Should a win-win solution be the focus of the negotiation parties and negotiations?

What is the role of trust in negotiations?

To the author, negotiation is a tool, a technique to seek a win-win solution, making both sides happy, while seeking trust, though essential, is not its primary job.

Trust is not to be sought, but to be built through negotiations.

There is the question: Whether parties should not negotiate when there is a lack of trust. The question is relevant. Because since the start of negotiations in 2011, the Tatmadaw’s offensives and territorial expansion have not stopped. They are valid reasons for the lack of trust by those on the defensive.

This is not to deny the need for trust, which is a contributing factor in the progress and success of negotiation, that can be compared to a conveyor or vehicle. But keeping it as the first and foremost requirement will not move negotiations forward.

Of course, for sustainable peace, trust is essential. That is why trust building has been a by-word in peace processes across the world.

Cambridge Advance Learners Dictionary defines negotiation as “the process of discussing something with someone in order to reach an agreement with them, or the discussions themselves”. Meanwhile, trust is defined as “the belief that you can trust (also believe or entertain hope on) someone or something.” However, the negotiations might be easy or tempestuous, despite negotiatiors having mutual trust.

As a related example, businessmen usually do negotiations aka bargaining to find the best solution. Sometimes the result will be a gain for one party but a loss for the other. The loser party will then try to make up for its loss from the winner party or a third party. As a consequence, this will cause a loss in the erstwhile winner party or a third party.

A vicious cycle of win-lose will follow, due to not seeking a win-win solution. And it could lead to further painful impacts for all stakeholders in the future.

Political negotiations are not different from business ones. That is why a win-win solution is important.

This does not mean that the resulting win-win situation will be the end or permanent. If we want more sustainable win-win situation, more negotiations are in order.

In Myanmar context, negotiations on Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) between the government and the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) therefore will not be the end. Because its signing will lead to further negotiations for a series of political dialogue.

Conducting these negotiations however will not necessarily create trust on both sides that have fought against each other for more than sixty years, one for “inalienable rights” and the other for “perpetuation of national sovereignty.” But one thing is clear. Continued fighting is not going to fulfill either party’s wish.

If both accept negotiations are the only way to resolve their problems, trust should not be the reason for delaying the progress of negotiation.

It may be said that the NCA negotiations were suspended in September 2014 for a lack of trust, but when they resumed in March this year and finally finalized that NCA, does it mean the trust was restored?

Recently on 17 August, Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA), Karen National Union (KNU), KNU/KNLA-Peace Council (KPC), and Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) released their joint-statement on signing NCA.

They stated that “We believe that, political challenges should be resolved through political means and that all stakeholders alike should jointly make the effort to achieve this (political challenges and solutions)” and that includes seven guarantees by signing NCA for EAOs, such as (a) We will retain our arms and be able to defend our region and people; (b) We will not be restricted by the Unlawful Association Act, Articles 17/1 and 17/2, and be able to freely seek resolution to political challenges through a political dialogue; (c) We will be able to prevent the recurrence of armed conflict through the joint implementation of a Code of Conduct and the Joint Monitoring of the ceasefire; (d) We will be able to continue to protect the interest of the local population during the political dialogue process; (e) We will be able to have a political dialogue with the government, political parties and all other stakeholders; (f) The political dialogues with the government and political parties will be jointly conducted to ensure that any one group or groups does not dominate; and (g) We will be able to change the 2008 Constitution in accordance with the agreement reached through the political dialogue.

So the questions are: Who had created the said guarantees? Was it because of complete/or partial trust in each other that had brought about the final NCA draft?

The reason for the current obstacle to signing the NCA nevertheless does not mention trust (or lack of it) but inclusivity (or the government’s exclusion of some of the EAOs).

The EAOs have always fought for political means to resolve political issues. Now that the opportunity is here (albeit with a condition) what is keeping us from engaging in it?

Is it because of trust or lack of it?

Or is it because of negotiations or we are fed up with them already?

By: Franklin

FRANKLIN, who is working at Documentation Unit of Pyidaungsu Institute, Chiang Mai and studying International MBA, at International College, Payap University, Chiang Mai.

The reflection title that covers the whole article is the focus of the writer and one of the purposes of this reflection is to strengthen negotiation culture by balancing with the term ‘trust’ and four year old current ceasefire process in Myanmar.

The idea and the reflection of the writer does not necessarily relate to the Pyidaungsu Institute and International College of Payap University.