| Popis: |
The modern world is witnessing a revival of the role of the soldier/diplomat in the military operational context. This is mainly due to the inclusion of non-combative imperatives in some modern Mission mandates, different rules of engagement and operating procedures, as evinced on peacekeeping operations in particular. In such directives, stress is laid upon Article 33 of Chapter VI of the UN Charter that emphasises the relevance and importance of negotiation, enquiry, mediation and conciliation as preferred ways to resolve disputes. Today's soldier may be expected to resolve conflicts by using negotiation, rather than immediately resorting to the use of armed force. Thus, the soldier needs to possess and display a multiplicity of responses within a conflict zone, ranging from 'traditional' outright warfare (where there is a complete negation of negotiation), to a seemingly antithetical skill in the form of negotiation (where armed conflict is avoided). Such a range of response creates a complex decision making context for the modern soldier. However, the fundamental question concerning the nature of tactical level military negotiation has not been asked, and answered, to date. Tactical level military negotiation has not been analysed as an important specific form of negotiation. This thesis explores the context of the negotiating soldier, and the dilemmas faced when negotiating in a volatile environment, together with an exploration of the process itself. The main hypothesis within this thesis is that military tactical level negotiation, whilst not possessing unique traits and features, combines certain factors in unusually high degrees, and with different emphasis and imperatives from those evinced in other types of negotiation. This is a form of negotiation that is very different in degree, rather than in kind. The consequences of poor performance, or weak agreements, in a combative environment, can result in significant, if not deadly, ramifications. A thorough investigation of the negotiation process and essential decision making factors for a soldier, together with a proposed model of analysis and training, is long overdue. Existing scholarship tends to concentrate on generic forms of negotiation. This thesis examines the applicability of such theories to tactical level military negotiation, and whether the factors discussed in these theories affect the military negotiation context. It will be argued that force, mission, time, and restrictive rules of engagement, together with the influence of elements such as culture, communication, power, personality and competitiveness form the essential elements of tactical level military negotiation. None of these factors is unique. However, the combination and interplay, and the emphasis placed upon these factors, appears to be unusual, and that they are reliant on the specific context within which they are found and employed. The originality of this thesis lies in the analysis of delineating factors in a form of negotiation that takes place in a volatile, aggressive context, and which has been neglected to date. Through direct, and personal, access to examples of such work 'on the ground', and the inclusion and examination of pertinent case studies, including Bosnia, Liberia and Sierra Leone, exemplification and exploration of the key negotiating factors on military operations is undertaken. This is an investigative, and systematically analytical examination of a I form of negotiation which has received little attention, but, since it is an important function of the modern soldier in the post Cold War environment, the aim is the delineation and development of a discrete multi-variable framework for this form of negotiation that will both represent the practicalities of the process, and serve to inform and help to train personnel deploying and encountering tactical level military negotiation in the future. This research reveals the predominance of negotiation in the 'arsenal of response' for the modern soldier. Even in more obviously aggressive military operations, such as the operation mounted in Afghanistan in 2002, some military units continue to work as discrete liaison teams, and negotiate with locals on a daily basis to help to re-build a shattered infrastructure. All the personnel encountered in the course of this research emphasised the importance they place on negotiation in the field. What troubled some of them was the lack of sufficient, pertinent, pre-deployment training in the subject, with the chance to hone their competency. This thesis will be used to re- design the delivery of such required training, by providing a contextually specific framework for this form of negotiation, and places a significant military skill in the analytical 'spotlight' at last. |
