Developing Negotiation Skills - Essay Example

Introduction: This paper deals with the topic of negotiation with special reference to the problem involving the Teotihuacán Murals and the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. The above mentioned murals were left to the museum by a benefactor called Harold Wagner. This is an instance of international level negotiations involving mainly the museum and the government of Mexico. The paper will discuss issues like stakeholders, conflicts, cooperation and the role of culture in this incident. It will also include what the options are available to Mr Seligman and a report to the directors of the museum, recommending a course of action. The course of events: The events that unfold in the incident begins in 1976 when Thomas K Seligman, the then curator-in-charge of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas for the museum, is informed about the bequeathing. He is shown Mr Wagner’s handwritten will stated that the deceased ‘hoped’ that the museum would pay all costs for settling his estate in return for the priceless murals. Mr Seligman is informed the museum’s lawyer said that this would give rise to certain ethical and legal problems with Mexico, the original source of the murals. A temporary solution was arrived at when Crocker Bank who was in charge of the assets of Mr Wagner and the other legatees agreed that the murals may be kept in the museum until a more permanent solution was arrived at. What follows next is an example of successful international negotiation that was to last for the next ten years. The problem referred to by the lawyer came about because in 1972, four years before the incident, the UNESCO had passed the “Convention on the. Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property." Its implications were relevant here because it was not sure whether the murals had been on American soil with the permission of the Mexican Government. This was further complicated by a treaty between the Mexican and US Governments called the “Treaty of Cooperation Providing for the Recovery and Return of Stolen Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Properties between the United States of America and the United Mexican States." The treaty gives special mention to wall art and there is no doubt as to the fact that murals are classified as wall art. Lengthy discussions were done with historians, other museums and lawyers followed and what ultimately became clear was that no relevant precedents existed. One related incident involved a bronze of Nataraja that once belonged to a temple in South India which was brought to the US without the official permission of the government of India. The artefact in question was in the possession of one Mr Simon Norten. The Indian government sued for repossession of the idol. The case which would have gone in India’s favour was compromised on the condition that the idol would be allowed to be displayed in the US for a further period of ten years. Mr Simon was also given immunity by the Indian Government that he was free to acquire within the next one year, any Indian antiques that could be found outside India. This gave some consolation to the Fine Arts museum since it involved a negotiated settlement that is international in stature and involving cultural property. Negotiations for the murals began two years later when the Mexican Consul General in San Francisco put the museum in touch with the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), the body that had the authority to decide on all things that were before the pre-Columbian era. Research by the museum conformed that the murals belonged to the Teotihuacán era. It was also established that this collection was the largest one in existence outside Mexico. Moreover, no more than a dozen specimens existed in museums collection in the whole of Europe and the USA. Soon after the initial contact, the Mexican Government filed a petition in the US District court, requesting a stay on the will and the return of the murals as per the ‘Treaty of cooperation’. In the meantime the trustees of the museum formulated some possible areas of discussion with the INAH. The museum would work with authorities in Mexico authentication and preservation methods. The murals would remain with the museum until they were well protected and even if the murals were ordered to be returned to Mexico a mutual area of future cooperation would be worked out. But the verdict turned out to be in favour of the museum since the treaty came into force only in 1971 and there was proof to show that Mr Wagner had taken possession of the murals one year earlier. The other legatees of the will agreed that the museum was in a better position to handle the situation and they would not lay claim to any murals left to them. This resulted in the Fine Arts Museum being the sole owners of the priceless murals. The situation was that according to US law the murals belonged here whereas the Mexicans thought that they were the rightful owners. Even with the verdict going in their favour, the museum was willing to negotiate with the INAH for a compromise that would be acceptable to both parties. Negotiations resumed and by 1978, a four point agenda was agreed to with the INAH lawyer and the museum, which included joint protection and possible return of some of the murals. But things came to a deadlock because, back home the INAH refused to accept the terms made by their lawyer. They put the ball back in the museum’s court when they demanded that murals be returned including the costs of protection and transport to be borne by the Americans. The last demand was in violation of the UNESCO declaration which states that all costs of restoration have to be borne by the country making the request. New developments regarding the transfer of cultural property were taking place. A study by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) which was backed by the UNESCO had taken place and a set of guidelines had been published in 