Introduction
Negotiation and third-party mediation are the most common methods for resolving disputes. The first involves a discussion between the two sides where each attempts to settle the conflict on the most favorable terms that the other party will accept, which eventually ends when a compromise is reached. The second means requesting the help of a trained person, who acts as a neutral party and helps the discussion to proceed, and makes the final verdict if necessary. This essay investigates the critical differences between the approaches and their application to a political dispute between the two countries.
In numerous situations, mediation is a superior approach to negotiation, since the two parties still discuss the matter, but a trained person is present to assist them. However, both sides have to acknowledge the arbiter’s authority, which makes the method difficult to apply in specific situations. International conflicts serve as an example of this tendency, as it is usually challenging to find a person or country to which both nations would be willing to cede authority. As such, negotiation would be the more appropriate method, although there is no guarantee of success.
The first step to a conflict resolution through negotiation would be to convince both countries to discuss the matter in question. As incentives typically are not appropriate on an international scale, the task would likely have to be accomplished through the application of pressure. Furthermore, the demands would have to be applied continuously even after negotiations began, as the proceedings of such discussions are usually confidential (Pedersen, 6), and there is no guarantee that the debate will conclude with a satisfactory result. While there is no guarantee of success, this method is the most appropriate one for international conflict resolution.
Cultural Conflicts
When inspecting countries that are engaged in a conflict, one should evaluate the differences between their cultural aspects. Misunderstandings caused by value mismatches can considerably hinder the progress of the resolution process, while sufficient research and analysis can help reveal the hidden causes behind the conflict. Geert Hofstede has created a 6-dimensional model for evaluating the primary differences, which he calls cultural aspects. To provide an example of the model’s use, this essay will use the United States and China, as the two countries are engaged in an ongoing trade war.
The two countries will be compared to their collectivism-individualism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, long-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. The U.S. is far more individualistic, slightly less masculine, has significantly less power distance, is considerably less flexhumble, and has similar levels of uncertainty avoidance (“The 6-D Model of National Culture”). As such, the conflict likely stems from the differences in individualism and power distance between the two countries. Despite the differences, the governments of both countries are not trying to work for the benefit of their citizens.
The individualistic nature of the United States, combined with the power wielded by the President, allows him to make numerous decisions as he sees fit. Meanwhile, the power distance present in China allows the government to act without regard for popular opinion. As a result, the two governments treat each other as opponents and attempt to gain an overall economic advantage without considering the influence of the measures employed on the population. If the governments can be made to view the welfare of the country’s residents as an essential value, the conflict could likely be resolved.
Works Cited
Pedersen, Paul B. The Cultural Context of Peacemaking. Web.
“The 6-D Model of National Culture.” Geert Hofstede. Web.