International Negotiation and Impasse - Coursework Example

International Negotiation and Impasse: Ukraine Conflict Course: Date: Abstract Ukraine conflict has turned out to be Europe’s most grave security crisis in years. The conflict was ignited by then president Yator Yanukovych decline to establish closer relationships with the European Union in the form of a trade agreement and instead chose more affiliation with the Russian Federation. This apparent bias towards Russia sparked demonstrations in some parts of the country especially, the western regions, which demanded change of government on the basis of gross corruption. The peak of the demonstrations was ejection of President Yanukovych & formation of a new government. This ouster was marked by eruption of conflict between the new Kiev government and the pro-Russian rebels from Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean region by Russia. The conflict developed to include United States, EU and Ukrainian government on one side and pro-Russia rebels and Russia on the other side. There have been a couple of attempts resolving the conflict, markedly the September 5 Minsk agreement in Belarus, which brought together Ukraine government, Russia, rebels representatives and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. However, the peace deal has failed to hold, creating an impasse in the negotiation process. In any negotiation process, the most terrible outcome is no outcome at all. Stalling of negotiations in international conflicts can create acute situations when thousands of lives are at stake, and the parties involved in the conflict include the powerful and most influential states of the world. Failed negotiations can be devastating to regional relations and to the entire world (Spector, 2006). The Ukraine Conflict, which has ravaged the country has escalated from being a Ukraine’s issue to an international issue. The magnitude of the adversities the conflict has inflicted the former soviet nation and stalling of recent negotiation processes between the conflicting sides and their allies are critical issues that warrant employment of new strategies that will yield a breakthrough in the face of an impasse. Facts about the Conflict The conflict began as mild protests, mainly by Ukrainians from the western region and students, following President Yanukovych refusal to sign a trade agreement deal with European Union. The trade agreement had a political dimension, which could have impacted on Ukraine being more committed to certain European values and principles. The protests escalated to include demand for change of government on grounds of gross corruption. The protests, which appeared to have a back-up from United States and most European countries culminated to the ouster of President Yanukovych and a new government with bias towards EU was formed. Calmness restored in the western region while tensions grew in the eastern region, Yanukovych’s political stronghold dominated by Russian natives (McLaughlin, 2014). Consequently to the overthrow of Yanukovych, Russia moved to annex Ukraine’s Crimean region and the Port of Sevastopol. Russia also deployed its army near Ukraine’s eastern border. Fighting erupted between pro-Russian rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern region and the Kiev government, with the two regions demanding secession from Ukraine. All along, the EU and the western powers have accused Russia as the epicenter and propagator of the conflict by alleged military support to the separatists. Up to date, the crisis has caused over 4000 deaths and displacement of many Ukrainians from their homes (McLaughlin, 2014). Russia accuses the Western powers of destruction of the order of the world. It argues that the protests and their repercussions were not a reflection of the will of a majority of Ukrainians, but a well schemed western’s modern warfare strategies to overthrow democratically elected and liberal minded governments. According to Russia, the revolution in Ukraine and other parts of the world are global strategy to force foreign values to nations that stand against the United States hegemony, and that Russia was a particular target of this ploy (McLaughlin, 2014). The Ukraine turmoil is a global threat and, therefore, warrants international concern. In 1994, immediately after its independence from the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the world’s fourth largest nuclear power. It agreed to surrender the nuclear weapons and in return, US, UK and Russia promised it security and protection over its borders and sovereignty. The annexation of Crimean region by Russia and its alleged interference and support to eastern Ukraine regions that want secession from Ukraine is a breach of the protection promise given to Ukraine by the three most powerful nations as a condition of surrendering the nuclear weapons. This situation is sufficient to justify a developing nation’s need to develop nuclear weapons to safeguard its sovereignty thus causing global security threats (McLaughlin, 2014). Integrative and Distributive aspects of the Negotiation before Impasse Distributive Aspects of the Negotiation In distributive approach to negotiation, the conflicting parties try to divide up or distribute something. The conflicting parties try to get as much as they can for themselves. Common tactics to distributive negotiation include trying to acquire advantage by insisting on having more negotiators than