Example of international negotiation article review

WYE PLANTATION CASE STUDY

Stakeholders and Actors of the Negotiation
The stakeholders of this negotiation were mainly the Israeli, Palestinian, and
American governments, although the Israeli, Palestinian, and American people could also be considered stakeholders as they were the ones who were bound to benefit or suffer from the results of the negotiation. In particular, the Israelis would benefit from the positive outcome of the negotiations through the assurance of their security while the Palestinians were bound to benefit from the positive outcome of the negotiations through the regaining of their land. As for the Americans, they would benefit through the assurance of world peace and through the maintenance of their good relations with both Israel and Palestine. As the outcomes of the negotiation could also possibly affect world peace and international relations, other countries and the rest of the world could also be considered stakeholders.

The actors of the negotiation were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon who led the Israeli delegates; PLO leader Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinian delegates; and President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who led the US delegates. These leaders served as the representatives of their corresponding countries. Although Netanyahu and Arafat, together with their delegates, were the two main disputing parties, Clinton and the U. S. delegates served as mediators to facilitate the negotiation between Netanyahu and Arafat. In addition, King Hussein of Jordan also played as an actor as he, too, tried to influence Netanyahu and Arafat to come up with a deal.

The Respective Positions of the Actors in Relation to the Negotiation Items

The position of Arafat was for Israelis to move out of the West Bank to which Netanyahu initially disagreed. Netanyahu’s position, on the other hand, was for the Palestinian government to agree to the terrorist arrests and to the confiscation of weapons. The position of Clinton was for Netanyahu to agree to a deal, which Arafat was willing to make, in order to prevent Arafat from implementing his threat of declaring a Palestinian state.

Aside from these, Arafat also demanded for the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, which Netanyahu originally refused to concede to. Moreover, Arafat demanded the safe passage of Palestinians from Israel to the Gaza Strip, which Netanyahu also refused initially. As well, Arafat demanded for the airport in Gaza to be opened, which Netanyahu again disagreed to.

On Netanyahu’s part, his additional demands included the modification of the Palestinian charter, which called for the destruction of Israel. To this, Arafat refused. Moreover, Netanyahu demanded the release of Jay Pollard from President Clinton to which Clinton responded that he would give it some consideration.

The Respective Interests of the Actors

The main interests of the actors were peace and security, with the actors’ prestige and political reputation as secondary interests. In particular, Arafat wanted the Israeli troops to move out of the West Bank in order to ensure security for the Palestinians. Similarly, Netanyahu wanted Arafat to ensure the arrest of terrorists and the confiscation of weapons in order to ensure security for the Israelis.

Arafat also asked for the release of the Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in order to gain prestige from his people, but Netanyahu initially refused due to security reasons. Similarly, Arafat wanted to ensure the secure passage of Palestinians from Israel to Gaza Strip, which Netanyahu initially disagreed to for security reasons. In the same manner, Arafat wanted the airport in Gaza to be opened, which Netanyahu likewise disagreed to due to security reasons.

As well, Netanyahu asked for the modification of the PLO charter with regards to the destruction of Israel in order to ensure the Israelis’ security. However, Arafat disagreed to this due to the damage it would cause on his political image. On a similar note, Netanyahu asked for the release of Jay Pollard in order to gain his critics’ approval. To this, Clinton did not give a concrete answer as a way to also protect his political image.

Overall, though, the U. S. and King Hussein’s interest in the negotiation’s outcome was for the preservation of world peace and the assurance of security for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. As well, Clinton had the interest of maintaining good relations with both Israel and Palestine.

The Negotiation Process, the Communication, and the Relationship

I think that the negotiation process went well in that the parties involved took their time in discussing their concerns. They didn’t speed up the negotiation process, which may have led to some options being overlooked. Instead, all of the parties involved made sure that they got to air all of their issues so that they may be given proper consideration. They tried to come up with win-win solutions for everyone. I think that it was also good that the various actors took a break (e. g. taking naps or going to the mall) as these breaks gave them a chance to cool off and go back to the negotiation with a clear head.

It was also good that the US and King Hussein served as mediators in the negotiation process as they were very helpful in getting the negotiations going whenever the disputing parties arrived at a deadlock. Having a third party as a mediator was also helpful in that this mediator was able to objectively identify the common interest between the disputing parties. As such, Clinton and the other US delegates helped ensure that the two parties focused on their common interests in order to be able to come up with a deal and to put aside their other issues for future negotiations. This way, they would at least be able to achieve something.

The communication was also good in that all of the parties involved were honest in putting their issues forward. Moreover, Clinton was objective when he listened to both sides. In addition, Clinton’s gesture of walking out of the meeting had a great impact on the negotiating parties, which made them somehow feel compelled to go on with the negotiations. Similarly, King Hussein’s appeal to the negotiating parties brought some calmness into the negotiation process, which in turn somehow helped reinvigorate the negotiators.

As for the relationship, I think that the US was somehow biased towards Arafat but that they at least made an effort to ensure that the Israelis did not feel alienated. In addition, I think it was a good gesture that the US and Palestinian delegates made the effort to greet Netanyahu on his birthday and that Netanyahu thought of Arafat as his partner, which signaled the beginning of a good relationship between Palestine and Israel.

References

McAlllister, J. F. O., 1998. Inside Wye Plantation, TIME Magazine.