The late Roger Fisher, founder of the Harvard Project on Negotiation and one of the world’s foremost negotiation scholars, had a mantra: You must always try to negotiate. Categorically. With war raging on Europe’s eastern borders, one might think that the art of negotiation would be front and center these days, with politicians and journalists passionately discussing diplomatic solutions. But diplomatic dispute resolution, an art refined after the horrors of World War II and leading to the most peaceful years in history, has been replaced by warmongering rhetoric from the dark old days. Those calling for negotiations have little influence on the ongoing debate and are labeled as weaklings and cowards, including the presidents of the United States and France.
This development is a dangerous misunderstanding of what negotiation is. Negotiating does not mean making generous concessions or abandoning your basic principles (unless the principle is not to negotiate with some), it does not even mean making a deal. It just means that if you don’t explore the possibilities thoroughly, you’re giving away your chances.
It’s not easy to sit down with someone you fundamentally disagree with. You have to be able to engage in thoughts that you find silly, irrational, and even horrible. Can you handle such thoughts without being offended and resisting the urge to leave the table? A culture of offense is antithetical to a culture of negotiation. However, a wise negotiator is not only open to other points of view, but actively explores them. “What if…” was Roger Fisher’s favorite introduction to a question, followed by an uninhibited brainstorming of all conceivable options, including those that seemed outrageous.
We can rarely choose our negotiating partner. But we can choose to follow Roger Fisher’s categorical imperative to always negotiate with an open mind. Despite the difficulties, it’s worth it: prosperity and peace. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the top 10 negotiations for 2023 and how they will shape our world.
10 Hope endures: The Colombia-ELN Negotiations
“La Violencia,” the armed conflict in Colombia between the government and paramilitary groups and criminal syndicates, has made Colombia one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Since 1958, nearly 200,000 civilians have lost their lives and over 5 million have been displaced from their homes. Especially after the 2016 peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the conflict, and with it the violence, decreased and tourism in the country experienced an upswing.
Negotiations are now underway between the Colombian government and another key paramilitary organization, the National Liberation Army (ELN). Those talks had stalled in January 2019 following an ELN car bomb attack at Colombia’s National Police Academy that killed 23 people.
The talks are in line with promises of “total peace” by newly elected Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a former M‑19 member. The former guerrilla organization M‑19 has disbanded to focus on political change. Petro says he sees the talks as a means to negotiate with the rebels, revive dormant peace accords and unite the country.
Delegates to the first round met in Caracas, Venezuela, in late 2022. These exploratory talks produced encouraging results: People displaced by conflict will be able to return to their homes and living conditions for prisoners will improve. The Venezuelan president’s website describes the effort as a “beacon of hope in a world marked by war situations and destructive tensions.”
Although the process has just begun, hope is indeed justified — as with any well-organized negotiation. The parties will meet in Mexico for the next round of talks.
9. Microsoft vs. the USA: Will the Blizzard deal hold?
The games industry is bigger than Hollywood and the music industry combined. Global sales have risen from 8 billion in 2006 to nearly 200 billion in 2022, with the Call of Duty game franchise alone taking in a staggering 31 billion in total.
So it’s no surprise that Microsoft has negotiated a deal to buy Blizzard, the world’s largest game maker, for $95 per share in cash. The $68.7 billion deal gives Microsoft ownership of some of the world’s most popular games, including Call of Duty, Candy Crush and Warcraft. It could be that the company’s strategy is to offer Blizzard’s lineup on Game Pass, Microsoft’s online gaming platform.
However, that path is not yet certain. The Federal Trade Commission wants to block the acquisition because it believes the move would enable Microsoft to stifle competitors to its Xbox consoles and its fast-growing subscription content and cloud gaming business. If neither side changes its strategy, this dispute will go to federal court.
Microsoft has already announced that it is willing to give competitors like Sony and Nintendo access to Blizzard games, so it doesn’t seem like the two sides are too far apart. It could be that the Biden administration is taking advantage of the situation to show others that it is serious about enforcing antitrust regulations.
