radu Stefan
84 aprobate
Formidabilul upper-cut diplomatic dat de Regina Maria
negociatorilor Tratatului de la Versailles – Clemenceau si Wilson numarandu-se printre acestia
– carora marea noastra regina le-a impus decizia ei , ducand niste trataive cu tactici si strategii de geniu pentru a-si obtine victoria !

Cititi relatarea unui antagonist care n-a avut incotro decat sa-i recunoasca meritele si sa-i prezinte manevrele drept model exemplar pentru alti diplomati de viitor :

How Romania Punched Above Its Weight at the Treaty of Versailles

by Prof. Deepak Malhotra, Professor at Harvard Business School

How Romania Punched Above Its Weight at the Treaty of Versailles

From left: Italian premier Vittorio Orlando, British PM David Lloyd George, French premier Georges Clemenceau and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson before the signing of the Versailles Treaty
[Note: this story was originally presented by Prof. Deepak Malhotra, Professor at Harvard Business School (Negotiation/Conflict) during a talk I recently attended. All credit for surfacing the story and sharing the insights belongs to him. I thought it was such a compelling story, I wanted to write it up so that others could learn from it.]

At the end of World War I, the leaders of the four primary victors—United States, Britain, France, and Italy—met in Paris to agree on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which would formally end the war. They had to make decisions about how national boundaries should be drawn in Europe, as well as which countries would be required to make war reparation payments.

Countries throughout Europe sent delegations to Paris for the treaty discussions. The four leaders—which included Woodrow Wilson of the US and Georges Clemenceau of France—were closeted in a hotel room for most of the discussions. The delegations from various countries would visit the hotel room one at a time, each one making a pitch for how much territory they should gain (or retain), how much they should collect from the losers of the war, and how much equipment (including weapons) they should be given to bolster their armed forces.

The four leaders would hear the pitches from each country delegation, and would use a relatively simple two-point framework to decide whether to award territory, war payments, and arms:

Did the country provide significant help to the Allies in their victory over the Central Powers?
If not, was the country an important military power?
So in the meetings with the four leaders, the delegations of most countries would discuss how critical their military contribution was to the Allied victory. Or they would play up their military strength, and talk about how much the Allies needed their help to secure the peace in Europe.

One country—tiny Romania—had neither of these points in their favor. While Romania initially entered the war on the side of the Allies, in 1917, due to military defeats and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (after which Russia withdrew from the war), Romania was forced to negotiate a separate armistice with the Central Powers.

The situation, however, once again took a turn for the worse for the Entente in November with the October Revolution and the beginning of the Russian Civil War. These events effectively ended Russian involvement in the war, and Romania was left isolated and surrounded by the Central Powers and had little choice but to negotiate the Focsani Armistice, signed by the combatants on December 9, 1917. (source: Wikipedia)
So Romania effectively sat out the last year of the war, and couldn’t really claim that they provided decisive military support to the eventual outcome of the war. Moreover, their military suffered disastrous defeats during the combat, and Romania could not claim to be an important military power in Europe.

Yet despite these challenges, Romania made an effective pitch to the leaders of the four victor countries, and negotiated an outcome that saw them gain significant additional territory, as well as shipments of arms and military support. They not only recovered territory that was lost to Bulgaria, but they also gained additional territory by acquiring Transylvania. How did they do it?

During the discussion, Romania didn’t focus on what they did during the war, or what they had militarily. Instead, they focused on the value they could create for the Allies moving forward.

Queen Marie of Romania, for example, asked for huge territorial gains, including half of Hungary, for her country. When leaders such as Woodrow Wilson of the United States or Georges Clemenceau of France demurred at granting this, she warned that a disappointed Romania might well have a violent revolution. This was not something that the peacemakers wanted. Revolution in Romania would bring the threat of Bolshevism much closer to the heart of Europe. The peacemakers, it has been suggested by the historian Arno Mayer among others, were heavily influenced by their apprehensions about revolution when it came to making the peace settlements. (source: Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada)
Queen Marie’s pitch to the Allied Victors was simple: you need Romania to be strong in order to contain the spread of Bolshevism. You don’t want the Russians to occupy Romania and then be on your own borders. So bolster Romania to be your first line of defense against Communist Russia.

She didn’t discuss the past, or even the present. She effectively painted a vision for the future: the value that Romania could create for the Allies as a buffer between themselves and Russia. And in doing so, she was able to increase her leverage and enable Romania to “punch above its weight” in the negotiations at Paris. The pitch worked, and Romania got what they asked for.

The key lessons from this story:

Understand what’s important to your negotiating partner. Queen Marie understood the Allied Victors’ urgent concerns about the spread of Bolshevism.
Focus on the future value rather the just the current value you can provide to your negotiating partner with the terms you propose. This approach may increase your leverage over what you’d have if you only focused on present assets.
Paint the picture of “no deal” for your negotiating partner. Negotiation theory coaches us to know our own “BATNA” (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement). In your discussions, also focus on your partners’ BATNA, and highlight the implications of “no deal” for them.