Negotiating: The Kenyan Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Reduction of conflict
Escalation of conflict
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Negotiation is a process where two or more parties who are involved in a conflict try to solve the conflict between them. This process can occur at personal level or at diplomatic level. This process is normally initiated after the parties involved have acknowledged that there is a problem or a conflict that needs to be addressed. At the end of a negotiation process, a solution may be found; conflict is solved or the conflict may escalate further even with adverse consequences (Fisher & Ury, 1991). Conflict according to Booth (2005) is defined as a mental struggle, resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes or internal demands; hostile encounter. No two or more parties will ever view the same situation/conflict in precisely the same way, nor will they always be incomplete accord as to how the situation should be handled. All conflicts have certain things in common: a concrete content issue, which may or may not be based on reality, and process issues, which may be opposing, abstract feelings about the meaning or consequences of making a decision (Booth, 2005).

Reduction of conflict

Conflict between parties can also be reduced during the process of negotiation whereby the parties involved come to an agreement. This type of negotiation is well demonstrated by the political happenings in Kenya and Zimbabwe after the disputed elections where the government and the opposition disagree on the election outcome. In this case, I will be discussing the Kenyan case. After the general elections in Kenya in 2007, the government supported party (Party of National Unity) and the opposition (Orange Democratic Party) both claimed that they had the elections. Both parties stood ground leading to a political stand-off. The opposition wanted the following conditions to be met; recounting of the votes, declaring them as winners. While the government side insisted that they too should be declared winners and if the opposition really feels that they won, then should seek redress from the High Court. The opposition also claimed that the courts are corrupt and will not give them the much needed justice.

This led to a blame game with the Electoral Commission of Kenya declared the government supported party as the winner of the elections. These led to country wide violence that was later named Post Election Violence by the international media. Some negotiators from within Africa came in to try to solve the conflict but each party claimed that they were hired by the other. (blame game and distrust). This conflict continued until the time that the former United Nations chief, Koffi Annan was agreed on by both parties as the chief mediator. After some time of vigorous mediation talks and negotiations, both parties agreed to form a coalition government and this led to solving the conflict between the two parties and up to date the coalition government is functional (“Post election violence in Kenya”, 2008). This type of negotiation leading to reduction of conflict is the same as the process that took place in Zimbabwe. From the above it is therefore clear that both parties softened their stand on who won the elections, they both agreed to work together, the distrust that existed between them was no more, a neutral negotiator was chosen and both parties agreed to sit down together and air out there grievances; effective communication. If these conditions could have not been met, then the conflict could not have been solved.

Escalation of conflict

In the process of negotiation to solve a conflict, there are several conditions that can make the interaction between the two parties involved to escalate. This can be demonstrated by the situation currently being experienced at the international sea waters along the horn of African country of Somali. The level of piracy has risen in the recent past with the current figure of hostages being held by the Somali pirates being more than 200 and more than fifty ships. These figures constantly change as more ships are hijacked as more are being released regularly (United Nations, 2008). Whenever the ships are hijacked and the captured crew is taken as hostages, a conflict is created in that the pirates demand ransom while the ship owners or the parent country of the ship negotiate for the release of the hostages. If ransom is not paid the hostages are not released and if ransom is paid they may or may not release the hostages and the ship. One of the recent act that has and will escalate the piracy along the Somali coast is the hijacking of the USA flagged ship MV Maersk Alabama on 9^th April, 2009 where the ship’s captain was taken hostage and a France ship whereby hostages were also taken captives.

There were negotiations for their release between the US and France governments and the pirates. The pirates demanded ransom before the release of the hostages. The pirates had their leader who negotiated on their behalf. These negotiations went on for some time and failed at one point after the conditions put by both the parties could not be agreed upon by both parties. Piracy is viewed by the two governments as a criminal activity and therefore they should not be asked to pay ransom while the pirates view piracy as a lively hood and a right. This shows that there is conflict of interest. When these negotiation talks stalled, the two governments attacked the pirates from where they were holding the pirates and freed them.

These acts have escalated the piracy problem in that the pirates have now vowed to attack more ship especially those from France and the US. The life of the hostages still being held is even in more danger with the pirates threatening to kill them if they are attacked. The pirates’ threat has been made real by the hijacking of another ship MV Irene EM just a day (14^th April, 2009) after they threatened to attack more ships. From the above example, it is therefore evident that the negotiation process has flopped and the conflict has and will even escalate more (“Somali pirates meet their match”, 2009). From the above we can say that some of the conditions that can escalate a conflict are distrust, hard line stands, going against the demands of the involved parties without agreeing together, failure to agree on fundamental issues, use of force or power to meet the set conditions, lack of a negotiator and lack of communication between the two parties.

Conclusion

Negotiation is a fundamental part in the process of conflict resolution and should be handled with a lot of care and understanding. In order for negotiation to be successful, the negotiator(s) must be knowledgeable on the factors causing or factor that led to the conflict. The negotiator(s) must be neutral and not be partisan at all. The preconditions and conditions that may be put forward by the involved parties should also be considered during negotiation as they determine the outcome of the negotiation process.

References

Booth, R., (2005). Conflict and conflict management. Menlo park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Fisher, R. & Ury, W., (1991). Getting started to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Post election violence in Kenya. (2008) The Standard. Web.

Somali pirates meet their match. (2009) Daily Nation. Web.

United Nations, (2008). Report of the Secretary General on the Situation in Somalia. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

Click Here To Order Now!

Negotiating: The Kenyan Case

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)