8 The End of a War: Ethiopia and the Rebels of the Tigray Region
Negotiations between Ethiopia and the Tigray region successfully ended a two-year conflict that reportedly killed thousands of non-combatants. The agreement allows for the delivery of goods to the Tigray region, where doctors say even the most basic medical supplies are nearly depleted. Humanitarian efforts are underway to restore disrupted communications and supply lines.
South Africa hosted the talks, while the United States called on the parties to immediately cease hostilities and ensure the protection of civilians. Prior to the negotiations, Ethiopian troops had won significant victories, which may have encouraged rebel negotiators to end the fighting. However, both sides have “made major concessions.” The cease-fire may be difficult to maintain given the political and territorial disputes between the parties. For now, however, peace prevails.
7 Negotiations with the Taliban: Missed Opportunities
Negotiations with the Taliban were already on the list last year and the year before. Why have peace negotiations failed in the 20 years that NATO troops have been in Afghanistan? Because virtually every conceivable negotiating mistake was made. A revealing report by the United States Institute of Peace says there was no shortage of opportunities to end violence through negotiation — but they were “missed, unrecognized, or deliberately spurned” by all parties: the United States of America, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Taliban.
Missed opportunities occurred in 2010, when a surge in military activity created an open door for negotiations that was sorely missed by allies around the United States. The foolish decision not to invite then Afghan President Ghani to the negotiating table weakened the government of the day and delegitimized any negotiating efforts.
U.S. President Biden’s announcement of withdrawal in 2021 left no leverage for negotiations and empowered the Taliban to take control of the country overnight. The United States then embezzled virtually half of the assets of the world’s poorest country when it seized $7 billion that the Afghan central bank had deposited in the New York Federal Reserve branch in February 2022.
While Afghanistan is treated like an outsider on the world stage, the most radical branch of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, is gaining influence: women have been banned from universities, executions and amputations are to be reintroduced. In 2001, then-President Bush refused to negotiate with the Taliban. This ill-advised decision resulted in some 250,000 people losing their lives in vain (of which 171,500 were Afghans). Oh, and Afghanistan was again home to the leader of Al Qaeda. And we are back to square one, which makes this story an excellent example of how actual negotiating skills are essential to achieving a good outcome.
6. climate activists to the table
Austrian climate change activists smeared a Gustav Klimt painting in Vienna with black “oil,” British activists taped themselves to roads, and German protesters even took to the tarmac at Berlin Airport. The destruction of priceless works of art and even the forced shutdown of infrastructure were dismissed as acts of zealous activists who went a little overboard, with some politicians even supporting them.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Economist rightly warns of the development of violent climate terrorism. Climate activism has become a movement that leaves no room for debate or even nuance. One German group calls itself “Last Generation,” which makes one think of a quasi-religious movement. In fact, unbelievers are called heretics (“deniers”), and the only way to avoid Armageddon is to follow their path to salvation.
The protesters did succeed in attracting attention (they even made it onto this Forbes list), but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Such actions trigger applause among supporters, but lead to sheer hatred among the opposition — even among the previously undecided. This will then lead to the extremist bubble closing and actual terrorism developing, as The Economist describes.
Now is the time to negotiate with climate activists to simply stop them from becoming violent. It’s not too late — not yet. Siemens made a good start by offering a 23-year-old German activist a seat on the board of Siemens Energy Board, a spinoff of the German tech giant that focuses on energy-efficient technology. She turned it down. Negotiating with dogmatic adversaries is very tiring, and the urge to stop negotiating with them is understandable. But we shouldn’t. It could get ugly.
5. Iran: Levers for Change at Home
Protests in Iran began when Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, died in police custody. She was arrested Sept. 13 by Tehran’s morality police for failing to cover her hair “appropriately.” Police claim that Amini, who was not diagnosed with a heart condition, died of a sudden heart attack.
