◆ SpookStack

directions: (1) persistent and able negotiation, (2) positive Programs of mutual aid among nations, (3) strengthening and broadening the peacemaking functions of international organi- zations, and (4) persisting in the effort co settle political dis- putes in a peaceful manner. Re-examining the Prine As the alternative to reaching a de- ciples of Negotiation cision by force, negotiation and diplomacy are a permanent assign- ment of the civilian branch of government. By their very nature they involve a willingness to reach conclusions by rea- sonable compromise. In the frenzied atmosphere of today, however, some erroneously label negotiation as “appeasement.” This word must be faced squarely, Negotiation and appcase- ment involve two entirely different attitudes. Negotiation assumes a genuine desire to arrive at agreement; it is the oppo- site from granting concessions as a result of fear or threats. Ic recognizes that compromises must be made in order that contending parties may come from two extremes to meet at a reasonable midway point, thus recognizing the partial validity of each position. Appeasement, on the other hand, is the grant- ing of unjust concessions at somebody else’s expense. It is often the ranl of force nor of nevoriation: a warlike rechniane noe the teal of force, not of negotiation; a warlike techni ub or. is" ‘a technique of peace. The constant use of the word “appease- ment” indicates how deeply we are committed to a policy of “cold war” rather thfn- genuine negotiation. We suggest chat American and Russian foreign policy has been unable co achieve peace in recent years partly owing to failure to understand the basic principles of negotiation, The essence of agreement is that ic be a free meeting of minds, sufficiently advantageous ta cach sa that each party will will- ingly execute the terms af agreement. In any other sense a - contract or a treary is a “mere scrap of paper.” Let us examine recent American foreign policy in this regard. America, often from the highest motives, after the war began to promote a whole series of pohcies and actions, including a new concept of international law at Niirnberg, a United Nations center locared in the United States and largely supported by American money, economic assistance, the Mar- shall Plan, a North Atlantic pact, a Japanese peace treaty, a 40 police” action in Korea. Some of these items were sufficiently near what other nations wanted, to appear as “agreements.” As time went on, however, American action in some of these realms has met with increasing oppositen. America has found it hard to understand these seeds of rebellion against her lead- ership. The situation indeed highlights the distinction between Negotiated agreement and enforced action. Quakers have recently completed a study of negotiation by some of the ranking negotiators in national and interna- tional circles. The following accepted principles of negotia- tion may show how lacking in the fundamentals of obtaining agreement recent international diplomacy has been: 1. There is na controversy which cannot be negotiated, Unwillingness to bring into play the basic principles of negotiation, rather than the nature of the issue, usually accounts for the inability to gain agreement. 2. The test of successful negotiation is a workable agree- ment, Not the individual nation’s gain in advantage so much as its workability in practical application is the goal of negotiation. 3. Negotiation requires a flesible attitude. A cooperative, inded, imaginative, patient and flexible atzitude will gain more ground, even under provocation and abuse. The true negotiator recognizes that he is faced with a problem to be solved and an agreement to be made, not a debate to be won. Stiff back and braced feet is not the stance for negotiating, for the attitude of one side is invariably reflected in the attitude of the other. ODenemin VPN TTiN 4. Negotiation requires aun open mind. Phrases like “ulti- matum,” “final offer” or “unalterable demand” are not the language of negotiation. These invite a challenge of force or a humiliating surrender. Neither side can assume its position co be clothed in moral infallibility. Ir the Position is sound, it will gain respecr. The argument of “it’s a matter of principle” too often masks an attitude of “I won't.” '$. Negotiation requires persistence. To stop negotiating is t to admit defeat, Bur TO admit defeat, here fe a wide difecsnea | aun ie cere ig a Wide Giulerence péetweetn 41