1979. It was called the ‘Study on the Principles, Conditions, and Means for the Restitution or Return of Cultural Property in View of Reconstituting Dispersed Heritages’. It had some points which were very relevant to the situation in hand. One was that only such property which was considered indispensable for unravelling the past culture of the home country should be considered for return. It was also suggested that since cultural property was subject to international and local laws which were often in conflict with each other, it would be more practical for the local heritage authorities and museums to work out a mutually satisfactory settlement. An example given of such settlement was allowing a long term loan of the disputed cultural property. In fact the Los Angeles County Museum of arts had an artefact belonging to the Mayan period, loaned to the museum by the Government of Guatemala. These guidelines suggested that the International Council of Museums were in agreement of the stance taken by the Fine Arts Museum regarding the Teotihuacán Murals. Fortified with this information the museum pushed hard at the INAH and finally a mutually acceptable agreement was worked out in 1981, ten years after the first talks began. The agreement was based on the four point agenda earlier worked out by the museum. At least fifty percent of the murals would be handed back to Mexico, the costs to be paid for by the Mexican Government. This was mainly to create an atmosphere of trust and to see that the whole arrangement had been done ethically. The second point was that the Museum of Fine Arts would raise funds to conduct a joint project for the conservation of the murals and also for learning more about the Teotihuacán period. Thirdly, the mutually agreed number of murals would be returned to Mexico and the balance remaining would be exhibited in the Fine Arts museum in San Francisco. Steps would be taken to ensure that the part played by the INAH and the museum would be acknowledged by each other. Lastly, this series of negotiations would pave the way for future cooperation between the two countries. Before the actual transfer took place, a change of government in Mexico put brakes on the completion of the agreement. The INAH too was having a new administration, who did not give this project a high priority. In 1981 Mr Seligman left for Mexico to meet with the new director of INAH, Dr. Enrique Florescano Mayet, mainly to see if the new administration agreed to the previous agreement made between the two organisations. To their relief, the INAH were willing to cooperate fully in putting into action the terms of the agreement. With the funding received from several well known organisations, conservation work began only to disagree on methods used. But eventually through mutual cooperation a good preservation method was developed and the conservation work on all the Teotihuacán Murals. The most ethical part of the whole episode was at the end when the Fine Arts Museum returned seventy percent of the murals back to the Mexican Government. What gave Thomas Seligman the greatest satisfaction was that this series of successful negotiations set an ethical precedent on ways to resolve similar issues in the future. “After all this time and energy I am convinced that ethical considerations are much more important than legal ones.” (Seligman 1989, P.83). Report to the Board of Directors, Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco: The bestowing of the Teotihuacán Murals by Mr Harold Wagner has been an extremely fortunate event for this museum. It is all the more important because it is believed that this particular collection of murals is the largest existing outside Mexico, the country of its origin. This collection will be valuable in finding more about the Teotihuacans, a culture that predates the Aztec culture of Mexico. Before suggesting the steps to be followed regarding this issue, the issues that are to be considered. Protests from the Mexican Government: Since the murals are related to one of Mexico’s most valuable archaeological sites, it is a very valuable cultural property and there is strong protest from the Mexican Government. It is already known to the museum that they had filed a petition against the museum on the basis of the treaty of cooperation between the two countries and the verdict was in our favour since there was sufficient proof to show that the murals were already in the US as early as 1960. A mutual agreement was worked out whereby at least 50% of the murals be returned and a joint effort at protection and preservation be done. The Mexican Government later opted out of this and demanded that all murals be returned with the costs borne by us. Later another agreement was worked out on the basis of the study by the International Council of Museums and the UNESCO which was accepted by the Mexicans. Unfortunately the Government has changed and the INAH has a new management. This is the present scenario. Valuation: A valuation of the Teotihuacán Murals by Mr Edward Merrin had given an approximate value of $5million. The valuation was based on the known value of certain Mayan artefacts in the US. Expected Returns: In the past, the museum had made around $100,000 to 200,000 per exhibition and had conducted up to 10 such exhibitions per year. With something as popular as these murals it would not be difficult to repeat or even surpass the above figures. The Stakeholders of the issue: The primary stakeholders in this issue are the Fine Arts Museum and the Government of Mexico. Others who have an interest in the affair are the people of this city, the American public in general, the population of Mexican origin in the US and the people of Mexico. We have a responsibility to see that all these stakeholders are to be kept happy as far as possible. We also have a responsibility to other museums from around the world because they would be affected if an issue similar to ours surface. The Role of a Museum: The primary role of any museum including us involves