It is necessary to adapt negotiation practices to the character and mentality of those individuals with which one is negotiating.  Negotiation with fundamental terrorists is different in nature from negotiation with abductors who are mainly interested in ransom monies.  Such are the beliefs of Moti Cristal, world-renowned Israeli expert in the field of negotiation and conflict resolution.

One could say that today’s world has become smaller, faster, more dynamic and more interconnected.  This can be seen in our daily lifestyles, and is the reason for adaptations and changes in various disciplines, including the world of negotiation.  Once, negotiation referred to the dialogue between buyer and seller dedicated to settling on an agreed market price.  Today, however, negotiation is a complicated process comprised of integral preparation, defined stages, and the help of trained professionals.

Moti Cristal is a lawyer and negotiation specialist with more than 15 years of experience in managing and directing high-pressure and emergency negotiation situations.  Cristal has worked with various Israeli prime ministers throughout different types of negotiations, and has ample international experience.

Cristal divides negotiations into two types, dependent on the nature of their events: negotiation with religious-fundamentalist terrorists willing to die for their cause, and negotiation with abductors whose objective is to obtain ransom monies as soon as possible and without harm to the abducted.

In the last ten years there has been an increase in the the number of cases that take place in areas such as churches, mosques or schools so that response using violence is no longer an option", states Cristal.  "The intention of terrorists with religious or ideological aims is to prolong the incident as long as possible, causing as much suffering as possible to the victims, and gaining as much media coverage as possible.  Hence, the negotiation process with these individuals is different in nature from that carried out with kidnappers, whose sole interest is money and returning home as soon as possible".

"In the Bombay attacks of 2008, radical Islamic terrorists violently took over a Jewish establishment (Nariman House) in the city, and the incident prolonged over a period of four days.  This event is a clear example of religious-nationalistic terrorism whereby the terrorists are prepared to die so long as their actions received the greatest and longest lasting media coverage possible.  While many criticized the response of India's security forces, I don't believe that others would have acted differently under the same circumstances.  Only perhaps by better combining intelligence and operational activities, through, for example, tracking the mobile telephones of the terrorists and their hostages".

In this context, Cristal believes that many armies and police forces are guided by the antiquated and erroneous conviction that it is possible to "close" an event by means of communication.  "Today there are many effective tactics and practices, but they must be tailored to the different cultures and areas of this world", explains Cristal.

"What works for Russia might not for America, and what works for America does not necessarily work in Europe.  For example, at the end of 1996 a Peruvian terrorist group forced control over the Japanese embassy in Lima, holding hundreds of people hostage.  The police surrounded the structure for over four months, until they eventually gained entry through an underground tunnel that they had excavated from the perimeter.  In Russia, on the contrary, authorities address events so that there is the least possible "danger to public order".  This means that officials act with force even if it means risking the lives of hostages, as was seen in the tragic attacks upon a school in Beslan in September 2004", Cristal concludes.

According to the model that Cristal has developed and applied throughout the world, every negotiation process – including negotiation with terrorists – can be divided into five levels:

Level 1: Components of The Negotiation Team

The first level consists of analyzing the different factors that affect the participants of the negotiation process.  The psychological, cultural and personal aspects of those individuals who sit around the negotiation table, and even those who surround them, can be detected in dialogue, and influence the interaction at the negotiation table.

At this level, those individuals responsible for leading the negotiation undertake an analysis of each team's players and the factors and processes that affect them.  The leaders will try to answer questions including: Who are the groups negotiating? Where do they come from?  What is their background? What is their primary perspective? And their culture? Which individuals influence this group?

As well as: How can these players be made aware of the cultural, psychological and personal influences that affect them and their negotiators? Can these influences be taken advantage of from a tactical perspective? If yes, then how?

This analysis, done in the preparatory phase of the negotiation process, is necessary for the proper planning of the negotiation process and allows for the negotiation director to choose the team best suited for carrying it out, together with the appropriate strategies and tactics that will help to protect their interests and come to a settlement that satisfies both parties.

Stage 2: The Structure

The structure of the negotiation process plays a critical role in the strategy and tactics that the negotiator chooses throughout the process.  Negotiations differ between two people as opposed to three people, between individuals as opposed to groups, and between those carried out by an intermediary body as opposed to the parties themselves.

Therefore, in the analysis at the Structural Stage we ask questions such as: how many sides are being represented? Is this a bilateral or multilateral process? Is there a third-party intermediary?  All of the possible structural negotiation processes have their advantages and disadvantages.  The negotiator must be aware of these inherent difficulties and opportunities in each structure, so as to make the negotiation as successful as possible.

Both the Structural and Personal Stages determine the nature of the interaction between the different parties involved in the negotiation process, allow for the definition of known and hidden interests, and allow for the expert negotiator to identify the specific opportunities of the process.

Stage 3: The Process

At this stage, the type of negotiation process is determined; the “how” is the essence of the negotiation as a means to obtain interests.  Analysis at the Process Stage always depends on the context, since the negotiation process with a suicide terrorist is different in nature from negotiations with an expert kidnapper who has several events worth of experience in how to obtain ransom monies.

At this stage, the teams that partake in the process must consider the following questions: What is the most appropriate strategy for this type of negotiation?  What are the implications of choosing a certain strategy over others?  What alternatives do these parties have?   What additional tactics can strengthen the negotiation process, and which can weaken it?

Stage 4: Timing

This fourth stage, the Timing Stage, influences the management of the negotiation process, as well as its rate of progress.  Timing represents the dynamic and changing part of the process.  The time factor influences the relationship between parties, the agreements they make, and the perceptions they hold of each other.

Here, questions arise such as: How much time do the negotiators have to manage the process? It there a time limit?  Are there issues that, at a certain point, become irrelevant or less of a priority for the sake of time?

Additionally, each party’s willingness and readiness to negotiate should be evaluated:  Are these parties prepared to sit around a negotiation table?  Is there enough mutual willingness for negotiations to begin?  Do the parties feel that they have exhausted all other non-contractual alternatives?

Time-management approaches throughout the negotiation process are often culture-specific, as different cultures have different perceptions of how time is interpreted.  The term “time” means something different for an Asian, European or Latin negotiator or party.  For example, the significance of the terms “tomorrow” or “in a couple of days” for an American is different from the interpretation of that same term in a Latin (“mañana”) or Arabic (“Bukra”) culture.

Level 5: Implementation

The common conception is that the negotiation process ends with a signature of agreement or the achievement of goals.  However, in the case of negotiation with terrorists, this traditional “end” to a negotiation – the signature or agreement – is actually only the beginning of the next round of negotiations, or incident.

Therefore, while the negotiation results are paramount, there implementation is no less critical.  Contrary to commercial negotiation, the objective of implementation in this case is to avoid the next terrorist attack, or to at least create an infrastructure of dialogue that can resolve the next crisis in the least amount of time, with the smallest possible number of victims.

“In conclusion”, sates Cristal, “negotiation is a profession that can be learned and mastered.  In those critical moments of negotiation with terrorists or other parties, the presence of an expert to guide and manage the process is essential; a negotiation specialist can help support local and state government security forces to put a satisfactory end to a crisis, and better prepare themselves for the next”.

PSOSONLINE© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without the prior written consent of PSOS.