Negotiation Can Be a Powerful Tool

Talk, threaten, or fight? For any negotiation to be successful there must be at least one position that negotiators can agree is an acceptable solution. These possible solutions don't have to be apparent at the outset, as negotiating positions can change. Even with both direct and indirect costs, negotiation is still less expensive than other tools of statecraft such as economic sanctions or the use of armed forces. Therefore, the statesman who categorically states, "I will never negotiate with any enemy" is making statecraft more difficult.

If negotiation is cheaper than the alternatives, shouldn't we start by negotiating with everyone? Unfortunately, negotiation is not just another tool. The act of negotiating sends three messages:

1. My opponent is legitimate

2. This issue is important enough to warrant our time and effort.

3. This process has a chance of succeeding.

Where one or more of these statements is incorrect, the negotiation effort and associated costs are wasted. Further, simply taking a seat at your table enhances the stature of any negotiator regardless of legitimacy. This is particularly true of negotiating with non-state actors. Such enhanced legitimacy should not be given where it is not earned, as it gives greater weight to his negotiating position.

It is entirely appropriate to insist that there be reasonable hope of success before sitting down to talk. Willingness to negotiate with any enemy, without conditions, will inappropriately enhance the stature of some enemies, making finding a lasting solution more difficult and costly.