How were the INTERESTS of BOTH SIDES served by the agreement you reached?
Ans.The agreement allowed the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco (FAMSF) to keep the Teotihuacan Murals for three more years so they could preserve the pieces of Art and restore it to its perfect condition so they do not get damaged when transporting them to Mexico. And in preserving the pieces of art Institute of National de Antropologia e Historia (INAH) was helping FAMSF. This would help the FAMSF to display the pieces of art when they are not getting restored and would help increasing their revenue and the revenue which will be generated by the displays of the art would be divided between the FAMSF and the Government of Mexico. Thus generating a source of income for the Government of Mexico too..While on the other side the Mexicans would be getting 26% of the pieces every year starting from the second year. And in return the Mexican museum would provide FAMSF with 100 artifacts to display on a yearly basis, which would be returned too every year. The FAMSF would pay for the preservation and restoration of the pieces of art and so the Government of Mexico would not have to bear the costs. When the pieces of art are returned to Mexico, they would donate 20% of the pieces to the FAMSF and thus this would help the FAMSF to possess a collection of Mexican artifacts. This would be a great source of revenue for the FAMSF as many Mexicans live in the U.S.A. The Mexican Government also gave a year to the FAMSF for to retain the Teoithucuan Murals to display after they are restored. The agreement's terms clearly said that FAMSF was formulating this agreement for the sake of improving the relations and friendship with the United States of Mexico, thus giving a clear view that it did not support returning of artifacts back to the country...
The FAMSF will invest in the excavations of pieces of arts and in return for that they will get the rights to display the newly discovered artifacts in their museum. The revenue generated by the artifacts would be taken by the FAMSF to fulfill their invested amount and the first 10% profits would also be taken by them. The rest would be divided between the FAMSF and Mexico.
d. In what ways did the process that your group followed help or hinder your negotiations? What made this negotiation hard? What moved it along?
Ans. The national laws did not allow the Mexican government to claim the murals as for the reasons stated above. There was no possible way to achieve a negotiation until both the parties came to an agreement or solution. And hence to improve the relationship between the U.S.A. And Mexico the San Francisco Museum (my side) agreed to return the Mexicans the Teotihuacan Murals. This step was popularly accepted by the Mexicans and it paved a way for a negotiation process between the two parties. The FAMSF retained possession of all mural pieces for the three years and this could be a hindrance to the negotiation. But to handle the situation the agreement said that after two years the FAMSF would return 26% of the murals on a yearly basis. And for the restoration process they included a Mexican expertise institute which would make sure that the artifacts are maintained according to its values. By dividing the revenue between both the parties the negotiation proved favorable for both. To satisfy the Mexicans that the artifacts they were giving to us were actually their property, FAMSF allowed the Mexicans to clearly mention on the exhibits that they were a donation from the Mexican friends. The steps therefore taken helped in improving the negotiations further.
