No BATNA
The diplomatic fiasco with Kuwait over a month ago and our non-reaction to the Chinese military flexing in the South China Sea have exposed not only the bankruptcy of our foreign policy, but also our constant inability as a nation to develop what is called in negotiation as "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement" (BATNA).
In their celebrated book entitled "Getting to Yes" first published in 1981, Harvard University professors Roger Fisher and William Ury, in explaining the term BATNA, emphasized that "no method can guarantee success if all the leverage lies on the other side."
This traditional technique of positioning is useful more than ever when one is dealing with a more powerful party across the table. One weaker country that stands out in dealing with stronger countries is North Korea. It has determinedly developed a nuclear weapons program despite decades of economic sanctions from the international community. Incredibly weak under a failed centrally-planned economic system, North Korea's Kim dynasty knows that it can only survive by maintaining a delicate balance between its security and economy.
Key to that balance is its military capability -not to win wars but to inflict enormous military and civilian casualty in case of a full-scale confrontation. For North Korea, its nuclear weapons would temper United States zero-sum adventurism in the region and make the US and its allies think twice about toppling the Kim Jong-un regime.
It's a lesson learned from Libya when that country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, in exchange for lifting of sanctions, gave up his country's weapons of mass destruction in 2003. In less than a decade, Gaddafi was overthrown and killed at the hands of Libyan rebels with assistance from NATO.
Closer to home, China's recent actions against Taiwan which it considers its "renegade province" reminds me again about BATNA. China has been working the diplomatic course to further deny Taiwan its international identity as a self-governing nation-state. Burkina Faso recently cut ties with Taiwan and reestablished ties with Beijing under the internationally-accepted One-China policy.
Beijing has also ordered international airlines to change how they refer to Taiwan in their booking websites, particularly to make clear that Taiwan is part of China. The US State Department quickly objected against US firms, including airlines, being dictated upon by Beijing on how to organize their websites.
But more than having the US as its strong ally against any adverse Chinese diplomatic actions or threat to take it back by force, Taiwan has long ago developed an advanced economy and strong industrial base to be able to afford a credible military deterrent against China. It has the money to afford buying state-of-the-art weapons from the US in billions of dollars, a leverage it could use not only in dealing with China but also in dealing with the US. Had Taiwan remained weak and merely relied on US military might for protection, it would have been reduced to a mere pawn by these superpowers.
Of course Taiwan is no match to China militarily but if the latter could lose two-thirds of its military in the process before it could take over Taiwan, that would make diplomacy a more palatable alternative for both parties.
Contrast all that to our own diplomatic posturings. Our country has become a pushover in the global stage because we seem to have no alternative to protect us from accepting terms that are too unfavorable to us. And our very own president had to rub it in with his own simplistic thinking on international relations.
- Latest
