Applying Negotiation Skills to Bill Clinton Approach

Applying Negotiation Skills to Bill Clinton Approach to Freeing the Two Journalist for North Korea

For any solution to be reached, it is important that the two involved parties are ready to talk and come to a point of solution, which would be best for all concerned. It also means that a certain spirit of sacrifice and patience if required to better understand the point-of-view of the other party.

There seems to be a growing emphasis on the power of dialogue to resolve issues between various parties, so much so that today, dialoguing and negotiation is fast becoming an art form, which requires thorough research about the other party as well as a knowledge of every aspect that may play a part in securing the deal in the manner in which you want it to play out.

But things do tend to get a bit distorted when the political arena is involved. In the political sphere, a lot of time morality needs to take a back seat, so that the proper functioning can take place, which best suits the national interest of a country, even at the cost of ignoring what is right or wrong, and what is in the best interest of the other nation. This National Interest is in a fact the true driving force behind any nations way of dealing with its friends and foe's and also helps in clearing up, for a general audience, the sort of ties that any two nation's may maintain between them.

However, sometime even two countries with the worst political history may need to come to terms with each other, because of their own national interest. And in such a situation, one of the best tools that can be applied to this scenario is "Negotiation."

The importance of Negotiation as the most vital tool in International Relations can't be denied, but despite this the apparent role of Negotiation, it has always been mistaken or understood as a "parallel process that takes place during war" to end the hostilities being played out with full force (Iragorri, Revista De Derecho, Universidad Del Norte). The role that negotiations can play in avoiding this situation in the first place is altogether ignored. However, negotiation when applied properly and with respect can be a great tool to reverse or avoid confrontational situation altogether.

Understanding Negotiation

Negotiations can simply be defined as the way to reach an agreement between two parties, and of course reaching an agreement between two people, both working to secure the best deal for themselves, can truly make the entire process a daunting challenge for anyone. A lot of give and take needs to take place in the entire process and sacrifices tends to be the norm of the day when two parties finally decide to sit together and come to terms on a matter.

The process all together simply gets more complicated when the negotiation process is taking place between two countries, in which instead of personal gains, you have national interests to cater to and for!

In order for a negotiation to be successful, it becomes increasingly essential to have two factors, which would be the main contributor for even a negotiation to take place, these factors being common interest and conflict over that interests (Iragorri, Revista De Derecho, Universidad Del Norte). On the basis of these factors, a process of compromises and agreements would be reached, until a point is reached where both of the parties are substantially content with what they sought to gain through the negotiating process.

Negotiating - The Necessary Skills

Considering the fact that mostly negotiating can be a very tricky business, it needs to be kept in mind that every small gesture counts. Therefore, it is important when entering into a dialogue that certain precautions are taken into account, the most basic of these being the table manners. It is essential that the choice of language and the gestures, especially body language is being played out and how it might be interpreted by the other person. Therefore it becomes essential to even take into account the cultural differences, since they play a very important role in interpreting the actions for the other party -- this being more important in the case of a discussion taking place between two countries (Garcha)

One of the major determining and interesting point of any negotiating discussion is that in 99% of the scenario one can always know or predict what the other side would want to get out of this deal. Therefore how the deal is negotiated becomes a matter of prime importance. At this point, negotiating in a fact becomes an art performance, where cues need to be taken from the other side. Again these cues can be coming from the thinking that is being influenced by culture (Garcha), or from the historical or political background in which the negotiation is taking place.

In a negotiating process, a constant effort is taking place in which one party tries to influence the thinking, result and the outcome of the discussion. Nevertheless, for the talks to be successful, one needs to allow for themselves to be influenced too, weigh in which factors would be more suitable for them and which would be more damaging in the long run (Maiese, 2003).

Again since the demands from each side are known, when two parties finally get on the discussion table, one already has an idea what to give in, in order to make the deal happen, or what would be the best answer or sacrificing point on anyone of the possible demands that can be made. One also have chance to do enough research of the implication of each step for both of the parties.

