Are Europeans Better Negotiators?

Posted By David Bosco Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 12:58 PM Share

I spoke recently with a U.S. State Department official who's been immersed in the world of complex multilateral negotiations and he pointed out something interesting: European diplomats, for the most part, love the process of multilateralism while many other major delegations find it cumbersome, frustrating, and even a little anxiety-inducing.

On its own, this is not surprising. Today's European diplomats were born, raised and educated with the EU project all around them. The European preference for extended negotiation, comfort with supranationalism, and aversion to conflict has by now become part of the diplomatic conventional wisdom. As Robert Kagan wrote almost a decade ago:

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection.... They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

But it's not just that Europeans are dispositionally more inclined to complex, open-ended multilateral negotiations. The geometry of many of today's global negotiations works strongly in their favor. As the State Department official pointed out:

Often, you'll have many if not all EU countries represented. That means you have more than twenty voices that have coordinated their policies. Then you'll have delegates from the European Commission. In some settings, Europe might have 28 voices saying the same thing, while China or the United States has one. On top of that, you have the formal linkages with other parts of the world that several European states maintain, including the Commonwealth and France's links with francophone Africa. In global conferences, Europe ends up heavily represented.

The phenomenon raises an interesting question. Does Europe's amplified voice and its affection for and experience with multilateral processes give it a comparative advantage in global negotiations? Do they get more of what they want because they embrace processes that drive other states slightly batty? It would be a tough proposition to test empirically, but it might be worth it.

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

PENNFLYER

2:45 AM ET

August 25, 2010

love it

Europeans, and by that you surely mean Western Europeans: Germans, Scandinavians, Latins, Brits, the ancient Empires, the "heirs of Rome..."

They have a large skill-set, skills that need to be channeled somehow. They have given up on war for now, but why should it be surprising that having rebuilt their ravaged lands, once more defining the global standard of conservative wealth-creation and liberal political humanism, Europeans don't just cash in their bonuses and retire? It shouldn't be: they need vigorous activity, and luckily there is a large array of productive channels at their disposal. Does anyone doubt Europe's energy when it comes to any international competition other than war? Are they having trouble securing economic viability? They are the envy of the world by most measures, including international political and economic influence. Only jock-itch afflicted neo-Americans like Kagan--just so it's clear where I stand---as I was saying, only people like Kagan could find anything wrong with Europeans taking a nice long vacation from the slaughter of millions.

But I am NOT idealizing Europeans, and to prove it, I now say this: to hell with the Europeans and all their achievements and erudition. :-(
But seriously, even with the presently seething mosque-stupidity, we bumpkinish Americans are much more tolerant of other cultures and faith traditions, Islam included. For all our flaws, we are more humane and less paranoid both as a culture and as individuals. We would never ban minarets nor headscarves, nor look down our Hapsburg noses at the new arrivals, be they Balkan trash, or Kurdish trash, or Somali trash. On the contrary, we make them citizens in a hurry and really do try to treat them as equals, more or less. On that front as well as others, Europeans have a lot to learn from us. They should probably lay low a bit longer, lest they inadvertently do rekindle a long heritage of impetuous martial vigor.

CARADOC

8:24 AM ET

August 25, 2010

Agreed, but....

Re: tolerance.

Remember, a tiny country with little room to grow, and a long and storied culture that can easily be overwhelmed from without, isn't going to want to embrace an influx of people who threaten that identity. I expect the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to become very sensitive over these issues soon.
In fact, we're now entering an age where there will be less desire for immigrants, and more calls for 'source' countries to clean up their mess to stem the desire for emigration. You're not a developed country until the corruption gets under control, the open sewers get cleaned up and the garbage stops building up.

Be that as it may, the European standard of diplomacy is a good influence on all nations, and the prime purpose of any government is to protect its own interests through a shared standard of law, regulations and human rights. Unilateralism is sooooo last century. Common standards channelled towards shared postive development is what civilization is supposed to be all about.