The two of the most atrocious events in modern history is the World War 1 involving Germany as perpetrator nation and the World War II where the Japanese Imperial forces stormed its neighboring countries in the pacific for an imminent occupation. The two Word Wars ended in treaties such as the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the signing of the Surrender of Japan while aboard the USS Missouri in 1945. However, the signing of the two treaties has a polar opposite effects. The Treaty of Versailles was thought to have resulted to Adolf Hitler and eventually the Second World War, while the result of the treaty for the latter is a long-term good relation between the United States and Imperial Japan. This is because of the difference in the negotiation process that took place between the two treaties. In the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was left out from the negotiation table and the decision was only between United States, France, and Great Britain.
Germany was not given a conditional option and to bargain in exchange for its surrender. In addition, the three-nation panel did not arrived in a unanimous agreement as what to do with Germany. On the other hand, the Surrender of Japan instrument was more precise as to what the future of japan will be after its surrender. In addition, the sitting panel for the Potsdam Declaration included the top military officials of Japan to ensure that the conditions of the treaty are clear and acceptable to all parties. The conditions implied by the instrument of surrender include non-enslavement of Japan and its people, and allowing the country to retain its current Imperial government system. Furthermore, the country as a whole was not blamed for the destruction it brought to the countries attacked by the Japanese forces, but the War crime punishment was only limited to the named Japanese military officials. Such condition enabled the country to continue as a sovereign nation and gave its leader the chance to rebuild the country’s economy.
This kind of negotiation can be applied in business due to the characteristic of compromise that typical business negotiations should encompass. In a business negotiation, there is always a two-way benefit to all parties involved in the negotiation apart from the common courtesy among the agreeing parties. All the stakeholders in the Surrender of Japan instrument were acknowledged in the process, which business negotiations should greatly consider. For instance deciding on a merger should put all parties together in the negotiation table to discuss the conditions of the negotiation unlike the Treaty of Versailles in which Germany was left out from the negotiation. Lastly, negotiations in business should state clear of what the future holds for all stakeholders including the projected benefits from he negotiation, and all expectations are met. This is something that the Surrender of Japan was able to provide on the negotiation table, which could be the reason that there was no sign of bad aftertaste or symptoms of remorse from Japan after all.
References
Cook, G. (2011, August 7). Why did Japan surrender? - The Boston Globe. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=1
Mtholyoke.edu (n.d.). The end of World War One. Retrieved April 8, 2014, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rapte22p/classweb/interwarperiod/treatyofversailles.html
