Identifying the area of the negotiation therefore involves:
- Communication of the respective positions of the parties (P) and (P’);
- The ability to explain one’s tactical reasoning (R) and connect it to the reasoning of the counterpart (R’);
- The openness to discuss one’s underlying values and norms (V) in a language and method that may relate to the values and identity of the counterpart (V’); and,
- The recognition of the distance between the two sets of positions/methods/values in order to offer an opportunity for dialogue and improved understanding of the counterpart. In this Common Shared Space of the negotiation, which is co-owned by the negotiators, it is hoped that the parties are willing to find a compromise.
The negotiation should be presented as a process for the parties to explore ways to reconcile P, R and V with and P’, R’, and V’. For example:
Food Without Borders (FWB), an international NGO, is negotiating access to IDP camps with the Governor of a remote district of Country A. Because the rainy season has paralyzed access by road to the district, FWB is also seeking access to the local airstrip, which is under the control of the Governor. The movement of the food within the district will further require the security guarantees of the Governor and the leaders of the local militia under his control.
The object of the negotiation relates to access to IDP camps. This negotiation involves several technical issues, such as:
- Landing rights for humanitarian flights;
- Timing and itinerary of humanitarian convoys; and,
- Location and number of beneficiaries within the population of the IDP camp.
The reliance on the agreement by the parties and its implementation involve operating procedures and methods that need to be clarified at the tactical reasoning level, respectively:
- Common understanding on flight pathways and communication procedures;
- Common protocols of checkpoints and communication procedures with the militia; and,
- Common understanding on the terms of the presence and role of FWB staff in the IDP camp.
These elements of tactical reasoning are, in turn, inspired by the values and norms of the parties, hence:
- Respect for the national sovereignty and control over airspace and air operations;
- Respect for key principles in the distribution of the food to the IDPs; and,
- Respect for the counterpart’s authority over the population and security of the camp.
In other words, while the agreement with the Governor may focus on technical issues, namely, the use of the airstrip, the movement of trucks within the district, and the operations in the IDP camps, the quality and durability of the agreement in terms of implementation require a thorough engagement at the values and reasoning levels of the conversation. The frontline negotiator is well advised to take the time necessary to explore the Common Shared Space as to ground technical arrangements in a sound and shared understanding of the respective positions, reasoning, and values between the parties.
Understandably, some negotiations may already have a strong focus on diverging values (e.g., on the visibility of an emblem) or diverging tactical reasoning and methods (e.g., on the terms of the distribution of the food) that will frame further discussion on the activities of the organization at a more technical level. This focus implies that negotiators on both sides will concentrate their energy on exploring the Common Shared Space at the technical level while paying attention to the implications at the other levels. For example:
The leader of the militia objects to the use of the logo of FWB on the convoys crossing the territory under his control. He requires that all displays of the FWB logo be withdrawn from the trucks.
The humanitarian negotiator must discern if the position of the militia results essentially from:
- A disagreement about where and when the logo is being displayed (technical level);
- A divergent understanding of how the logo is being used to identify the FWB’s convoy (on the door, on flags, on the roof top, etc.) (tactical/professional reasoning level); and/or
- A divergent understanding of the meaning and implications of the logo (values level).
Issues of logos tend to focus on the “message” the logo carries, notwithstanding the intent of the organization. In this case, the leader of the militia believes that the logo is offensive toward the local culture.
Depending on the level of engagement and trust, the humanitarian negotiator will focus the search for potential agreements on the most promising areas, i.e., where the relationship has most traction, selecting, alternatively, these search areas:
- V <-> V’: The organization already has good connections with militia members as well as with religious scholars and community leaders in the region. They may recognize the non-religious and non-political character of the logo;
- R <-> R’: The organization is recognized as a professional entity. Professionals in the region may vet for the professional use of the logo so as to identify the service of the organization and ensure the security of the personnel; and
- P <-> P’: The convoys of the organization are already operating and recognized in the region and can accommodate varying degrees of visibility of its logo in the course of its operations without hindering its security. It will require a more thorough management and notification process so as to avoid any misperceptions of the humanitarian and protected nature of the convoys.
In all cases, the first step is about understanding the perspective of the counterpart and seeing how to reconcile possible divergences at the various levels of engagement. (For a more detailed discussion on the various types and levels of engagement, see 1 | Tool 4: Determining the Typology of a Humanitarian Negotiation.)
Starting with Values: Reformulating divergent beliefs into shared values
Going back to the exploration of the Common Shared Space, this segment will focus on a systematic search for shared values.
Searching for shared values is about finding overlap between the structure of beliefs of both sides and reformulating these values into a common shared vocabulary. (For a more detailed discussion on engaging on values and norms, see 1 | Tool 5: Drawing the Pathway of a Normative Negotiation.) A key aspect of the process for humanitarian negotiators is to understand that they need to move beyond the rhetoric of “humanitarian principles” to be able to explain the meaning and relevance of each of the principles in the particular context. Humanity, Impartiality, neutrality, and independence are values and norms that belong to the humanitarian community, not the parties to an armed conflict. Yet, some aspects of these norms can certainly be shared if presented in a meaningful and relevant way in the eyes of the counterparts. Hence, humanitarian principles need to be unpacked and “translated” into a palatable vocabulary for the counterpart so he/she can recognize common beliefs. For example: