Anupam- The Dreamer

In any sort of deal, whether economic or political or environmental, there are negotiations between the contracting parties. Sometimes, these negotiations are done with the approach of win-win for both parties. But, sometimes the negotiations take the hard route of “Brinkmanship”. “Brinkmanship”, a term which came into prominence during mid-20^th century, under Eisenhower administration in the US, is a bargaining tactic to push the other party to the edge or the brink of a dangerous situation to gain some sort of strategic advantage by the first party. The classical representation is the above pic, here what will happen to the negotiating power of the person in blue? Obviously, he will have to comply with the demands of the person in white, or else risk elimination!

For ease of understanding, let’s take an easy example. Like if you are a big corporate and you want to acquire the land of a poor farmer, the market price of which is Rs. 1 crore. The judicious approach will be to make the deal at Rs. 1 crore. However, if the corporate wants to adopt “Brinkmanship”, then what it will do is to annoy the farmer by using every tool of realpolitik- saam, daam, danda, bheda! Like buying all other lands surrounding farmer’s land, sending goons to terrify him etc. The poor farmer will have virtually nowhere to go and seek relief. Then, the corporate will offer him Rs. 50 lakhs. The farmer will hold on to the land and will not sell. But, eventually at some point of time, he will have no option but to sell the same at Rs. 60 lakhs. The farmer would be made to believe that he is not at loss because he has been given Rs. 10 lakhs more (a white lie!, but who cares).

Similar tactics are often adopted at international level between nations to test the patience, strength and negotiation ability of the other party. It happened during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, during the signing of Oslo Accord in 1993, etc. During the current US administration, this Brinkmanship is being adopted in the full public glare, which was otherwise behind the scenes. The deals are done from a business and hard power point of view, leveraging the US economic and military strength, and pushing the other countries to the edge! It happened in the case of Canada, Mexico, Denmark (Greenland), increasing the share of NATO partners in its funding, etc.

Similar tactic is being applied to every other nation, so that the US walks away with bigger share of the pie after the negotiations. In the ongoing India-USA trade agreement, similar things can be observed. From the US side, things are being said or exaggerated to put India into a weaker position and pushing us to the brink, so as to force us to give up some of our demands. This is again a typical example of Brinkmanship! The powerful party in this scenario, pushes the other to give up some of their demands, and yet makes it “feel” that it has got a better deal. This is like the farmer was made to “feel” that he got Rs. 10 lakhs more. It is very hard to comment whether what the farmer did was right or wrong. The supporters will argue that had the farmer not taken the deal, he would have lost a larger amount in the future, while the critics will argue that farmer should have insisted on getting Rs. 1 crore! What would you have done in such a scenario had you been the farmer? It’s easier said than done, isn’t it?

Unless the farmer enhances his own internal strength to negotiate a better deal from the corporate, the realpolitik will continue to exploit him. Or if the world moves away from realpolitik to a rules-based global order, then the farmer would have the protection of the law on his side. On one side there is “Matsyanyaya” (might is right) and on the other side there is rule of law. And then there are fence sitters who love to watch both sides as they fight for their survival, as they don’t have to make the tough decisions themselves!

So, which side are you on? OR You just love sitting on the fence?

Until next time…..