the other party, using deception and tricks to try to make the other party compromise more than you compromise, issuing threats or ultimatums, generally attempting to compel the other party to give in by outsmarting or overpowering them, and refusal to discuss the problem as an equal. The goal in distributive negotiation is to ensure that your side wins as much as possible, meaning that the other side loses (Colorado.edu, 1998). Until recently, the parties in the Ukraine crisis employed distributive negotiation tactics. Both the Kiev government and rebels from the eastern region backed by Russia engaged in armed conflict, each side trying to get a bigger piece of the pie. The rebels demanded secession from Ukraine while the Kiev government fought to reclaim the rebel-held regions in protection of the Ukraine’s sovereignty (McLaughlin, 2014). Ultimatums were also issued especially by the transitional government to pro-Russian separatists at the height of the conflict that saw the rebels seize government buildings in the eastern regions. This tactic stalled as the separatists ignored the ultimatums and advanced to seize more government facilities. Neither did the separatists give in to ultimatums issued by President Petroshenko immediately after his election as the Ukraine’s president. The European Union and United states who are parties to this conflict also issued an ultimatum to Russia to halt aid to the separatists to which Russia reacted by denying its military involvement in the eastern region and allegedly, continued to deploy its military near the border (McLaughlin, 2014). Sanctions have been a widely used distributive negotiation tactic. Following annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean region by Russia, the US imposed travel sanctions on Russian and Ukrainians individuals whom it accused of perpetration of the violation of territories and sovereignty of Ukraine. In September, the USA government imposed punitive economic sanctions to Russia; that aimed at Russia’s largest bank and restricted particular US exports to Russia’s oil projects. These sanctions followed other economic sanctions issued by the European Union. The sanctions were intended to compel Russia to abide by the terms of September 5 Minsk truce. Russia reiterated against these sanctions by banning import of some commodities from the United States and some European Union member countries. Conspicuously, Russia threatened cutting off natural gas supply to Ukraine and European countries in response to the economic sanctions imposed on it (Reuters, 2014). Integrative aspect of the Negotiation Integrative approach to negotiation involves the conflicting parties understanding each other’s interests & working together to achieve better results than a party could achieve on its own (Colorado.edu, 1998).Stalling of distributive negotiation approach inspired adoption of an integrative approach, marked by the September 5 peace deal held in Minsk Belarus. The peace deal brought together the Ukraine government, Russia, separatists delegation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The elements of the peace deal included a law that envisaged giving the Luhansk and Donetsk regions greater autonomy and also separatist fighters’ protection from prosecution. In respect to this law, the two regions were to hold elections for local officials in December this year. Other elements of the peace deal included Ukraine’s government commitment to the protection of interests of ethnic Russians in the two eastern regions. The peace deal ended full scale clashes between the separatists and the government forces but irregular shelling in some parts of Donetsk continued to exert pressure on the peace deal whose major terms have recently crumbled (Reuters, 2014). Pareto Optimality The two parties could not reach Pareto optimality because of the hardline positions adopted, aggravated by the influence from EU and USA on Ukraine government and Russia’s influence on the separatists. Firstly, despite big battlefield loss, Ukraine government cannot let go the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, even if wanted to, because such an act would amount to a win by Russia over the EU and US. On the other hand, the separatists cannot compromise their calls for secession as doing so would be a win by EU and US over Russia. The implication of this power play by Russia one side and the U.S. & the EU on the other side could not allow the Ukraine government and the separatist to convene liberal negotiation processes. True Impasse Reached The Ukraine conflict has reached a true impasse. This is manifested by recent gross violation of the September 5 Minsk peace deal and the reactions by the involved parties following this violation. After a mere one month since the peace deal, pro-Russian rebels in the two eastern regions rejected the offer for greater Autonomy and asserted that they wouldnt settle for nothing short of full independence. True to these assertions, on November 2, 2014, Donetsk and Luhansk regions held polls and elected their national leaders in contravention of the provision of the peace deal that required them to hold elections for local officials only under Ukrainian Law in December this year (Reuters, 2014). Russia has shown moves likely to legitimize these elections while the Ukraine government, U.S and EU have dismissed the elections as a sham and threatened to impose more punitive sanctions on Russia. Ukraine’s President