14
characteristics, I
British approach
8
shall simply draw the contrast with the
to illustrate the basis for further
misunderstandings. The
The Chinese side may
side may be said to have a
tradition of "struggle diplomacy" and a preference for reaching
agreements based on broad and vaguely worded principles. The
British by contrast have a diplomatic tradition of setting out
the separate interests in considerable detail so as to establish
the points in common and where accommodations may be reached with
a view to referring upwards to the highest authority major issues
or points on which no basis for compromise could be found. As
a result in their dealings with the Chinese the British side has
been much better prepared on points of detail and on the legal
niceties. The British too have tended to be more punctilious in
respecting the confidentialities of the proceedings. The Chinese
by contrast have displayed less command of detail and they have
sought to bring pressure to bear by selective leaks and by being
less bound by confidentiality. In short both sets of negotiators
have found their encounters to be difficult,
bruising experiences.
and at times,
Perhaps because they have to deal with the practical issues,
8The best known studies of China, s approach to negotiations are Richard Solomon, "Friendship and Obligation in Chinese Negotiating style," in Hans Binnendijk, ed., National Negotiating Styles, (Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State, 1987) and Lucian Pye, Chinese Commercial Negotiating Style (Cambridge Oelgescher, Gunn & Hain, 1982). Sir Percy Cradock is reputed to have written an in-house study of the Chinese negotiating style and Anthony Galsworthy (currently the head of the British team on the Joint Liaison Group) has written for the FCO a history of the Sino-British negotiations 1982-84. Two similar studies have reportedly been written from within the Hong Kong administration.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.