No Fallback Position in Negotiations

In terms of the actual … process itself, the French seem to employ а number of tactics that distinguish them from American or most Western negotiators. For example, whereas U.S. teams usually develop an opening position with а number of intermediate fa11-back stages before reaching the bottom line, the French typically come to … … with an elaborate, well-prepared opening position but have few intermediate fallbacks before their minimum bargaining point is …. To American negotiators, the French seem to be … because they cannot or will not compromise their maximalist proposal. It makes … … if the French are on the offensive, actively seeking an agreement. Then they are more likely to have compromises ready. However, if they are on the defensive, coping with demands of others, they … … … more rigid. For their part, the French acknowledge that t0hey often enter negotiations with no fall-back position and assert that this is usually because their basic policy is а carefully-created and correct one which they can defend better if they do not have preconceived concessions in mind. Their advantage … … … is that а certain virtuosity allows them to work with а particular bargaining situation and develop alternatives … … … of the negotiation itself.

1. in this situation; 2. some difference; 3. bargaining; 4. in the course;

5. а negotiation; 6. tend to be; 7. inflexible; 8. reached;

EXERCISE 3. Practice your abilities in discussion.

Read the article to find out the main ideas. Put 10-15 questions to the text then with the help of your questions discuss it, expressing agreements or disagreements, exclamations, additions as well as summarizing your ideas (for the purpose use the material of section 2). Then retell it.

Manipulating the Symbols of Power

Gaullist foreign policy style often seemed to seek — or certainly not to avoid — confrontations over issues where France had а veto power, could impose conditions, or could determine the outcome without resorting to а framework of direct negotiation and compromise. This was in part due to the conviction that France was most itself when engaged in а struggle, or, as the motto put it, “To be great is to sustain a great quarrel”. In order to win these quarrels, or conflicts, and to reinforce France's selfesteem, Gaullist diplomatic style was tailored to permit the mахimum exercise of de Gaulle's personal talents in the service of his national vision. Thus, French diplomacy in the Fifth Republic relied on the manipulation of symbols and а strong sense of theater, all exercised with а certain aloofness from the fray of the diplomatic arena itself, as de Gaulle compensated for а lack of genuine power with а masterful ability to work with symbols of power and create situations in which France could only triumph, or at least appear to triumph. By an astute sense of timing, France was able to control the process of diplomatic exchanges and, by revealing its goals only in stages, could keep others off balance or unaware of the ultimate purpose of its tactics.

De Gaulle was frequently willing to use а variety of special "anti-bargaining" tactics to achieve а foreign policy goal. Both unilateralism and the ultimatum are diplomatic weapons with good Gaullist credentials that have been employed to avoid negotiations, or in the course of them, to dictate terms of agreement or non-agreement, as in ЕЕС and NATO affairs. The Gaullist style in diplomacy is necessarily one in which there are high risks in terms of reputation, because of the scale of French ambition and the high diplomatic stakes of such conspicuous maneuvers. With little concrete power, de Gaulle used rhetoric, ideas, and а distinctive style to establish а certain dominance over Western diplomacy for а decade. He carefully chose his confrontations so that the practical risks were usually at а minimum. However, for а country whose power and influence greatly depend on prestige and status, each diplomatic confrontation is potentially costly in international as well as domestic terms. Georges Pompidou and his foreign minister, Michel Jobert, took on the United States over the "Year of Europe" during 1983, and adroitly manipulated the Middle East War and energy crisis to scuttle U.S. efforts to gain а veto over European political and economic decisions.

The essence of Gaullist diplomacy is а formal public insistence on the rigid adherence to principles and an unwillingness to bargain over issues where such principles or significant national interests seem to be at stake. Although this is а seemingly uncompromising approach to foreign affairs, another prominent feature of Gaullist diplomacy was that beneath the apparent rigidity was а surprising pragmatism that allowed France and its partners to work together despite disagreements on principles. The flexibility of French foreign policy has increased since de Gaulle's time, so that contemporary French diplomacy is а tempered Gaullism that gives France а stable foundation in а somewhat idiosyncratic national style of behavior, yet allows the French nation to meet an intensified need for accommodation and cooperation with other states. Contemporary French negotiating behavior can be understood as a blend of the classical Gaullist approach and a “modern”, or pragmatic, diplomatic style.

EXERCISE 4. Train your thinking and communicating.

Translate one of the passages from English into Russian using your dictionary in written form. Look through the text. Write down and act out the following dialogues using the material of section 2:

1. An expert in trade relations with France is answering the questions of a young specialist stressing “pros” and “cons”.

2. Two specialists in trade relations with France are discussing developing of trade activity in a new field expressing agreement and disagreements.

3. A counter part at the negotiations with the French side is summarizing advantages and disadvantages of the future talks, using exclamations and other conversational formulas.