Radio Television Suisse:
William Ury has devoted his entire career to studying the art of negotiation and also practicing it. He has advised companies, diplomats, governments. He has worked as a mediator in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in the ex-USSR. In the 1980s, in the midst of the Cold War, he helped the American and Soviet governments to set up the process to avoid the accidental trigger of a nuclear war. In short, he knows the negotiation in difficult terrain.
And he came to talk about it yesterday at the University of Geneva. We joined him a few minutes before to submit some cases to him. And first, we asked him if there was a universal method of negotiation.
William Ury:
The answer is yes. Every situation differs, of course. But since we are all human beings, the basic principles of negotiation apply. That you negotiate with your spouse, your friends, your colleagues or your clients. It’s something we do every day, between the moment we wake up and the moment we go to bed, even if we don’t realize it. It’s a bit like the character of Molière, who discovered one day that he had been doing prose all his life. We have been negotiating all of our lives.
Radio Television Suisse:
You talk about human relations, but to what extent is it important in international negotiations, for example? We have said a lot that the good personal relationship between the US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, had played a lot in the conclusion of the Iran nuclear agreement. To what extent is it true?
William Ury:
Well, it’s not the only factor. There are many, many factors. There is a convergence of interests between the US and Iran, sanctions and all kinds of things. But we will never say enough about the importance of human relations and of alchemy in these negotiations. I have seen so many people talk about how a potential agreement was there, but the actors missed it because there was a lack of alchemy between human beings.
Radio Television Suisse:
Because there wasn’t the chemistry between the human beings. But that’s something difficult to predict.
William Ury:
Yes, well, in a sense, it’s random. But what I realized is that every human being wants to be respected. They want to be listened to. And negotiation turns out is not just about talking. We often think that a good negotiator is a good speaker, when in fact, it’s rather someone who knows how to listen. In fact, a good negotiator is a good listener. The good negotiator listens a lot more to what he is talking about. And in listening, they convey respect. And that respect makes the negotiation go a lot easier.
Radio Television Suisse:
Are you talking about the need to have a third party in a negotiation?
Someone who can come with another perspective, with hindsight?
William Ury:
Yes, it’s not always necessary to have a third side. It’s better if the two actors can negotiate by themselves. But in difficult situations, it is extremely useful to have a third party. But in difficult situations, it is extremely useful to have someone who understands the two protagonists, and who can help them to take a step back, to resolve misunderstandings, and who can be there if there is a break to reestablish the discussion.
It can be a mediator who does not impose any agreement, but who helps you to talk. It can also be an arbiter or a judge who decides with authority. But I think the best is to follow in order the negotiation, if necessary, with the help of a third party as a mediator, and if nothing works, a form of arbitration. And all this to avoid using more destructive means to resolve differences, such as an attack on justice or a war.
Radio Television Suisse:
If we take the example of what is happening in Syria, what should we do? What advice would you give?
William Ury:
Well, to me, Syria, which I have had the pleasure to go to on multiple occasions, is the greatest failure of the contemporary international system.
It is a tragedy and a war that was not necessary. So we need to learn from it. And so we need to learn, and it is so complicated and so perturbed that it is going to take a major effort from the international community, and it is going to take a major effort from the different parties to the conflict, the different ways in Syria. It is a very complex process, but it has to happen. That war will come to an end. The question is, when?
I have seen it happen before, in many times, where people thought it was hopeless, in South Africa, for example, or in Northern Ireland, where, thanks to continuous negotiations with the help of mediators, within the society and outside society, we were able to put things back on track. I just hope that we will learn the lessons so as to prevent future Syrias in the world. But do you feel that in this case, it is the path that is being followed, more or less? Many people are trying, and the United Nations and Mr. Staffan de Mistura, who make very noble efforts, but you cannot expect one person like him to succeed. You need a whole group to resolve such a conflict.
I will give you an example. I have worked in Colombia, where a terrible civil war has been going on for much longer than in Syria, 50 years, more than 200,000 dead and 6 million displaced. During the last five years, some colleagues and I have advised President Santos, and I am happy to say that the Colombian government and the FARC rebels are within a few weeks or a few months to find a historical agreement that will put an end to 50 years of civil war.
Radio Television Suisse:
So there is hope, but it takes a lot of effort, a lot of competence, a lot of creativity, a lot of persistence and a lot of negotiation.