edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
I would like to analyze is relating to the relationship between Iceland, and the UK. If we look at what is happening, though it is not a typical negotiation, it appears to be more of an imposed confrontation that is resulting in efforts to salvage the economy and diplomacy. When Iceland got bankrupt, its actions against the non Icelandic investors has put the UK government in a tough position. Either utilize anti terrorist acts to freeze their accounts in the UK, or to accept that UK investors will make losses which they legally shouldn’t be exposed to due to the nature of their holdings. Having frozen the accounts through the anti terrorist act, Mr. Brown escalated the situation to become diplomatic disaster. We stop and think here, what would winning be for Mr. Brown and the Icelandic government? For Mr. Brown, his goal includes demonstrating that he is protecting the people who elected him while maintaining good diplomatic relations with Iceland (i.e. not return to a similar state as that of the Cod/fish Wars of the 70s). Whereas for the Icelandic government, winning would be to mitigate the crises which can mainly be done by gaining as much international support as possible. Now looking at what happened, the Icelandic government took its action abruptly without consulting other nations, though this contradicts with one of the 7 elements of a good negotiation (good two way communication), they do not seem to have had a choice for such actions need to be taken with minimal rumors spreading to avoid the market taking an action that would worsen the situation.
As per Mr. Brown’s action, his loud statements defending the action needed and his tone cost him a lot for he is expected to sympathize at least in ...