Conflicts in Foreign Policy and the Means to Address Them
When it comes to identifying the essential skills to facilitate an appropriate environment for negotiation between states, critical thinking tops the list. While the rest of the skills, including the ones related to communication, conflict solving, etc., are clearly of great essence, it is the ability to think critically and objectively that helps make international and intercultural communication so efficient. Critical thinking assists in viewing the situation through the lens of an opponent, which is often uneasy, mostly when the latter belongs to an entirely different culture and has an entirely different perspective of the situation discussed. Consequently, the art of critical thinking and the elements that it consists of, especially the art of asking questions and listening to the opponent, is imperative to master for those willing to attain success in international negotiations.[1] Critical thinking can be considered extraordinarily helpful in such situations as the analysis of contradictory statements made by the negotiation participants or evaluating the terms on which the competing state suggests forming a partnership.
Foreign Relationships and Economy
Speaking of which, international negotiations’ economic implications can be viewed as the primary goal of foreign affairs. After all, it is essential to realize that in the realm of the 21st century, when the globalization process has been set in motion, it is crucial to develop relationships with the neighboring states and the ones that are considered the world leaders. Research and development, or R&D, factor in the concept of economic growth relatively smoothly, Moore explains. Herein the necessity to build the Analytic Community,[2] where the trading relationships are based on the principles of complete clarity, lie. The relationships between the economy and critical analysis can be demonstrated in the cases of signing a trading agreement between two states or the procedure of allowing a particular state into the WTO.
Intelligence Analysis at Its Best
There are ways, however, to improve the techniques used for the analysis of the foreign relationship so that conflicts could be avoided entirely. According to the recent report, such methods as the famous devil’s advocacy approach allow for reducing the probability of a war in the course of a political dialogue to nil. This does invite a question of whether conflicts should be viewed solely as a negative phenomenon, though, after all, it is essential to bear in mind that disputes can only be seen as useful once considered from an objective and constructive viewpoint; otherwise, they are obviously counterproductive. The specified approach could be used in such situations as the ones lacking diversity and the ones where the choices are influenced heavily by solely one of the authorities.[3]
Thinking Outside the Box
More to the point, the very analysis of the interstate relationships can be improved; official papers issued by the U.S. Government say that the methods currently adopted by the American Intelligence, though admittedly advanced, need a substantial enhancement. The conflicts mentioned above can hardly be handled with the help of traditional strategies, yet they can be addressed by adopting the principles of a High-Impact/Low-Probability Analysis and Outside-In Thinking;[4] allowing pushing the envelope, these methods help view the problem from a different angle and, therefore, contribute to a faster resolution of a culture clash. As far as the real-life application of the specified strategies is concerned, one might consider such an occasion as the conclusion of an international agreement with an extremely low probability of some of the states willing to resign from the deal possible for applying the High-Impact-Low-Probability Analysis. Speaking of the Outside-In Thinking, a situation in which the critical factors for influencing the political tension between specific states can be named as an example.
Reference List
George, Alexander L., and Eric K. Stern. “Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil’s to Multiple Advocacy.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (2002): 484-508.
Moore, David T., “Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis.” Occasional Paper No. 14. Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence College. 2007.
Treverton, Gregory F., and C. Bryan Gabbard. “Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis.” Technical Report. RAND National Security Research Division, 3-26. 2008.
U.S. Government. “A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis.” Center for the Study of Intelligence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. 1–38. 2009.
[1]. David T. Moore, “Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis,” Occasional Paper No. 14, (Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence College, 2007), 8.
[2]. Gregory F. Treverton and C. Bryan Gabbard, “Assessing the Tradecraft of Intelligence Analysis,” Technical Report. RAND National Security Research Division (2008): 16.
[3]. George, Alexander L., and Eric K. Stern, “Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil’s to Multiple Advocacy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (2002): 487.
[4]. U.S. Government, “A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis,” Center for the Study of Intelligence (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2009): 27.