Pre-Negotiations: Analysis of Diplomatic Strategies and Dynamics

This report analyzes two articles focusing on pre-negotiations and negotiation dynamics. The first article defines pre-negotiation as a crucial stage preceding formal negotiation, emphasizing the need for agreement on mutual benefits, agenda, and procedure. It details conditions such as acknowledging a conflict, agreeing on agenda content (which can be controversial), and determining the format, venue, timing, and delegation composition. The second article examines American negotiation dynamics, highlighting internal influences like Congress, interagency rivalries, and election cycles. It explores how these factors shape negotiation goals, tactics, and the roles of various agencies, emphasizing the importance of understanding these complex internal dynamics for successful international diplomacy. The report underscores the intricacies of negotiation processes and the impact of both pre-negotiation stages and domestic factors on outcomes.

Running head: PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
Student’s name:
University:
Author’s note:

1
PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
Article 1: Prenegotiations
The article describes the process of prenegotiation, i.e. the previous stage of a diplomatic
negotiation. It explains the due process of agreement to negotiate, as well the minutes of
agreement. The author comments that that the term prenegotiation is a misnomer, since this stage
involves a comprehensive amount of negotiation. However, the phase of prenegotiation is not as
systematic and structured as the actual negotiation phase. The author defines this phase as the
range of activities conducted prior to the actual and substantive procedure, specifically known as
the formal negotiation, and it aims to achieve the agreement of all concerned parties on three
fundamental aspects. First, the related parties should acknowledge that the outcome may prove to
be advantageous to all the sides concerned. Second, the agreement on the specific agenda for the
meeting and third, agreement on the fashion as how the negotiation procedure will be conducted.
Further, the author proceeds to elaborately discuss the conditions of a prenegotiation. At
first, he emphasizes that the concerned parties should agree on the fact that there is an existing
stalemate or conflict that needs to be resolved. More precisely, all the concerned parties need to
be equally convinced that the negotiation is an essential requirement at the given state. Besides,
this agreement presupposes the understanding that the result of the negotiation will produce
beneficial results for all the concerned parties. However, this agreement should entail certain
conditions, such as the leaderships at the domestic scenario are in secure positions, and the
possibility of the negotiation does not alarm the public etc.
The second condition stipulates that the concerned parties should agree upon the agenda,
i.e. then issues of the negotiation. This condition mandates that the parties should determine the
grounds of negotiation, as well as prioritize of the issues. This aspect of agreement, referred as

2
PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
the agenda content by the author, can be controversial owing to three main reasons. First, one of
the concerned parties may have conceded well before the negotiation, in which case the
definition of a specific issue may differ among the related parties. Besides, a decided agenda
often imply an agreed deal, where agreeing in the agenda will entail the acceptance of the deal.
Thus, conflicts may arise in framing the agenda. Second, agenda may be used as a tool of
propaganda and finally, it can be ambiguous or vague.
Third, the concerned parties should agree on the fashion or the procedure of the
negotiation as well. This is the final stage prior to the formal negotiation that needs to be
determined in an orderly manner. The related parties should agree on four main issues, namely
the format of the negotiation, venue, timing and most importantly, the nature of delegations for
the negotiation. The composition, size and level of the delegation, though an intimate matter,
affects the outcome of the negotiation. Thus, it could be seen that there are several steps before a
negotiation, which have an imminent impact on its conclusion.
Article 2: American Negotiating with Americans
The following chapter discusses the dynamics of the internal agencies and institutions
that an American negotiator has to keep in mind. To elucidate, there are certain considerations
relating to the domestic, political, diplomatic and social conflicts that an American negotiator has
to maintain during his or her service in an international negotiation. The author cites Ruth
Whiteside in the article, who opines that it is necessary to consider the people in the Congress,
for they have a comprehensive influence on a diplomat’s authority and jurisdiction.

3
PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
The author further remarks that this internal influence on international diplomacy is not
unique to the American system, rather it can be seen in several nations, especially with autocratic
governments. For a democratic country, however, the control is comparatively relaxed. America,
compared to other democratic governments, has multiple power centers in its bureaucratic
system. Besides, the determining factor in the internal bureaucratic negotiations lies in gaining
the support of relevant stakeholders, especially the president, rather than reaching a consensus.
This unique feature of multiple power centers marks the distinction of American domestic
system from other domestic systems. The feature also reflects the cultural patterns, institutions
and constellation of domestic forces of America.
The author emphasizes the intricacies and dynamics of the agencies of the U.S.
governmental system that effectively influence the procedures and the structures of negotiations.
There are several components of the federal system that have their impacts on the timetable,
tactics and negotiating goals, namely the elections and leadership, interagency rivalries and most
importantly, the Congress.
The Congress has an influential role in shaping the procedures, goals and attitude of a
negotiation. It has the authority of sanctioning or rejecting a treaty or compromise, which often
jeopardizes the hard-earned results of the negotiators. The Congress enjoys a powerful
constitutional role in this regard, as the final sanction of any treaty is subject to the approval of
the two-third of the Senate. On the other hand, the Congress’s insular influence on international
bodies and other interest groups also shapes the American foreign policy to a great extent.
The election schedule and results also influence the diplomatic activities, as the
anticipated change in the leadership may differ on the interests and reservations regarding the
contemporary issues. The limited nature of the constitutional power of the Senate, the House as

4
PRE-NEGOTIATIONS
well as the presidents is the driving force behind the time-bound, businesslike attitude of the
American negotiations.
The inter-agency rivalry and disputes are another barrier that negotiators have to
overcome while establishing a successful negotiation. There are multiple stakeholders involved
in all the foreign affairs, such as the State Department, the Justice Department, the National
Security Council, the Defense Department and so on. These agencies first are to determine the
goals and leverage for a specified negotiation before the terms are officially tabled. This is rather
a complex and elaborate procedure, which often involves various disputes and conflicts of
interests among the agencies. As a result, the negotiation procedure is deeply affected. The
dynamics also impact the team formation, due to which the dynamics of the negotiation
procedure have to be redesigned. However, many scholars have opined that these multiagency
negotiating teams have proven to be useful and influential in several instances.