The protests began with women in Amini’s hometown of Saqqez removing their hijabs at her funeral. This sparked protests across the country chanting “Death to the dictator,” referring to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Amini’s death stirred several pots, all represented by her: The anger of oppressed women, the Kurdish minority, and those from poor, marginalized families. Men, mostly young adults, joined the movement, which became the largest protests ever faced by the revolutionary government. A revolution brought the mullahs to power in 1979, when the Iranian shah was overthrown by protesters chanting “Death to the Shah” and Khomeini was named Supreme Leader. And a revolution could topple them today as well. The government is well aware of this and is responding with force.
The international community can use its influence as leverage by linking human rights issues to talks on the nuclear agreement. But here, too, real politics does not follow the laws of morality (even if it often claims to do so). However, if the world has learned one thing from dealing with the dictators of the Middle East, it is that destabilizing countries by creating a power vacuum or installing puppet governments does not work.
4 Indonesian Law and the Demands of the Zealots
Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world and the tenth largest economy. With its approximately 231,000 million inhabitants, 87 % of whom are Muslim, the country has the largest Muslim population in the world. As Indonesia has reduced its poverty rate by over 50 % in the last 20 years, a modern middle class is thriving, especially in the cities. Religious conservatives and moderates regularly clash and try to find common ground.
Indonesia’s new penal code is not yet a beacon of freedom, but the negotiations resulted in less stringent laws than originally called for. Same-sex marriages are, unsurprisingly, still prohibited. Sexual relations between two unmarried people now carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison. Other illegal activities include cohabitation by unmarried couples, abortions not performed as a result of rape or in medical emergencies, and advertising contraceptives to minors.
Other offenses under Indonesian law include insulting the dignity of the president and spreading values that are not in line with the ideology of the state. To mitigate the effects and prevent “blame,” only the president can report an insult to his dignity, and “public consultation” can be a way to disagree with the state. Cohabitation can only be reported by the spouse, a parent, or a child of either party.
A spokesperson for Human Rights Watch stated, “The passage of this penal code is the beginning of an absolute disaster for human rights in Indonesia.” The rewriting of Indonesia’s penal code has taken decades. An earlier draft led to street protests that prompted lawmakers to include the public in the proceedings.
Will the resistance lead to further negotiations and the resulting changes in Indonesian law? We will have to wait and see. For now, however, human rights in the country have at least made some progress.
3. in search of a mediator: the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
War over Nagorno-Karabakh? Over a corridor to Nakhichevan? The fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan is hardly newsworthy in the West. Why should anyone care about two former Soviet republics fighting over enclaves and exclaves that hardly anyone has heard of? As is so often the case, a closer look reveals that this is a conflict of global significance and a prime example of the need for negotiation and mediation skills.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Nagorno-Karabakh region has been a bone of contention between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 2020, Azerbaijan won the second Karabakh war, and it was Russia that brokered the peace and provided security with a peacekeeping mission.
In March, Azerbaijan took advantage of Russia’s weakness and invaded Armenia. The war was an aggression into previously disputed regions, but deep in Armenian heartland. Armenians fear ethnic cleansing, and there is evidence of war crimes by Azeris and even torture and mutilation.
Azerbaijan seems to be seizing the opportunity to gain as much territory as possible. The borders between Russia and Europe are virtually closed, which has increased the importance of the South Caucasus route from Armenia to Turkey and Iran. In the 2020 peace treaty, Armenia explicitly guarantees “the security of transport links” between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, an inland exclave inhabited by Azerbaijanis. Azerbaijan argues that this means that the corridor is not part of Armenia (nor Azerbaijan), but is extraterritorial and controlled by neutral forces, such as the Russian Border Guard. Armenia argues that this was never agreed upon and would jeopardize the country’s sovereignty.