the collection, preservation and exhibition of historical artefacts. But we should not forget that we are also educators of the general public regarding the priceless heritages of the world. Ethics and Politics: The unethical practice of many American museums in acquiring artefacts has been criticizes by many persons. There have been many instances where such artefacts have. The 1969 article titled “The Illicit Traffic in Pre-Columbian Antiquities” by Clemency Coggin highlights the wanton plunder of Mayan sites. Politics too play a part with regard to valuable antique artefacts. Governments have traded artefacts in exchange for a terrorists or drug traffickers with other countries. Policies: Different countries have different laws and polices regarding its cultural properties. In this case both the US and Mexico feels that the murals are rightfully theirs. Charitable Trust Law: The Charitable Trust Law of the city and county of San Francisco has provisions that any return of artefacts owned by the museum should be done only if we get other artefacts of equal value in return. Setting a precedent: It is my wish that we set a precedent for other institutions in the US and other parts of the world by following an ethical course of action outlined below. It is suggested that the museum should take the following course of action for the preservation and ownership of the murals. Preservation and Restoration: This collection is extremely rare and all steps should be taken to see that it should be preserved and that it remains with us. At present the murals are in a state of deterioration and our first responsibility is to see that restoration work be immediately started. It would not be an easy task because the murals are existing as a part of the original walls they were drawn. As a result it is extremely thick and heavy and at present we do not have the necessary expertise to do the restoration work by ourselves. It would be best if the museum requests the help of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) of Mexico for restoration and preservation work. It has been understood that they have special expertise on restoring Teotihuacán Murals. The estimated cost of this work would work out to approximately $500,000. With regard to ownership, we have to wait till the new government and the new management at INAH settles down. What will eventually follow is another set of patient negotiations. The proposals we can put forth now is that a mutually acceptable percentage (of at least 50%) of the objects should be returned to Mexico, the country of origin with the costs to be borne by them. The balance would be exhibited here. Mutual cooperation in restoring and preserving the murals will be sought from the INAH and both parties will acknowledge each others role at all times. Let us hope that we will be able to come to a negotiated settlement that will be an example for the rest of the world to emulate. Thomas K Seligman Conclusion: Critical Issues: The whole incident is an excellent example of how sensitive issues that are social and cultural in nature and also issues that involve national pride can be solved through patient negotiation. When the preposterous request of returning all the murals plus cost of transportation was made by the Mexican Government, the Fine Arts Museum could have just stopped taking interest in the whole affair. But according to Seligman, it would not have been morally correct to wash hands of the whole affair. He adds that this moral viewpoint applies to both parties and that it is like a ‘two way street’. Another important factor that prompted Seligman to carry on with the negotiations was that he considered cultural property above national and international interest. He argues that loss of such valuable artefacts and materials, especially by a lack of caring, benefits no one. In such instances steps have to be taken for its preservation through sincere and if necessary prolonged discussion and negotiations. He also has removed any fears that the return of seventy percent of murals to Mexico would bring about a flood of request other countries, by saying that there have been only three such instances of such requests. He concludes by stressing that ethical issues and not legal issues be the overriding factor in such situations and such issues can be solved through negotiations. Knowingly or unknowingly, Seligman had used many important principles of negotiation during the long ten years it took to settle the issue. He had used his bargaining power while negotiating because the murals were in physical possession of the museum. It is always advantageous to have bargaining power while negotiating an issue. He had also acted in accordance with the meaning of the word bargaining which essentially is a redistribution of available resources. Since this is not an issue between two individuals, but between two organizations (in two different countries) it was an instance of collective bargaining. Another instance of collective bargaining is when trade unions negotiate with companies regarding wage disputes. Another principle used is BATNA, an acronym for Best ‘Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.’ It is used when the terms put forward by the other party is too unfavourable. Twice during the whole process, the Mexican Government had asked for complete return of the murals and both times Seligman had alternative proposals to offer. If the resulting agreement is more favourable or at least equal to the BATNA it can be accepted. Ultimately it was a satisfactory outcome for both the museum and the Mexican Government. It had also set the world a precedent to act upon if a similar situation of returning antiques to the home country happens. Bibliography Seligman, Thomas K (1989). The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property?: CHAPTER 5: The Murals of Teotihuacán: A Case Study of Negotiated Restitution. [online]. Questia.P.83. Last accessed 28 March 2008 at: http://www.questia.com/read/99326475 Read More