However, there can be other outcomes to the process of negotiations; these being to either accept the terms of the agreement, to simple call of the entire process of negotiating -- a much likely situation to happen when one party is not getting what they want to out of the entire process, or "to improve the available terms through further bargaining" (Iragorri, Revista De Derecho, Universidad Del Norte).

Case Study: Negotiating between two Countries

Many negotiation agreements have now become part of history, in how and what they were able to deliver and how successful they were in the first place. Studying these case studies can give the idea of how the negotiating process between two nations is undoubtedly based and their outcomes the consequences of the National interest at stake.

Palestine and Israel, Talks between Sadat and Begin

The conflict on the Israel-Palestine issue has been playing out since 1948, with the birth of Israel and the ultimate taking over of the Palestinian territory. Since then the conflict has simply increased in magnitude with the loss of lives over it amounting to millions. Many attempts had been made to bring this issue on the discussion table and resolve it; however, none have been successful in this regard. The scale of the conflict had escalated so much that many countries including Egypt by the end of 1973 had already fought three wars with Israel, first in 1956 and then again in 1967 and again in 1973.

It was due to Anwar Sadat in 1972 that a possible point of negotiation was made apparent, when he hinted that a peace deal could be reached with Israel if the occupied territories were returned. However, since a negotiating party like the U.S.A., which could cater the deal on behalf of Egypt, didn't give any heed to this, the opportunity passed away. However, when the realization did come, talks were arranged between Israel and the various stake holders of the Middle East -- the majority being that of Muslims nation! Undoubtedly the talks failed, since the equilibrium of balance was on one side and the interests of Israel were being shadowed over by the Muslim nation Majority.

Finally in the year 1977, the visit of Anwar Sadat to Knesset, Jerusalem became the historic event which recognized Israel as a nation by the Egyptian Government. But it needs to be understood that this step was taken only in the national interest of Egypt -- a great driving force for any negotiation between two nations, and were reciprocated by Israel on the basis of what it can gain out of this.

This step was taken when the arrangement of another round of Middle East's stakeholders was in the process of being arranged, and if that would have happened, then there was a possibility that the Egyptian would have had to sacrifice the Sinai Desert forever to the Israeli's in the pressure of the greater pan-Arab interests. This was in light of the fact that Egyptians knew exactly where it stood in the Muslim World and the consequences to what bilateral talks with Israel might be able to deliver as compared to multilateral talks -- in which the Egyptian interests would be lost forever.

Talks took place for a great part of 1978 without any result, until fearing a falling off of the peace process, yet again, President Carter invited the two parties to Camp David and a deal was finally brokered between the two parties that showed the weakness and sacrifices undertaken by both the sides.

Conclusions

Both the parties got the best result as far as getting national interest related conditions were concerned. While Egypt got the Sinai Desert back, it didn't make any progress on the Palestinian Issue, while the Israeli were able to get a peace treaty with the Egyptians without even touching the issue of Palestine much. The resultant of the negotiations were aimed at even normalizing the situation between the two countries, and heeded the way of the Peace Process in the Middle East.

Bill Clinton and the Negotiations with North Korea

As the 42nd President of the United States of America, there can be little doubt regarding the contributions of this Democrat. On an international level, the 1993 Peace Agreement between Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat, were hailed as an extraordinary achievement of the President (Profile: Bill Clinton, 2010).

He is a man who has been reputed to bring his opponents to table and get them to negotiate a peace deal, like in the case of Ireland. His negotiation skills have been renowned in this regard, and it is because of these skills and other achievements similar to this which played a role in remaking the image of the ex-President as a peacemaker; this also greatly explains why he was chosen as the "broker" for the release of the two Journalists.

The Humanitarian Mission to North Korea

All of these lessons about negotiating were much apparent in the "humanitarian mission" that was carried out by Former President of the United Nations, Bill Clinton, when he visited South Korea on 4-5 August 2009. The humanitarian mission was carried out by the President to secure the release of two American Journalists who were arrested on the 17th of March 2009 by the North Korean Authorities and were charged with committing "hostile acts" and trying to enter the country illegally (McCurry, 2009). Both of the Journalists were working for Current TV, a California based online media outlet, being run by the former Presidency Candidate, Al Gore and at the time of their arrest were working on a story covering prostitution and illegal trafficking between China and North Korea.