Russia is favorable to Azerbaijan’s request, as this would establish a direct link between Russia and Turkey (via Armenia and Azerbaijan) instead of passing through pro-Western Georgia. When Armenia asked Russia for help, it more or less repeated Azerbaijan’s arguments and promised to send only observers, which is not surprising. Russia is losing support among Armenians and alienating a former close ally. Azerbaijan’s closest ally, Turkey, has a good relationship with Russia, rejecting Western sanctions and even offering to broker a deal between Russia and the West.
The West, on the other hand, does not want Russia to gain control of anything and is therefore interested in the issue. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, visited Armenia in September. Unlike the aggression between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union is taking a decidedly neutral stance here, which may have something to do with the fact that it just reached an agreement with Azerbaijan to double its gas exports by 2027 (there are no sanctions here). The EU invited both leaders to Prague for peace talks in October and brokered an initial agreement. Russia sees EU interference as a threat to the peace process. Putin then invited the parties to Sochi. A week later, the United States stepped in and invited both parties to Washington, D.C., in November.
While no final agreement was reached, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev “agreed not to use force.”
Certainly, diplomatic help is needed, because military solutions have not ended the conflict, but only led to an unstable peace. Fortunately, both the West and Russia are interested in avoiding escalation — they should work together to reach a lasting agreement.
2. China and Taiwan: Will the United States interfere?
What are the chances of Taiwan receiving armed support if China invades, given the current situation where Russian forces face only Ukrainian forces?
Some point to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which states that “any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means” is an “area of great concern” to the United States. The document also calls on the United States to “provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character” and to “oppose any use of force or other forms of coercion.”
For many observers, this raises two questions: would the United States defend Taiwan, and does the United States have the capacity to do so? The presidents’ statements range from President Clinton’s response, “It would depend on the circumstances,” to President Trump’s adamant-but still vague-statement that “China knows what I will do.” Current U.S. President Biden made it unequivocally clear that his country would definitely send forces to support Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. Complicating matters is the One China policy, and the U.S. explicitly recognizes that Taiwan is part of China.
A face-to-face meeting between U.S. President Biden and China’s Xi Jinping last took place in November 2022. Following that conversation, the United States announced that the one-China policy has not changed and that it opposes unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to visit China in early 2023. If these talks fail, the world could be on the verge of a war of gigantic proportions.
1. Ukraine and Russia: Timing is the Key to Success
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told CNN in March that “we cannot end this war without negotiations,” adding, “If there is only a one percent chance to end this war, I think we must seize that chance.” Surprisingly, many in the West have taken a negative stance toward negotiations. However, the rejection of negotiations could mean the end of the world as we know it. We are at a historic turning point, and negotiating skills can save us.
The conditions for an agreement were quite clear at the beginning of the conflict: Ukraine will not join NATO, and the eastern Ukrainian regions will hold a referendum. Such an agreement was possible at the beginning. But on September 30, Russia annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya, making an agreement extremely difficult because Ukraine cannot live with Russia annexing its territory, and Russia would lose face if it returned that territory. This issue will be at the core of any possible agreement.
Those who say that Ukraine must win on the battlefield overlook the fact that Russia has fallen far short of its full military potential and has gone on the offensive with only 150,000 troops. This war could drag on for years and involve the entire world in the conflict. The more the parties invest, the harder it will be to end it, because the parties are reluctant to give up previous investments. This is not like defeating Hitler’s Germany in World War II, where complete victory was a desirable goal. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In the event of a total loss, surrender and humiliation, why not take the whole world with it?
With Ukraine’s strength on the battlefield, Zelensky’s willingness to negotiate decreased. Putin, on the other hand, called for negotiations. The favorable moment should be seized: Ukraine is in a good position and should start negotiations as soon as possible. Sitting down and trying to reach an agreement is better than not trying. Quite categorically. Remember the mantra of Roger Fisher.
INTERESTING LINKS
Original publication “Top 10 World Changing Negotiations For 2023” on FORBES.