The future survival of the human species rests, beyond any reasonable doubt, on the capacity and the ability of the human male to master the essential and necessary social skill of non-violent conflict resolution. It is just that simple. And it is just that difficult.
The human male, through his mid-brain, is instinctively attracted to violence and war. Male humans and male chimpanzees share 98.8 per cent of their directly alignable DNA, making chimpanzees the closest living biological relatives to the human male.
Roughly 40 per cent of the mammal species that have been studied had documented cases of killing their own kind, meaning that 60 per cent had no recorded instances of lethal infighting. The most lethal groups that engage intra-specific killing are the carnivores, ungulates and primates, including the primate male human being.
So non-violent conflict resolution, is, in some ways, counter-intuitive to the human male’s innate instinctual proclivities. Thus, the human male, must, through his higher cortical functions, override these highly compelling and seductive mid-brain instincts and use words, instead of murder, in the human male’s efforts to resolve interpersonal conflict non-violently. This shift in human male behaviour requires considerable education and training to be able to successfully restrain the natural born killer instinct inside of the human male’s brain. This, then, requires major changes in the neuroplasticity of both the human male’s mid-brain as well as his higher cortical functions to control his impulsive behaviour. And, therefore, the resultant and ever-increasing apocalyptic nature of his behaviour.
This education and training can only be achieved by the concerted efforts of governments to publicly provide this much needed interpersonal social skills training. This is in keeping with the advice that Dr. Sigmund Freud, the renowned psychiatrist and creator of psychoanalytic theory, provided to the nuclear physicist Albert Einstein, in their renowned ‘Why War?’ letters. These letters were published for public readership on behalf of the newly created international organization, the League of Nations. This organization was created following World War One in the hopes of preventing another world war.
The League of Nations wanted to create international sturdy and durable mechanisms in their efforts to realize this goal of achieving world peace. These efforts were related to the aftermath and response to the unprecedented massive slaughter of human beings that occurred during World War One.
On the other hand, militarism, with its current rampant widespread global contagion of life-destroying armaments and nuclear weapons, now means the ever-increasing probability of the increasingly imminent resultant suicidal death of all of humanity.
Thus, to survive, humans’ males and, therefore the entire human race, including all genders, must, without question, be able to master interpersonal non-violent conflict resolution social skills. This is beyond question an absolute necessity if we are to safely ensure the continued existence of our very own lives.
In this article, I will describe the Principled Negotiation Model developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard University in 1981.
The principled or interest-based negotiation model is based on the determining what the various interests are of all of the parties that are involved in the negotiation process. It, therefore, sees the negotiating process’ as a joint goal-driven problem-solving exercise which attempts to maximize the interests of all the parties involved in the negotiation process and, at the same time, minimize each of the downsides for each of the parties involved in the negotiation process.
Principled or interest-based negotiation model exists in contrast to positional bargaining. In positional bargaining, each of the parties that are participants in the bargaining process independently arrives at what they believe is the best solution or solutions to the problem or the problems that the negotiators are attempting to resolve. Once each of the parties determine what their solution or solutions are and through some form of either persuasion or coercion, attempt to get the other parties involved in the bargaining process with them to agree to adapt as their favoured solution. Coercion involves the use of some form of force, either psychological or physically violent. This violence may or may not involve the use of weapons and armaments.
There are two styles of positional bargaining, “soft” and “hard”.
The “soft” style of negotiating has the following qualities – participants need to be friends; the sole goal of negotiation is an agreement; it is always useful to make concessions to cater to the relationship; be “soft” on the other parties that you are negotiating with; always trust the other parties that you are negotiating with; be very flexible in your positions; make as many offers as you can; let the other parties know your bottom line; accept one-sided offers in order to achieve an agreement; search for the single answers that the other parties will accept; insist on agreements; and avoid any contest of wills and give into pressure to appease the other parties.
The “hard “style of negotiating has the following qualities – the other participants are always adversaries; demand concessions as the price of maintaining the negotiating relationship; be hard on the other participants; never trust the other participants; never change your position; be sure to openly threaten the other parties; mislead the other parties as to what your bottom line is; demand one-sided gains as the price of continued engagement; search for only one solution; never relinquish your position; make sure that you always win every contest of wills and apply as much pressure as possible.