Whereas the North Korean stance has been that the two Journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, were arrested from near the Tumen River, which runs along the country's eastern border with China, the South Korean claim has been that this is in a fact false, as the North Korean guards crossed over to the Chinese side just to make the arrest (McCurry, 2009).

In June 2009, the two journalists were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor by the court for the "grave crimes" that they had committed against the state of North Korea (John M. Glionna, 2009). This was seen as a further point of confrontation by the United States, which had already made many appeals to the Government of North Korea for the release of the two Journalists.

Background: The U.S.A. / North Korea Relationships

The relationship between North Korea and the United States of America has no doubt been very complex, and which reached new heights of hostilities after the stepping down of President Clinton and the succession of President Bush. The Nuclear tests has been a trump card for the North Koreans who have used it on an off to get their way with the U.S.A., and when the hostilities increased, the card resurfaced once again.

The situation further aggravated as the North Koreans continued the expansion and development of their nuclear program (Przystup, 2009). But other issues, like the pending transfer of power have also been a very sensitive issue between the two nations. There has been little doubt that the main concern of the United States has been regarding the loss of control of the nuclear weapons, which can result in a nuclear nightmare in the region. It was based on these fears that a Six-Party Talks were to be initiated between the two countries; however the confrontation on the diplomatic ground had reached an extent where Pyongyang had even refused to participate in the "Six-Party Talks aimed at the denuclearization of North Korea" in April 2009.

The hostilities between the two countries now played out very publicly, and became more apparent when "Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined North Korea's proliferation of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) as the great threat posed by Pyongyang to U.S. Interests," whereas President Bush even included it in his "Axis of Evil" theory, while Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State went on to call the nuclear program as the "most acute challenge to stability in Northeast Asia" (Przystup, 2009); whereas on the other side, North Korea too, has made it clear enough that the end of the nuclear program as well as any normalization of relations can only take place when the U.S. has moved away from its hostile policy attitude.

However, it could not be denied that the timing of the arrest could not have been more perfect; the arrest took place at a time when there was an immense criticism taking place regarding the testing of North Korea's new rocket launch. There had been much pressure on North Korea, both from Japan and USA, to call this test off which were scheduled to take place in April 2009 (McCurry, 2009). So much so that threats had been given to North Korea, in which the possible shooting down of the missiles as well as imposing of sanctions by the UN were all named as possibilities. However, the arrest meant that the response from Washington lacked the roar that would have taken place if the situation was different. Shooting at this stage as an option was completely out of question, since this would have resulted in consequences to the captive Americans.

There has been little, if any, doubt that the main reason why North Korea has insisted on continuing with its nuclear program, despite agreeing to talks several times, has been the harsh diplomatic stance that USA has maintained against it.

Therefore it is not surprising that under such a political background the success of Bill Clinton, the former President of America, in getting the release of the two Journalists was truly a remarkable achievement. The move and the consequent result of such a move were hailed the world over as a diplomatic front success, where an ex-president, through diplomatic efforts, was not only able to reduce the sentence of the two journalists, but was even successful in getting them an apology from the North Koreans.

Strategies of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton has always acted wisely and patiently in the case of North Korea, as is much evident from his tenure in the Oval Office; these steps included the Agreed Framework in 1994. The plan was basically that North Korea would gladly call off its nuclear program, in exchange for economic aid and normalization of relationships between the two countries (Collin, 2009).

Not only this, but the cultural understanding which the President employed during his years in the office was also instrumental in getting President Clinton the much needed respect -- especially in this case -- and preference in the political elites of North Korea. This Cultural Understanding was made apparent when as a President Bill Clinton, who must surely have touched the heart of the Kim family through the gesture, sent a condolence letter to his Korean counterpart on the demise of his father, Kim Il-sung.

