We had two external speakers come in recently - and a mix of experiences.

World Social Forum representative - and anti-globalization activist. He spent a lot of time describing what the forum does, why it can be strong, how successful it was in Cancun, etc... He did not spend so much time elaborating on his views about globalization, what is good and what could be done better. A common criticism of the forum is that it is quick at condeming capitalism, MNCs and other world actors but slow at offering alternative solutions. It is also questionable that hosting the forum in Mumbai - in a coutnry that strongly benefits from globalization, lodging everyone in 4-star hotel helps the cause. After all airplanes are supporting the globalization cause by making it easier for people to travel.
He argued that some sectors in India indeed benefitted from globalization (e.g. software industry in Bangalore). On the other hand, other sectors might lose out because imported products are taking away their livinghood. This is also true with each evolution on the technology frontier - without or with globalization - and was observable in developed countries many times. In general, problems arise in the absence of a sound social and labor policy to support these people in times of transition. The drama in India is that the people affected come second after the millions dying of hunger that need to be lifted out of poverty. However, overall, anything that can better people's lives in the long-term is welcome.
Do not get me wrong, I am not for globalization at all cost and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Subsidies in the agricultural sector in Europe and in the US are questionable. Practices of OGM firms, thus making countries dependent on artificial crops, beside making nature nearly irrelevant and destroying a biological cycle - certainly increases the dependence of farmers on a few firms' pricing strategies. However, trying to go against the flows of the globalization tide (it does ebb and flow) is like trying to stop the free fall of an elevator with your bare hands.
Trying to build an environment, incentives, tax, labor and trade structure to prevent certain behavior and encourage others - try to maintain traditions and richness of culture, nurture identities - while enabling people to enjoy diversity would be a different goals. Making sure that this can happen in a renewable natural biosphere would also be ideal.
It takes a little bit of everybody's efforts: profits for MNCs, growth for local firms, responsibilities for government, cause for NGOs and an objective for transnational institutions.

Anyway, like for everything in this little cyberjournal, these are extremely simplified views and a spontaneous reaction to the presentation.

The second speaker was Keith Fitzgerald - the guy who negotiates with terrorrists, rebels, hostage takers, peace process, criminals...He came to give us his views on this particular job. They took the form of 12 guidelines:
1- always negotiate with terrorrists
Negotiation isn't about making concessions or deal, it is about communicating and influencing. Consider how refusing to talk improve the situation? If this is not bi-polar positional bargaining (there aren't just two camps: join us or join them) the, the door is open for potential discussion on anything that could be considered legitimate. Often terrorrists have some legitimate concerns and are using illegitimate means to get attention. Giving them attention does not mean giving in. Not making concessions is important as it would otherwise teach them bad behavior: violence gets me somewhere. Engaging in a slow communication process just indicates taht you recognize that the alternative will lead only to the escalation of violence and no solution (or as he put it: fighting for deckchairs on the Titanic).

2- never negotiate with terrorrists
We need to negotiate with human beings that for some reason have decided to become terrorrists. We must take them out of that box and try to see the world their way - by making them men again, (as most of them are far from crazy, in fact as per our IPA class, they tend to be highly educated, litterate, articulate and full of ideals and frustrations) by realizing that they can be influenced like eevryone can, opens up possibilities of solutions.


3 - negotiate your good outcome
Never reacting and working toward a good outcome which should be clear to everyone seemed to be key to success.
It is also critical to understand what the good outcome is to them.


4- find appropriate intermediaries
Someone who can speak to both sides, without speaking for either side. The US are not a good person to have negotiate with al Qaeda. This person will be making recommendations that will seem reasonable to both parties.


5- never depend on trust
Build trust but never depend on it. Make discussions contigent to small goals and actions and define the next step as a function of the previous one. Judge on actions only - never the people. Separate the people from their actions.
some small goals and decisions could be: how to get water to hostages

6- present clear, makeable choices
Creating small decisions reduces the stakes and help make progress in the negotiation. don't bother with threats or demands, work on concerns, perceptions, needs and diagnose constantly to find solutions for them. Opposition will not work, it is their game and they are super good at it. Keith said: "Talking does not mean that you are weak. It means that you are smart." Talk regardless of your perceived power position.

