Negotiation Strategies Of Great Powers

As the first high-level U.S.-China meeting after nine months of disconnection,the Alaska summit is significant for the normalization relations of these two countries.In this summit,both sides delivered sharp rebukes of the others’ policies in a rare public display which drew wide international attention.Discourse analysis is one of the most commonly used research method,which is also advocated by postmodern international relations theory.However,existing methods are instructive but too abstract,a more specific and actionable pattern is desperately needed.The first research question of this paper is therefore to construct a more specific framework for discourse analysis applicable to diplomatic negotiations.With reference to Fairclough’s three-dimensional discourse framework and John Thompson’s in-depth hermeneutic framework,this study constructs three-dimensions two-levels discourse framework(3D2L discourse framework)under the perspective of a two-level game.Horizontally,starting from political practice factors and combining with the negotiation text,we can summarize the topics of negotiation,the arrangement of discourse troops and the skills of discourse,and also reflect the core contradictions,negotiation strategies and language styles of the two countries.Vertically,it draws on the underlying logic of the three-dimensional discourse framework,that is,political practice determines discourse practice and discourse skills.To test the 3D2 L discourse framework whether suitable for diplomatic negotiation analysis,it has been applied to the Alaska summit study,hoping to solve the second research problem: What kind of discourse skills does the diplomatic negotiation of great powers have.The research found that both sides led their statement to the thesis of the China-U.S.relationship and the international order,though they had different negotiation goals.It seems that American alliances issue,human rights and cyberattack are the conflicts,in fact,they are just the ways to demonstrate righteous.The line-up of topic arrangement is just like the strategy of using troops,both sides made efforts to show the correctness and righteousness of their own views,while hit back at the other side.The U.S.believes in pragmatism,and they emphazise the task-oriented negotiation,so their statement was concise and straightforward,and the interlocking comment drove the U.S.position.Chinese are used to seeking common ground while setting aside differences,a value rooted in the doctrine of the mean.So even if they hit back sharply at the American accusations,the Chinese negotiators repeatedly expressed that they could cooperate with the U.S..And the difference of these two countries’ context culture can also influence their discourse compete.In the aspect of textual practice,the U.S.often used parallel construction to enhance the momentum,meanwhile,they used specific words to portray China as “others” that is alien to the world.The Chinese side often used the first-person pronouns like “we” “us” to describe the two countries,and they preferred comparative methods or citing examples.Considering the media presence at the summit,all negotiators tried to be sound justifiable,so the media impact should to be taken into account.Through the analysis of the Alaska Dialogue,the study found that the 3D2 L framework can provide a clearer path for the analysis of diplomatic negotiations,but the analytical perspective in the framework cannot cover the specificities of all kinds of diplomatic negotiations.The diplomatic negotiations of the major powers focus heavily on pre-conference preparation,which helps to add weight and forethought to the negotiations.A particular sequence of issues reflects the purpose of the negotiation,and weaknesses in it can be the target of counter-attacks.If the negotiation is public,it is important to gain the support of the audience,and rhetorical skills can be used to argue for moral legitimacy.In addition,silent discourse symbols in negotiations can also assist in achieving negotiating objectives.