Petro Poreshenko has since called for scrapping of the special law of the Minsk deal that would accord special status to Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The separatists and their backers in Russia have affirmed that any slight change to the deal would be tantamount to its full revocation (Reuters, 2014).In substance, the Minsk peace deal has fallen apart, and it might be a matter of time before the conflict returns to full scale unless the parties work on the impasse. Working through the Impasse Developmental psychologists argue that the concept of resiliency has yielded goods results and insights about adults and youths at risk. Despite extreme stress and adversities of war, poverty, disaster, abuse, crime, drugs and illnesses, these study groups not only survived, but also succeeded in achievement of their life goals. They overcame their adversities through resiliency. By analogy, if their resilience and its cause can be understood, the same can be applied by negotiators to work through impasses (Spector, 2006). In international negotiation context such as in the Ukraine’s situation, resilience can be a critical factor that can facilitate the emergence of success in the face of imminent failure. Negotiation resilience refers to the capacity of parties to a negotiation to recover from actual and expected setbacks, deadlock or stalemates experienced in the process of negotiation by finding ways to start over the process. If the negotiators have resiliency, it could assist them to bounce back from the blink of failure and use new strategies and tactics that can facilitate working through the impasse. Several, case studies on an international negotiation show how diplomatic talks can break an impasse. Research show that resilience of the negotiator was key to these breakthroughs (Spector, 2006). For example in 1992, the Vance-Owen and Owen Stoltenberg negotiation process in the Bosnian Conflict stalled. The United States intervened to mediate in what is seen as resilience.US used a new approach; it analyzed the previous failed approaches to make a composite proposal based on carefully chosen ideas from the parties that had been given in earlier proposals, but now in a new embodiment. This new method was based on the substitution of a Croat –Muslim federation in Bosnia for a confederation between the federation and Croatia. By 1994, the mediation by the US yielded the Dayton Agreement. The bottom line of this case is that good ideas can break an impasse. When it seems that the negotiation has run out of its course with no agreement reached, reformulation of old ideas in a new package may work (Spector, 2006). Resilience,in this case, that might also work for Ukraine’s case is seen in the introduction of a new mediating party(US) with new ideas and better activist strategies. If such a party could be found today, the deadlock in the Ukraine conflict can be broken. U.S.A. cant be a mediator in this conflict due to its bias against Russia; neither can many European countries. Similarly to the Bosnia’s case, the 1992 Oslo talks on peace in the Middle East show resiliency in the face of a deadlock. A history of perpetual failed negotiation processes was changed by these talks that introduced new elements such as non-official participants (then prime minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin) and utmost secrecy. Through a new sense of possibility and working trust, the impasse was broken (Spector, 2006). Some intellectuals argue that deadlocked negotiations are the conflicts that are likely to be ripe for resolution if pushed just a little further. Impasses might be overcome if the pain of the deadlock gets worse if it turns out to be mutually hurting and inflicts credible, imminent and severe costs. Parties in the impasse in the Ukraine’s case are unlikely to be willing to plot such ripe moments, particularly the hurtful ones. It is also doubtful whether forcing the conflict to the direction of more extreme costs inflicted after a deadlock has been reached , will be more likely to result into war or return to the negotiating table(Spector, 2006). Failure to reach an agreement in an international negotiation process can lead into a crisis. When such negotiations reach an impasse, weak states can be toppled by powerful nations, insecurity can heighten and the whole world can sink into war. The negotiations on Ukraine conflict is at an impasse, following a gross violation of the Minsk agreement marked by the two separatist’s held Luhansk and Donetsk regions official elections and establishment of their governments. In view of the threat failed negotiations can pose to the world’s security, negotiators should be resilient enough to return to the negotiating table. References Colorado.edu, (1998). Distributive Bargaining. Retrieved 4 November 2014, from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/distbarg.htm McLaughlin, L. (2014). The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: a Harvard Scholar Explains. Summer.harvard.edu. Retrieved 4 November 2014, from http://www.summer.harvard.edu/blog-news-events/conflict-ukraine-historical-perspective Reuters. (2014). Ukraine crisis deepens after rebel vote in east. Retrieved 4 November 2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/03/us-ukraine-crisis-rebel-election-idUSKBN0IL3AP20141103 Spector, B. (2006). Resiliency in Negotiation: Bouncing Back from Impasse. International Negotiation, 11(2), 1-10. Read More