It is therefore not surprising that he was selected as the face for this "Humanitarian Peace Mission" -- despite a number of possible other faces that were being deliberated on -- including Al Gore and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Mark Landler, 2009).

The Negotiations and the Problems

While there are not many details available about the negotiation between the two leaders, Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-il, the few that are found mention that a deal had already been worked out between the Obama Administration and the North Korean Administration. The deal was made possible between the two nations through various state department contacts and United Nation intermediaries (Niksch, 2010). This was a much needed and difficult step, since the U.S. has no diplomatic staff of its own inside North Korea since the 1950's when it sided with South Korea in the Korean War in 1950-53 (Associated Press, 2011). This most probably would have been another reason for such a high-profile visit to become so essential in the absence of no direct USA Diplomats in the state of North Korea to intervene.

Upon his arrival in the North Korean Capital, President Clinton was received with extreme respect and much official protocol at Pyongyang. But most importantly and the real true indicator of what was at stake here, was made apparent by the presence of Kim Kye-gawn -- North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator who received the President at the airport.

The entire visit of President Clinton lasted for 20 hours, in which he even dined with the ailing Kim Jong-il -- a visit that finally resulted in the royal pardon of the journalists and they being allowed to leave the country with the President on his Private Jet. It was also within these 20 hours that "candid and in-depth discussions on pending issues" also took place between the two leaders.

More importantly the manner in which he handled the entire situation has been much publicized in a very positive manner. Considering the sensitivity of the entire process, it is not shocking to know that everything was under the microscope and was later considered a great negotiation strategy that was employed. The attitude and the manner in which Bill Clinton approached the entire situation has also been described as one of his strategic tools, where he remained "courteous" and showed "sincerity" in his apology (Palomino, 2011).

Since much details of the negotiation process are not available, therefore the most outspoken source of the meeting, the State Media of North Korea itself, Korean Central News Agency needs to be taken into account. Other details knows about the 3-hour discussions include a deliverance of a "verbal message" from President Obama, although this has been denied by the White House respondents, saying that no such "written or verbal" message was sent to Kim Jong-il. The meeting covered many aspects of common concerns shared, which many experts view as might have been a probable deliverance of the concerns that the Obama Administration has with respect to a nuclear North Korea (Collin, 2009).

What did the two Sides Gain?

While for the U.S.A. The fruits of this entire ordeal were clear enough, what the North Koreans seeked to achieve from all this is much more complicated. For the U.S.A., the release of the two Journalists was the number one priority, and after many appeals, it became essential to send in a strong personality which could achieve what the U.S.A. wanted. That personality was in the form of ex-President Bill Clinton.

The arrival of an Ex-President to the Korean soil to discuss and try the Government to rethink its decision definitely seems to put the Kim's military Government in a higher position. Therefore this entire opportunity was seen as ways to enhance the propaganda internally, while also getting immense attention in the Global Media.

The fact that President was received by the Nuclear Negotiator also helps in putting things into perspective. There can be no doubt that both the countries had received a point where it became essential to put an end to the hostilities. Not only this, North Korea also seeked to get some sort of concession's from Washington, especially in regards to the probable sanctions that could have been put on them by the U.S.A. And the United Nations. In light of this could have possible scenario, it was important for North Korea to use the leverage that it had received in the shape of the hostage Journalists to win itself a better position, which there is no doubt that it did!

The role of the Personality of Bill Clinton in the Negotiations

Whatever little is known about the negotiating process, points towards the fact that throughout the process of the talks, President Clinton continued being truly respective towards the law and the ruling of the court. There was no argument or blame game that was played at that time. Instead, President Clinton understood the severity of the situation, and offered his "sincere apology" on behalf of the two female journalists and their behavior. Instead of trying to push the U.S.A. version of the story on his counterpart, this maneuver of Bill Clinton would again have worked to give respect to the North Koreans, and thus securing a better place for the demands of the U.S. regarding the release of the two Journalists.