Trump, the current President of the United States, personifies the “hard’ style, whereas Mark Carney, the current Prime Minister of Canada, oscillates between the “soft”” and “hard” styles. Thus Carney, unlike Trump, lacks a consistent bargaining style. This represents Carney’s confusion and lack of a clear plan in his own mind as to how to best respond to the belligerent “hard” bargaining style of President Trump.
When Carney attempts to adopt the “hard “negotiator style, Trump punishes him by ramping up the level of tariffs that he is imposing on Canada.
In principled or interest-based negotiations, the goal is to achieve workable and effective solutions to mutual problems and that those goals be achieved as efficiently and as amicably as possible. The principled negotiation model is designed to achieve the most workable solutions as possible by framing negotiations in terms each of the parties’ interests as opposed to their opening positions. The goal of this negotiation model is to achieve shared common solutions to shared common problems, with as little downsides and animosity as possible.
Principled or interest-based negotiation is based on the following four strategies – separate the people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; create options for mutual gain; and use objective criteria to determine that the problems that are being addressed by the negotiation process are being objectively and effectively addressed.
In separating the people from the problem, the goal is to work “hard” on the problem while trying to retain as much of an efficient and amicable working relationship as possible. While all the while, all the involved parties involved in the negotiation process must realistically understand and appreciate that they are always proceeding in the face of, to some degree, a level of mistrust. Thus, therefore, all parties must realize and accept that each one of the responsible parties is/are responsible to maintain as much trust as possible to maintain and protect a workable working relationship. Thus, all interpersonal relationship problems that are perceived to be disrupting the negotiation process, must be dealt with directly and immediately by each of the parties involved in the shared task of working on creating workable mutual shared solutions. Addressing and rectifying interpersonal relationship problems as they arise, serves to maintain and protect the working alliance so that it is strong and durable enough to achieve the required goal of shared problem solution and the evitable acceptable downsides.
In focusing on interests rather than positions, the strategy is to openly and mutually explore interests rather than positions, which are unilaterally achieved solutions to the presenting problems, and resist announcing your bottom line.
This next strategy in the negotiation process involves mutually generating multiple solution options for mutual gain and minimalization of possible downsides in researching all possible solutions to resolve the presenting problems.
Finally, the negotiating parties must try and work together to measure as objectively as possible the utility and chances of success for each of the options generated by the process. All possible mutual solutions must be evaluated by independent objective standards those of which are determined through logical and objective evaluation mechanisms. This contrasts with succumbing to emotionally based pressure generated by each of the negotiating parties which only results in distorted evaluations of the outcomes.
One of the most common techniques in negotiation transactions is the “bottom line”. This technique has both its strengths as well as its limitations.
On one hand, the “bottom line” does provide some guidance for the negotiating parties with which to proceed with, but, on the other hand, it creates a rigid rigidity that can curtail the negotiating process.
An alternative technique to the “bottom line” is the Best Alternative for a Negotiation Agreement or the acronym BATNA.
This technique allows the negotiating parties some degree of scope in considering this option in addition to their other options when these other options fail to meet the essential needs of the negotiating parties.
For instance, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), as currently being presented by President Trump’s belligerent “hard” negotiating style trading team to Carney’s team, does not even meet the absolutely basics which are essential for the survival of the Canadian economy. If President Trump refuses to modify his very belligerent position, Canada BATNA’s is the option of simply walking away from Trump’s position and, instead, to develop trading agreements separately with other countries including Mexico, the EU, and any other future trading partners such as in the far east including China. In fact, Canada can explore with any other country in the world any possible opportunities where it appears to be worth the time and effort for the Canadian government to explore such possible trade agreements that might be favorable to Canada.
Predictably, consistent with his psychotic personality disorder, Trump publicly berates Canada for exercising our legal right to pursue other trading partners.
While seeking and/or strengthening ties with other trading countries appears to be a commendable solution, Carney is currently promoting it with the use of destructive and completely unnecessary haste in what are thinly disguised cosmetic propaganda exercises. Carney uses this unnecessarily rushed implementation of projects to justify and conceal his clandestine approach in hiding from full public view, and therefore adequate public discussion, his secret plan to implement his very far right-wing political agenda. In this agenda, Carney is only beholden to serving the greedy financial appetites of the fossil fuel and military multi-billionaires. He gets away with it by running roughshod over all existing Canadian legislation used to mitigate Canadian environmental destruction, protect labor and indigenous rights, and maintain and protect Canadian’s corporate control to ensure that we as Canadians receive a fair share of our Canadian’s profits. Instead, by the way Carney pursues international trade agreements, he causes greater harm than good, as he sells off Canada’s sovereignty in its right to receive its legitimate profits, its ability to protect its environment, and its workers and indigenous citizens.
