Séance 4-Diplomatic engineering

Managing complexity in negotiation

What is diplomatic engineering?

1. Science in diplomacy refers to evidence based foreign policy.
   • Bases diplomacy on scientific criteria and scientific literature about obstacles and favorable conditions of negotiation (ex. strategic game theory or the Harvard method).
2. Diplomacy for science refers to foreign policy that promote STI (Science, Technology, Innovation) to solve common problems.
3. Science for diplomacy refers to the rôle of science in coalition building and conflict resolution (apply hard-science tools to a negotiation process).

• The diplomatic engineering is a process-based approach. It tries to apply scientific methods to negotiation processes. It is rooted in real word negotiation experiences.
• E.g.: Georgia and Russia WTO negotiations after the war.

Graphical representation

Preparation

First, you analyse the position and interests of the different parties. E.g.: what are the interests behind the US-led peace negotiation in Gaza?

• Geopolitical rebranding.
• Nobel Peace Prize.
• Investment in the reconstruction of Gaza. Secondly, you decompose the problem (decomposition): split problems into less complex subproblems. As such they are reduced to a technical levels, at the lowest level possible, so that solutions will be reduced to a technical state as well.
• Subproblems are categorised trough objective language, broken down to its smallest parts, using statistic criteria among others to find solutions. Using mathematical representation isn’t a must, but facilitates things.
• Then tools are applied heuristically (solution-oriented).
• The DFAE invented this method thinking of watchmaking, which isn’t surprising given we are a country of engineers.

The spirit of diplomatic engineering

• Diplomatic Engineering applies pragmatic solutions by using specific instruments and tools as it is done in engineering.
• Not strategic, puzzling out a solution to a specific problem is not about the search of the answer to a general question (E.g. Bilatérales where this method was born).
  • We voted no to join the EEA and as such we had to fix our relations with our neighbours, not to become members or make a strategic partnership but to fix the problems that had arised.
  • The treaties progress slowly towards a strategic level.
• Integrative, information is shared to arrive at a solution that increases the gain for each (the outcome available is not a fixed pie).
• Quantitative tools can be helpful, they increase logical accuracy, reduce a problem to its most formal structure.
• Another example was the negotiations between Georgia and Russia led by Switzerland to help Russia access the WTO:
  • West wanted R in WTO so that it would respect their rules, pressuring G, but→
    • Neither wanted to call CH for help, both ended up doing it at the same time.
    • Difference of recognition of borders between G and R which caused G to want to veto WTO accession of Russia. There was, at the technical level, a customs border obstacle.
    • But these were very similar countries, where elites knew each other. Despite mutual suspicion and asymmetry, Switzerland brought the countries to the technical domain where interests where similar.

G vs R: The general framework of the negotiation

• Which factors had to be taken in account to obtain a mutually acceptable solution for both Georgia and the Russian Federation?
  • R didn’t want any political concession that entailed recognising occupied territories as Georgian.
  • Several international border authorities weren’t sure about the nature of the borders.
  • R boycotted the sale of G’s products in their territory.
  • In Geneva there was a company specialised in controlling flow of good in conflict zones.
    • They gave a formula parties had to separately fullfill. Asking experts is an important part of this problem.
      • How much goods, where, how, etc…
    • Countries accepted to fullfill technical details.
  • They didn’t want to sit at the same table, separate negotiations then ensued.
  • To avoid talking about borders or about building border buildings, since lack of consensus there was important, the word border was abandoned and they focused on flow of goods.
  • The solution was a GPS system with an electronic platform in Moscow and another in Tbilisi which relied on trade corridors instead of border checkpoints.
• The asymmetry of relations between Georgia and Russia.
• The active role of the mediator: correct the imbalances in bridging the differences and finding areas of convergences (establishing a common set of rules) helping the parties to agree on solutions (consultations with experts, meetings at technical and political levels, non-papers).

The formulation of solutions: principle of compromise

A mediator’s interest is important, such as when Qatar was attacked by Israël when mediating with Hamas or when Switzerland used its position as a mediator to solve its issues with importing and exporting of Russian gold.

Conclusion

• At the end of 2011, an Agreement between the parties was reached and the Russian Federation could enter the WTO.
• The Swiss mediated accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO illustrates how the problem-solving mindset of engineering science can be applied to complex real-world negotiations.
• I check the method with my students: At the end of May, I conducted a simulation negotiation with a focus on the military use of AI. The seminar gathered students of the University of Geneva, of ETH, Zürich, University of Zürich and University of Singapour.

Strengths and limitations

• The reduction of the problem to its most formal structurel provides an understanding of underlying mechanisms.
• Does not pre-impose the outcome of the negotiated agreement. A solution can be reached more easily due to more precise knowledge of the issue based on objective criteria.
• The technical approach can lead to a de-emotionalisation of the problem.

But

• Can be perceived as not strategic enough.
• The formalisation of a problem is always a reduction, leaving out some aspects of a problem (Georgia-Turkey, the Karabach issue).
• Problems may exist that are not quantifiable. Examples include deep value dispute or interpersonal conflicts.

UNIGE ACofIN