Characteristics of Winning Proposals

Characteristics of Winning Proposals

The most effective tool in international conferences is empathy for other delegations, acquired mainly through informal consultations. Empathy enables you to develop proposals that are attractive to a large majority of conference participants. It also allows you to lead by the quality of your idea.

Others may be only mildly interested in your country and its preoccupations. But a proposal that is broadened to encompass their preoccupations as well can result in a broader coalition of nations agreeing to support what you want to achieve.

Consider the following two statements:

1. Free trade in agriculture would be good for country X farmers
2. Free trade in agriculture would be good for all agricultural exporters and for consumers in food-importing countries

The first statement has less appeal for an international audience than the second statement. Both formulations make it equally clear that country X delegation supports freer trade in agricultural products but the second formulation explains why many others should support it as well.

Likewise, principles and precedents can be very important considerations, especially those principles and precedents that are widely known and respected by those whom you are trying to persuade to support the outcome you want.

In preparation for Model UN conferences, delegates can learn about important principles and precedents that they could refer to in negotiations by studying records of speeches given by actual delegations during GA or SC meetings on the agenda items of interest.

If a proposal is clearly and intelligently expressed, and if it reflects the wishes of as many other delegations as possible, it is well on the way to being accepted. The challenge is to develop a proposal or see to it that one is developed which meets these requirements and reflects one’s wishes.

As pointed out earlier, each negotiation can be thought of as a search for a solution to a problem resulting from the fact that different delegations have different objectives and ambitions. The solution is not to get irritated with or try to pressure individual delegates. Instead, as we have indicated, it is to find a formulation that is acceptable to all.

A proposal will have general appeal if all delegations like it. It may however also be accepted if some delegations like it and no others particularly object to it. It could also succeed if some like it, while those who do not particularly like it think that it gives them enough or that it is as good (from their point of view) as they can hope to get. Possibly even some decide that although they do not like the proposal there are reasons why they should not press or even express their opposition. In other words, a wide spectrum of attitudes may be hidden by a proposal’s general acceptability; but the majority view must be positive.

The winning text will emerge from what all can agree on and what will advance the objectives of each to the extent possible, despite differences in views and objectives.

Negotiators will only agree to an outcome that they consider acceptable. They will agree more readily if they see the outcome as advancing their objectives. This means that you have an interest in the outcome being one that advances the objectives of the other party (or parties) as well as your own. In your own interest, you should work to advance the objectives of the other side, to the extent that this is not incompatible with achieving your own objectives.

This is not a question of the goodness of your heart; it is a way of giving the other party or parties an incentive to agree to an outcome that serves your objectives.

Logical Argument

Reason is the most effective and thus the most widely used line of argument in international conferences.

The most persuasive arguments will be those that appear reasonable from the perspective of the people you are trying to convince. Indeed, your whole line of argument will be looked upon positively if it is developed from their perspective. At the very least, you should not speak from your own perspective but from a general one.

Momentum

Closely related to this idea is that of momentum.

As the negotiations progress, it is often the case that a particular solution or approach to a solution gains support. More and more delegations come to expect this to be the outcome on which the conference will reach agreement. In other words, their expectations focus on this approach or solution and consequently they discard other approaches and solutions, concentrating instead on how this solution can be adjusted to make it acceptable to them. The conference can then be seen to have increasing momentum towards this solution.

The analogy is often drawn with a snowball, which gains in size by accretion and momentum as it rolls down a hill. Such a solution can become irresistible.

Creativity

All of the approaches discussed here can benefit greatly from negotiators that can bring a new perspective to the issues that divide a conference and see the opportunities that can be found in the very differences between the objectives of different delegations and the different values they place on different factors.

An important help to this is knowledge—gained by experience and/or reading—of solutions or approaches that have worked in other negotiations, together with the ability to adapt them to the situation at hand.

Agreements, including negotiated positions, are sometimes criticized for being the lowest common denominator or, something the delegates could agree on. They can be seen as falling short of more ambitious agreements that could have been reached. Such outcomes are often defined as that to which no participant objects. Winston Churchill once accused his chiefs of the armed forces of producing advice that reflected “the sum of all their fears.” It is sometimes useful to identify this lowest common denominator, but then to treat it as a basis on which to devise an agreement of greater value to all participants.