7- use criteria to persuade them
assume that they are normal beings who have a different perspective of the world, work up and down the ladder of inference with them. Talking to them does not mean that you agree. Listening will allow you to understand what influences them: their values, their laws, their religions. It will clearly not be the same as waht persuades you. Another mistake taht President Bush might ahve made was to show surprise at the fact taht people did not all believe taht all Americans were good and talking of crusade (good against evil, exactly the message taht the terrorrists had sent out). It shows that there is no open door to another "good" model, it categorizes people and it shows unwillingness to listen.

8- be unconditionally constructive
avoid forcing people to choose sides (so do not do what President Bush did after the Sept 11 attacks). You are entering their games. Remember taht you are competing for the same audience. Engage them and show that you are discussing so that people can never find a reason for you to be "just as bad as them". Validate anything that you can find legitimate
Keith gave examples: "a free Palestine". Is this legitimate? Yes, how could this not be? That's something that everyone in the free world can relate to. It is realistic today? Probably not. Is there a solution? Yes, it is in theory very simple and everyone knows it but other interests, never shared, take over.


9- invest in a good process
negotiate the rules of your negotiation: communication, understanding, options, no or low threats or demands, mutually determined outcome...

10- coordinate your assets
Keith talked about two sets or types of assets; tactical and negotiation. Tactical guys are trained to just go for it and lose effectiveness as they lost patience. Negotiation guys wins as they gain time (on extra minute of an alive hostage is a good thing). Their incentives and training are different. Keith has been pushing for these teams to work together and for people to be trained in coordinating them well. Apparently, in crisis situations, this is one of the biggest cause for disaster and loss of lives.

11- negotiate the frame
For instance, labelling the war on terror a Crusade is using the same frame as Al Qaeda. Reframing it as a willingness to support an emerging moderate islamic society, or something like that, show a desire to reach a different outcome and does not offer side to choose. It removes the enemy or the fortress to attack and deflates part of the propaganda. Keith argues that we have more to lose by playing their game - and we can do this reframing without losing face. It means calming down emotions and grief and it is a very hard thing to do. What the goal is must be over-present. It is viscerally difficult to even imagine a discussion with people who are capable of blowing themselves up, who are sending planes into towers, etc...

12- negotiate with them before they become terrorrists
A lot of people are not born terrorrists. They accumulate frustrations, or any distorted views of the world - and often it is easy to find evidence around you of what you hold true and interpret reality through your own filter. This means that once they are under a certain impression, unless you spend the time to talk and explore where this comes from, it will be a self-reinforcing message, or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keith indicates that we must update our definition of security and not consider it as protecting our fence with defenses. Security lies, according to him, in better management of relationship, through continuous dialogue.

Anyway, don't just go out and find the nearest terrorrist to negotiate with for your non-negotiable, but this is definitely food for thought.

Ultimately, violence is present in our world although it does not have to be - but it is only a means to an end. It does not have to be here. Truly mad and irrational people are few in numbers. Responding to violence by pure violence, without ever trying to work on its cause only hides the underlying problem with the problem of violence. It is a bit like saying taht by increasing the fine you will get rid of drink-driving. Reducing the incentives, working on peer pressure, on social image, on other rational buttons (such as desire to protect family, to make loved ones happy) will be a better longer term solution. Why are people drinking and driving? There was a successful anti-drinking campaign in Ireland which associated drink-driving with a shameful behavior. People continued drinking but did it responsibly. Communication was key there. Why then do countries cut off diplomatic relationship at the first sign that things turn sour?
I am not saying that negotiation is always the solution to everything and taht communication is king (we already know taht this is a position reserved for cash). However, what is the harm? The risk-reward equation seems to strongly weigh in favor of communication. Think about it, regardless of your level of frustration.