Crisis Negotiations Between Unequals: Lessons from a Classic Dialogue

"The name of this game is poker, not chess" writes William McCarrhy (1985,64) when describing the role of power in negotiations. In both poker and negotiation, the dynamics of power asymmetry must be understood by both players the one with the straight flush and the one with two Dairs. The assum~tion that success in negotiations is simply a matter of "power" has often proven costly; one-sided settlements do not follow necessarily from Dower disparitv itself. Negotiators need a clearer understanding of thePdangers and opp&t&ties, or the lack thereof, that power presents at the negotiating table. Few events better illustrate the detriments of impractical power negotiations than an exchange of views from ancient Greece that is known as the Melian Dialogue. Set in 416 B.C., at the height of the Peloponnesian War, the dialogue is Thucydides' account of the dispute between Athens and the isle of Melos over the latter's refusal to succumb to the Athenian empire. Sixteen years into the war, at a time when expansionist Athens thought itself invincible, its leaders decided that they could no longer tolerate Melos' independence. Ten years earlier, Athens had tried unsuccessfully to coerce Melos into an alliance; this time, Athens resolved to make the island a tributary colony. Melos, after blossoming in independence for over 700 years, stood determined to maintain that status (de Ste. Croix 1972, 20). Despite this obvious conflict of interest, both parties agreed to send representatives to discuss the matter. However, the discussion turned into two monologues, or as modem-day negotiation theorist I. William Zartmm (1985, 124) might call it, "a dialogue of the deat" While the Melians tried to present their case on abstract principles of justice, the Athenians simply insisted on discussing power and expediency. The intransigent