An Analysis of Iranian Negotiating Style As Evidenced from the 1979 Us Hostage Crisis and the Iran-Eu Nuclear Negotiations from 2003 to 2006
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AN ANALYSIS OF IRANIAN NEGOTIATING STYLE AS EVIDENCED FROM THE 1979 US HOSTAGE CRISIS AND THE IRAN-EU NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS FROM 2003 TO 2006 By CAREL MARTIN LANDSBERG A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of requirements for the degree Masters in International Relations In the Department of Political Sciences UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA FACULTY OF HUMANITIES SUPERVISOR: PROF. H. SOLOMON June 2009 © University of Pretoria I declare that An analysis of Iranian negotiating style as evidenced from the 1979 US hostage crisis and the Iran-EU nuclear negotiations from 2003 to 2006 is my own work. Also, that all the sources I have used or quoted from have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. CM LANDSBERG June 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of this dissertation was made possible through the assistance and support of the following individuals and organisations to whom I express my heartfelt gratitude: To my supervisor Prof. H. Solomon, for his advice and suggestions, but above all for allowing me the scope to develop the project with relative freedom. To Marieta Buys, former information specialist at the Merensky Library, who spent many afternoons searching for sources or persuading external libraries to share their material with this student, even if it was only briefly. Without her assistance this study would still only in an embryonic stage. Her successor, Julene Vermeulen, too provided valuable assistance at the closure of the project. To Annamarie Bezuidenhout of the Merensky Library who played a proactive role in acquiring material from non-UP sources. To Mieke Wirtz. for the graphic designs, which vastly enriched the dissertation. To Oswald Davies for his valuable assistance as editor. To Michelle Jordan, for her assistance to translate material from German into English. To my employer, for the study leave granted, so that I could complete this project. To my wife Emmarentia, for her continuing support, assistance and encouragement during the time it took me to complete this project. CM LANDSBERG SUMMARY The intention of this research is to analyse the process and methodology of the Iranian negotiating style. The research is mainly premised on Putnam’s two-level game metaphor (1988) and the “ultimate decision making unit” of Hermann et al. (1987), the purpose being to identify key leadership units, individuals, and formal and informal networks in Iran. The study further takes cognisance of key elements of the Iranian national character, which naturally impacts directly on what Iran considers to be a suitable negotiating style. It provides an overview of how the 1979 revolution changed Iranian diplomacy and how it forced international political theorists to take note of the cultural-religious dimension, ignored until then as elements of international politics and theory. Two case studies, deal respectively with the US hostage crisis (1979-1981), and the Iran-E3/EU nuclear negotiations, between 2003 and 2006. The analysis shows how Iran assumed the character of a revolutionary country and how its new religiously driven diplomacy is evolving. The study finally identifies and illustrates the active deployment of Shī’a negotiation doctrine as the basis of Iranian diplomacy and the use of techniques such as taqiyyah, tanfih and khod’eh. A model for negotiations with Iran is developed using key elements of the research. Culture, Europe Union, hostage siege, Iran, US, leadership, negotiation, nuclear, Putnam, Hermann, ratification, religion. OPSOMMING Die studie fokus op Iranese onderhandelingstyl en - metodiek. Twee teorieë, naamlik Putnam (1988) se “twee-ledige interaktiewe onderhandelingsproses” en Hermann et al. (1987) se leierskapsmodel, is gebruik om Iran se gefragmenteerde leierselite asook die staat se formele en informele netwerke wat ‘n sleutelrol vervul in onderhandeling te identifiseer. Bykomend hiertoe is ‘n analise gemaak van faktore soos kultuur en godsdiens wat onderliggend is aan Iran se “nasionale karakter” en dus ’n direkte invloed uitoefen op Iranese onderhandelingstyl. Die studie wys ook hoe die 1979 rewolusie ‘n verandering gebring het deur godsdiens en kultuur tot gelykwaardige dimensies van die internationale politiek te verhoog nadat dit voorheen heeltemal geïgnoreer is. Dit bly egter vreemd vir die Weste. Die studie slaag daarin om deur middel van twee navorsingsondersoeke rakende Iran se oorname van die VSA ambassade in Tehran tussen 1979 en 1981) en die Iran-E3/EU kernonderhandelings tussen 2003 en 2006 die fokus te plaas op die identifisering en ontwikkeling van ‘n Iranese onderhandelingstyl. Tegnieke soos taqiyyah, tanfih en khod’eh wat die basis van Iran se diplomatieke onderhandellingstyl vorm, word vervolgens bespreek terwyl ‘n model vir onderhandelinge met Iran ook ontwikkel is uit die gegewens wat verkry is uit die navorsing. Iran, Amerika, gyselaars, onderhandeling, leierskap, godsdiens, kultuur, Europese Unie, Putnam, Hermann, ratifisering, kern. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, KEY CONSTRUCTS AND AIM OF THE STUDY 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ..................................................................2 1.2.1 Defining the region ..............................................................................................2 1.2.2 The Sunni-Shia religious divide in the region .....................................................4 1.2.3 The multidimensional nature of the Iranian identity ............................................9 1.2.3.1 Aryan-Persianism ...............................................................................................12 1.2.3.2 Islamism .............................................................................................................13 1.2.3.3 Anti-imperialism ................................................................................................14 1.2.3.4 The institutionalisation of identity and Iranian leadership structures ................15 1.2.4 Key elements for the analysis of Iran’s negotiation style ..................................17 1.3 LITERATURE SURVEY ................................................................................18 1.4 IDENTIFICATION AND DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM: HOW DO IRANIANS NEGOTIATE? ....................................19 1.4.1 Identification of the research problem ...............................................................19 1.4.2 Demarcation of the research problem ................................................................20 1.4.3 Key Concepts .....................................................................................................20 1.4.3.1 Negotiations .......................................................................................................20 1.4.3.2 The “ultimate decision making unit” .................................................................22 1.4.3.3 Equilibrium (neutrality) .....................................................................................22 1.5 METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS ................................................................23 1.5.1 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................23 1.5.2 A literature study .............................................................................................24 1.6 THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH ..................................................24 i CHAPTER 2 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................26 2.2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LINKAGE THEORY .............................27 2.2.1 James. N. Rosenau .............................................................................................27 2.2.2 Kenneth Waltz ...................................................................................................31 2.2.3 Peter Gourevitch ...............................................................................................32 2.2 ROBERT PUTNAM’S TWO-LEVEL GAME MODEL .............................34 2.3.1 The development of a conceptual framework.....................................................34 2.3.1.1 Putnam’s two-level game: an interactive bargaining process.............................36 2.3.2 An evaluation of Putnam’s two-level game model.............................................46 2.4. THE LEADERSHIP THEORY OF HERMANN, HERMANN AND HAGAN ...................................................................................................47 2.4.1 The conceptual framework ................................................................................47 2.4.2 The decision making approach: conceptualising the control variables .............50 2.4.3. Three types of ultimate decision making units ....................................................53 2.4.3.1The predominant leader ......................................................................................53 2.4.3.2The single group .................................................................................................58 2.4.2.1 The multiple autonomous actors .......................................................................61 2.4.4 A final distinction between the three decision making units ..............................65 2.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................65 CHAPTER 3 A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF