非普世利益的影響。但是當代哲學家尤爾根•哈貝馬斯表示，只要考慮了為滿足利益而實行道德准則的後果，人們接受了道德准則，道德准則就是有效的。當然，考慮利益只是意味著：必須考慮利益，但是並不一定要完全滿足利益。
在一些情況下，維護利益本身似乎就是合適的——比如在一些商業交易中。不過談判越復雜就越難忽視復雜的問題，比如價值觀和准則或者真誠的重要性。正如亞裡士多德所說：“真理和更美好的東西往往更容易証明，也可能更具說服力。”在談判中，無法提供合適的論據可能會導致各方交流失敗。
如果談判確實需要這類合適的論據，那麼在談判場外解決眾多分歧必定是富有意義的。同樣，這樣的“談判”根本不是談判，理解為敲詐勒索的過程反而更好一些。
在當今全球化的世界裡，真正的談判必不可少。各國和各民族形成了一個相互連接的利益網，拆開這個網絡並滿足某一方的利益並非易事。解決分歧需要共同接受的原則，這些原則能夠引導個人和各國互動。談判是成功解決沖突之路，但是必須根據真誠開放交流的基本規則進行。
各國和各民族應該停止爭辯常常會導致分歧的利益，開始討論團結他們的原則。隻要真誠地交流，尊重價值觀、准則和客觀事實，談判就能達成共識和協議。
Alexios
Arvanitis，派迪昂大學研究員，曾與人共同發表有關利益、權利和談判的學術論文數篇。
