Abstract By 1945, as Hitler's Germany was coming to an end, the future of the European continent seemed uncertain. Soviet troops were just forty-five miles outside of Berlin, and the Allied troops were just about to cross the Rhine. The questioned remained: how would the war affect the balance of power and the political landscape in the years to come? On Feb 4, 1945, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt met to answer this very question at Yalta, a seaside Crimean resort on the coast of the Black Sea. While the conventional wisdom of modern historians is that Churchill and Roosevelt did not wield their collective power, this paper argues that it was Stalin who failed to realize the opportunities available to him and conceded too much. The paper shows that the negotiations can be viewed from a classic "Power-Interest-Rights" perspective. While Stalin negotiated from a position of power, FDR and Churchill negotiated from positions of rights and interests, respectively. It is the consensus of this paper that Stalin failed to use his dominant position of power, giving Churchill and FDR unnecessary concessions. The paper includes illustrations and tables.
Table of Contents:
Introduction to the Yalta Negotiations
Three Approaches to Resolving Differences
Three Allied Leaders
German Dismemberment
German Reparations
The Role of Post-War France
The Polish Question
The United Nations
Final Thoughts
The Negotiation Time Line
Value Creation Worksheet
Bibliography
From the Paper "Roosevelt was, above all else, a consummate politician. In fact, he would not meet alone with Churchill to avoid fanning the flames of Stalin's paranoia. Few men could see more clearly their immediate objective; however, his long-term vision was impaired. In 1945, he was the leader of the strongest nation in the world. The U.S. suffered no bombing, no displacement of its population and no hardship compared to the British and Soviets. In addition, the U.S. had an enormous, well-trained military and had almost perfected the atomic bomb. Roosevelt was optimistic, upbeat and knew how to rally the country."
Abstract The paper applies Fisher and Ury's four principles of negotiation to the U.S. - Iraq conflict. It identifies the issues facing each of the parties, and analyzes why they are unready for negotiations. The paper concludes with the hope that some third party, such as the United Nations, might be able to step in and resolve the crisis. Note: The paper was written while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
From the Paper "The first step is to identify each party's interests. For the government of the United States, the interests are abundantly clear and have been repeatedly, positively stated: to protect the people and resources of America from a future terrorist attack. Allegations of "secret" interests - needing a new, cheap source of oil or the base desire to take revenge on the Arab world - have been just as abundant but are neither acknowledged by the government nor founded on any evidence, historical or otherwise; so until they are admitted or proven, they only serve as obstacles to negotiation. At this point in time, Iraq's primary interests exist as a response to America's positioning; the Iraqi government would like to survive in its current state and also to strengthen its economic and military situation."
Abstract This paper defines what is meant by negotiation. The author examines the concept of making negotiating a corporate asset rather than an action dependent on individual negotiators' skills. The paper concludes that additional training and learning to walk away from poor deals can result in better long-term relationships.
From the Paper "Negotiation is a part of the business world just as it is part of the wider social world. Negotiation is part of the process by which an individual goes to work for a company it is part of the process by which suppliers are selected and it is part of the process by which companies and unions arrive at contracts. Negotiations can be formal such as in a bid process or informal such as determining, which employees take which days off for vacation. Negotiations can involve ..."
Abstract This paper reviews the intricacies of negotiating by looking at the four principles of the Harvard approach to negotiations. The paper examines the desirability of the Harvard principles versus the clear undesirability of some of the alternatives and looks also at the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) because it offers a guideline for understanding what the real purpose of negotiating should be. In the final analysis, negotiating is never an easy task but it is one made infinitely simpler through thoughtfulness and flexibility.
From the Paper " Negotiating is one of more important things people must learn how to do - and most of us do not do it very well at all. The following paper will review the four Harvard principles of negotiation and will also examine why this approach is preferable to other tactics frequently employed by "zero-sum" lawyers and obstinate clients. No less importantly, the paper reviews the common "sand traps" which thwart all-too-many negotiations and concludes with a review of the concept of Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA. In the end, flexibility in negotiations beats inflexibility every time. To begin with, negotiation is something that can only find success if responsible, rational behavior trumps personal piques and/or personal dislikes. "
Abstract This paper is a case study, which looks at an abusive young private, who habitually has acted violently towards his common-law spouse after returning home from deployment. The author describes the situation, provides a tentative "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (BATNA) and concludes by briefly detailing where the situation appears headed.
From the Paper "The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Settlement (BATNA) would seem to be one wherein Jim agrees to attend counseling sessions for his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder while Ruth is enrolled in classes designed to help her with her drinking problem. As for the children, the parents should have alternating days where one of them is expected to "take the lead" in the household management; in the past, both parties agreed that this approach would keep each active in the rearing of their children while allowing each a respite of sorts from the burden of parenting."