In terms of justifying increasing weapons trades, Carney has created the Defense, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB), an international financial institution backed by NATO members and allies to fund military and defense projects. Its function is to provide low-cost financing for weapons and defence infrastructure.
The bank has the publicly funded backing of Canada and other allied nations including Ukraine, Turkey, and Belgium. Thus, as Canadian taxpayers, we will have to pick up the tab on all unanticipated losses.
Critics refer to the institution as a “war bank” and object to its operational goals.
Public subsidies are used to funnel public money into private weapons manufacturer profits.
The bank’s size and its rapid growth are used to promote the accelerating global arms race, which now totals global military expenditures of the record high of approximately $2.89 trillion (USD) in 2025, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This absurdly exorbitant sum of money robs the global community of any possible chance of successfully containing the climate emergency, sentencing humanity to certain death in the very near future.
The bank denies any public democratic scrutiny of its activities and military procurement decisions.
As we see Mark Carney’s BATNA to diversifying Canadian international trade is apocalyptically treacherous.
On the hand, the platform of NDP party leader Avi Lewis is as follows as outlined in the below chart:
Regarding the debate on trade and economic diversification, the contrast between Mark Carney’s strategy and Avi Lewis’s NDP BATNA are robust and striking:
| Aspect | The Carney Government Strategy | The NDP (Avi Lewis) Critique & Alternative |
| Foreign Investment | Courting global investors to secure $1 trillion in Canadian projects via events like the Toronto Investment Summit. | Accuses the government of selling out Canadian assets to “the captains of Wall Street” and increasing dependence on American corporations. |
| Infrastructure & Energy | Fast-tracking major energy infrastructure (e.g., the Pacific Link pipeline) to command higher global prices and boost GDP by $30 billion annually. | Opposes funding pipelines as environmentally toxic and also corporate subsidies, advocating instead for direct public investments in housing, health care, and wage support. |
| Trade War Leverage | Implementing retaliatory tariffs on American goods targeted at U.S. swing states while working through a Trade Diversification Corridors Fund. | Demands immediate export taxes on energy and critical minerals (like oil, gas, and potash) to force leverage against U.S. tariffs. |
In terms of Canadian investments, the NDP offers a striking alternative focus on domestic rather than global corporations.
Instead of chasing international trade partnerships through massive corporate collaborations, Lewis and the NDP propose a trade and economic strategy focused on domestic resilience and strict worker protections.
Such as:
- Resource Leverage: Lewis advocates using Canada’s highly sought-after resources—such as critical minerals and energy—as aggressive “Trump cards” in trade negotiations, rather than leaving them on the table.
- Strict Corporate Accountability: The NDP insists that any public funds or wage subsidies used to cushion industries during international trade disruptions must have ironclad safeguards to prevent corporations from converting public aid into executive bonuses or dividends.
- Prioritizing Public Needs: The party asserts that economic diversification should mean moving away from corporate-driven initiatives and investing heavily in social infrastructure, such as non-market affordable housing, public grocery networks, and expanded healthcare.
Thus, Avi Lewis has created a much more thoroughly thought out BATNA which focuses much more on using a domestic as opposed to Carney’s internationally focused strategy. In a Canadian football metaphor, Carney is relying on the risky long bomb global passes with a possible high yield but in the face of a very low pass completion rate statistically. In contrast, staying within the football game metaphor, Avi Lewis is playing a short passing strategy but with a much higher chance of completing his passes.
But most essentially, the possible apocalyptic outcomes of Carney’s strategy do not even come into play in conducting Avi and his NDP domestic, non-militarily informed platform in which wealth is fairly distributed to all Canadians and peace and environmentally safe keeping are robustly promoted for the common good of all.
Carney literally puts the risk of the future of the planet into play in exercising his BATNA, whereas that does not even come into play regarding Avi’s NDP platform.
Carney, and all too many world leaders of his ilk in power in the world today, are threatening the very destruction of humanity.
Take it personally.
I do.
The post The Answer: The principled negotiation model of non-violent conflict resolution appeared first on rabble.ca.