Negotiation Strategy Analysis

The first article is retrieved from Bloomberg. com “Saudi Oil Tanker Owners in Negotiations with Pirates” where the Saudi Arabian supertanker hijacked off the coast of Somalia. The supertanker belongs to Saudi Arabia’s state-owned shipping line, Vela International Marine Ltd. The negotiation is between the pirates that have captured the Sirius Star and the owners of the Saudi Arabian supertanker. The pirates have the advantage in the negotiation because they have the 25 crew with different nationalities as hostage, and the tanker carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude oil worth $110 million.
Saudi Arabia is unlikely considering an armed response because it may endanger the crew, and would require a great deal of international agreement and cooperation. The ship is carrying Liberian flag, owned by a Saudi company, in Somali waters, with so many nationalities onboard. The owners have to pay ransom money for the safe delivery of the supertanker. The hijackers can actually force the owners into paying large ransom money (Alexander, & Krause, November 19, 2008).
The second article is retrieved from the Eagle Tribune: “Fate of Detroit’s Big 3 will trickle down locally”, where the CEO’s of the big three automakers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have united to lobby Congress for a 25 billion loan. The negotiation is between the big three automaker companies and the government. The arguments is if their companies goes under, and one of them declared bankruptcy, an estimates of as high as 2. 5 million U. S jobs losses and more than 730,000 workers will be unemployed.

This is a pressure tactic utilized to force the government to give the $25 billion loan (Kirk, November 26, 2008). The two negotiation articles describe a negotiation situation that employs different negotiation strategies. The first article, the pirates uses distributive bargaining strategy which is characterized by mistrust and suspicion, designed to beat the other party (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). The pirates have the advantage over the owner by intimidating or threatening to eradicate the crew and the supertanker.
While on the other hand, the three car automakers and the government uses integrative negotiation strategy which is characterized by openness and trust, designed to achieve the best possible solution for all parties involve (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). The US government cannot be forced to provide a loan to the three auto companies, the only possible way to persuade them of giving $25 billion dollars to the three automakers is the possibility of loss of millions of jobs and the increase of unemployment in the event the automakers goes under or declared bankruptcy.
The comparison between the two situations is both negotiation disputes are used to influence the other party to part with money. The first scenario is the owners of the supertanker, and the US government on the second scenario. In both scenarios, the stand taken by the negotiators is “pay or otherwise”. Each situation involved, terms, counter offers, and demands placed by the parties from which the payment is claimed.