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)
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.
Introduction
Richard Holbrooke is a true visionary in terms of his aggressive yet undoubtedly creative strategies to assert American leadership in regard to peacekeeping. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Holbrookes heroic pursuits and diplomatic efforts in order to decipher the exact approach he employed to solve problems and deal with unpredictable challenges. The goal is to determine what it takes to succeed in life-and-death negotiations.
Main body
The particular problem chosen for this assignment is the Bosnian Serbs unwillingness to come to the negotiation table. After all, for them, it seemed disadvantageous to settle the conflict peacefully if they could reclaim some of what they had lost throughout. As Serbs were the primary aggressors, their commitment to conflict mediation was an ultimate goal. Holbrooke approached the issue in a couple of stages, each of them being essential.
Firstly, right after the beginning of NATO strikes, the diplomat met with Milosevic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs (Holbrooke, 1999). He predicted Milosevics eagerness to agree to a meeting as Holbrooke was one of the main proponents of using NATO bombing to ensure Bosnian Serbs were open to negotiations. Since the diplomats campaigning for the bombing was successful, he had succeeded at cornering Bosnian Serbs and at least making them consider a compromise.
It is crucial to recognize that blunt force, such as the aforementioned air strikes, was not the only technique used by Holbrooke. Once the diplomat carefully assessed the scope of the issue in relation to the Serbs lack of interest in negotiating, he gradually started to construct a nuanced strategy. The main lesson from this particular scenario is to assess ones own capabilities before trying to manipulate the strengths and weaknesses of others.
Holbrooke clearly understood that remaining neutral and trying to mediate the conflict would ultimately fail based on the mistakes from the past. Following brief interactions and meetings with the leader of Bosnian Serbs, the diplomat also acknowledged using force might not be the best choice. Holbrooke utilized a truly creative approach to negotiating and started to combine various approaches into one to ensure maximum effectiveness. The task was for the United States to appear strong yet just willing enough to compromise in order to influence the main aggressors, who were primarily Bosnian Serbs.
Some theorists question the efficiency of utilizing leverage in an effort to resolve conflict successfully. However, the particular issue of trying to bring Serbs to the table required such an approach, according to Penev (2018). Regardless of what perspective one might consider right or wrong, the United States deployed the strategy of incentives in order to enhance the negotiation process. However, largely due to the insistency of Holbrooke, it combined it with occasional threats and use of force. Thus, the country threatened Serbs that their failure to commit to conflict mediation and further negotiations would result in more NATO strikes, lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia, and investments in providing training and equipment for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Hartwell, 2019). For Serbs, this meant not only the prospect of facing a strong enemy supported by foreign funding but a major shift in power dynamics.
On the other hand, if Serbs were to cooperate and commit to conflict mediation efforts, they would receive certain benefits. Most importantly, they would see the economic sanctions against Yugoslavia lifted. This was an exceptionally vital part of Holbrookes bargaining strategy. In negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs leader, Holbrooke (1999) emphasized that sanctions were an immense burden to Milosevics economic prospects, which would undoubtedly weaken his position of power rather soon. Therefore, it is evident how masterfully Holbrooke has utilized the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of one side in order to make the first steps in benefiting all of them. This allowed the diplomat to assert dominance (threats) while demonstrating openness to negotiate (leverage), which left the Serbs unable to do anything else but comply with the terms proposed.
In regards to what could have been done differently, certain critics argue that Holbrookes approach has been overly aggressive. One could suggest diplomats in the future should utilize mostly interest-building approaches. However, I would disagree as I would have done exactly what Holbrooke did, although I seriously doubt I could be as efficient as him. Although Holbrooke definitely used coercion to enhance the mediation process, he never forced any agreements upon the parties involved. In fact, he made suggestions and manipulated the terms based on previous agreements, which were developed with precision and through the extensive collaboration of various mediators.
Furthermore, Holbrookes entire approach relied heavily on considering the perspectives of the adversaries and consultations with them. For instance, when the diplomat first met the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of Horsts first questions was, What do the Bosnians want? (Holbrooke, 1999, p. 96). He continued to ask similar questions to the teams representing Croatia and Yugoslavia as well. Holbrooke has an innate feeling that blunt force just was not enough for his mission to be a success. Although he used threats and coercion, he did use an interest-based strategy since he was committed to taking into consideration the parties interests and ensuring there were solutions which would fit areas of convergence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, serving as the U.S. Chief Negotiator throughout the most destructive war in Europe since World War II, Holbrooke has faced his fair share of challenges. The odds were against the diplomat as tensions were high among the leadership of the United Nations, congressmen in Washington, and the Contact Group. After all, Holbrooke was a controversial persona who made it clear he was not afraid to use threats and force in the quest for peace. This approach was not a popular one, which was the main cause for criticism Holbrooke had to endure. Despite that, the diplomats mission in Bosnia was a success, leading to the United States reasserting itself as a moral commander far beyond its own borders.
References
Hartwell, Leon. Conflict Resolution: Lessons from the Dayton Peace Process. Negotiation Journal 35, no. 4 (2019): 443-469. Web.
Holbrooke, Richard. To End a War. New York: The Modern Library, 1999.
Penev, Plamen P. American Leadership and the End of Genocide in the Balkans. Connections: The Quarterly Journal 17, no. 1 (2018);:77-83. Web.
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)
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.