THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP
Be unconditionally constructive on relationship issues

By Scott Brown

Every diplomatic negotiation is a small part of an ongoing relationship between two countries. This working relationship is the pattern of behavior through which the two countries handle their differences. Some countries may deal with their differences through armed conflict, others through hostile hard bargaining, others through cooperative problem-solving. The diplomat might see his purpose as establishing a good working relationship -- one that can handle any problem that might arise between the two countries.

1. A Common Problem: Many Relationships Function Poorly.

Working relationships often deteriorate when they encounter serious problems. When problems become especially severe, as they are now between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the Middle East, the relationships may break down altogether. Decisions are based on emotion rather than reason, neither side listens to or tries to understand the other. Each party mistrusts the other and tries to influence the other through coercion. And each may reject the other as a legitimate party with whom to negotiate, severing diplomatic relations or walking out of negotiations.

These relationships break down just when we need them the most -- when we need an effective process for resolving important differences. When two countries have a successful working relationship they should be able to handle even the most severe disputes while maintaining confidence in their ability to work on future disputes. A working relationship between countries is like a marriage. Problems and differences are bound to arise. But a good relationship, like a good marriage, will be able to deal with those problems in a way that satisfies the interests of each party and strengthens the dispute resolution process for the next problem.

2. Why Do Many Relationships Function Poorly?

Relationship issues concern the way we deal with others: logically or emotionally, clearly or ambiguously, honestly or deceptively. Substantive issues are the subjects of discrete negotiations: the levels of armaments, the price of wheat, the terms of a verification treaty. It is possible to organize most relationship issues into six categories: (1) the balance of emotion with reason; (2) the level of common understanding; (3) the extent and nature of communication; (4) the degree of trust; (5) the level of coercion as a method of influence; and, (6) the degree of acceptance of the legitimacy of the negotiating partner.

Relationships function poorly when governments mix relationship issues with substantive issues. Governments often let short-term substantive concerns dominate their interest in a long-term relationship. They may handle those short-term interests coercively and emotionally, thus damaging their ability to handle other issues in a constructive way. At other times, governments may make the relationship contingent on substantive concessions: "Unless you agree to eliminate SDI (substance), we will refuse to negotiate about strategic armaments (relationship)." Or, "We will not improve our relationship with Vietnam (relationship) until they resolve our questions about prisoners of war (substance)." When the relationship itself is contingent upon substantive concessions, the relationship will be unable to deal with those substantive issues.

Governments also tend to bargain about the conduct of the relationship itself, treating relationship issues as they treat substantive issues. This often leads to a tit-for-tat battle that damages the relationship.

Rationality: Since anger dominates your thinking, it will dominate mine.
Understanding: Since you misunderstand me, I will misunderstand you -- often by putting the worst interpretation on your actions.
Communication: If you do not listen to me, I will not listen to you.
Reliability: If you violate agreements, I will be unreliable too.
Noncoercive modes of influence: Since you try to coerce me, I will try to coerce you.
Acceptance: Since you denigrate my interests and views, I will denigrate yours.

Each government may behave this way because they want to punish the other and thereby persuade it to behave better. But if each government lets its own conduct reflect its partisan interpretation of the other's conduct, they may never break out of a pattern of hostile interaction.

3. How Can Working Relationships Be Improved?

a) Separate relationship issues from substantive issues. Since mixing substance with process damages a working relationship, the first step toward a better relationship is to disentangle relationship issues from substantive issues and deal with each independently.

b) Be unconditionally constructive on relationship issues. Each negotiator should act in a way that will strengthen every element of the working relationship without sacrificing substantive concerns, regardless of the behavior of the other government or negotiator.

Rationality: Even if they act emotionally, balance emotions with reason.
Understanding: Even if they misunderstand us, try to understand them.
Communication: Even if they are not listening, consult them before deciding on matters that affect them.
Reliability: Even if they try to deceive us, be reliable.
Noncoercive modes of influence: Even if they try to coerce us, do not yield to coercion or try to coerce them, and be open to persuasion and try to persuade them.
Acceptance: Even if they reject us and our concerns as unworthy of consideration, accept them as worthy of our consideration, care about them, and be open to learning from them.

Each government can follow these guidelines without sacrificing their substantive interests, regardless of the behavior of the other. And by following these guidelines, the governments will improve their ability to deal with differences in a way that will serve the national interests of both.