Sharp morning light cut the city in half the day Mina walked into the conference hall — the same hall where, three years earlier, she’d watched a treaty text be hammered out without a single line reflecting her clients’ interests. She’d been invited again: a multilateral table convened to rewrite water-sharing rules for a transboundary river that had begun running thin as climate change and new dams upstream altered the math of who got what and when.
Mina had rehearsed her options in her head like a litany. Sit and bargain, and risk watering down real demands into polite language that satisfied nobody. Storm out and stage a dramatic boycott, the sort that tweets and placards love — a blank-check gesture that signals moral purity. Or stay away quietly: force an impasse and, she hoped, make the other parties feel her absence as pressure, boosting her leverage.
She remembered what her old professor had taught in his negotiation seminar: don’t bargain over positions; focus on interests; and always know your BATNA — your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Those principles weren’t just aphorisms, they were tools. If you could not better your BATNA by walking away, then walking away was a form of surrender dressed as principle. The students in that seminar had called it the difference between principled negotiation and performative protest.
Outside the hall the newsfeeds still flickered with the memory of bigger-stage boycotts. She scrolled once to remind herself: whole nations had adopted “diplomatic boycotts” of global sporting events in the early 2020s — a decision meant to signal condemnation without stopping athletes from competing — and the move had split allies and critics alike over whether moral signaling changed policy or simply politicized sport. Mina’s mind registered the lesson: symbolic absence can draw attention, but rarely forces the structural concessions that local communities needed.
Inside, the river-basin technical committee had already set an agenda. Engineers projected flows, hydrologists stamped charts with new climate-adjusted scenarios, and legal advisers whispered about precedent. Mina listened for the opening gambits and the points where her party’s real leverage lived: access to cross-border monitoring data, funding for water-saving irrigation, and a clause that would let downstream communities trigger emergency allocations during drought. These were negotiable interests; the posture of a boycott would not create water itself. In practice, effective negotiators combine leverage with alternatives — a credible BATNA and public pressure used strategically rather than as surrender or theatrical absence.
She also thought about politics closer to home. In several post-authoritarian parliaments, opposition parties had staged boycotts to dramatize alleged abuses, and sometimes those boycotts brought international attention. But scholars and practitioners warned that full boycotts could backfire: by vacating the chamber they ceded the routine business and the ability to shape technical compromise, and they risked becoming marginalized from the very outcomes they hoped to influence. In other words, absence can be amplification — or erasure.
Mina chose a third path: conditional participation. At the first session she registered the grievances publicly — the missing data, the unaccountable subsidies, the inadequate environmental safeguards — and then she sat at the table. She filed precise alternatives grounded in objective criteria: satellite-verified flow metrics, a cost-shared modernization fund for irrigation, and an independent review panel with staggered membership so no single government could freeze it out. She insisted these be benchmarked to scientific projections, not to political promises. That was principled negotiation in action: separate people from the problem, identify interests, invent options for mutual gain, and insist on objective standards to judge proposals.
Across the break, a coalition of civil-society groups circulated a targeted campaign that threatened consumer boycotts of companies financing the biggest upstream dam — a calibrated economic pressure designed to change corporate calculus without demonizing entire populations. Mina had debated whether to embrace the campaign outright. Corporate and legal advisers warned that boycotts could trigger countermeasures — anti-boycott laws and regulatory reprisals in some jurisdictions — that would complicate enforcement and could even penalize local actors who acted in good faith. These cautions were a reminder: leverage has costs, and legal-policy environments matter.
Over two long days the negotiators iterated. Mina’s conditional participation let her shape technical annexes that would have been near impossible to resurrect from outside. When one powerful state tried to bracket the monitoring clause — effectively removing teeth from enforcement — Mina’s coalition pushed back with an alternative financing clause that made compliance cheaper than circumvention. The coalition also retained the option to escalate: a calibrated external pressure plan, not a unilateral clean-break boycott. Their credibility rested on the ability to follow through (a credible BATNA), not theatrical absence.
In the final plenary, the chair announced a package of measures: an updated allocation schedule, jointly funded irrigation retrofits, and an independent technical review to be populated by a roster agreed by rotation. It was imperfect, but it included the monitoring and emergency-release triggers Mina had insisted on. Those victories had a price — compromises elsewhere — but because her delegation had remained at the table they had a seat in implementation committees and a voice in the dispute-resolution mechanism. Had they boycotted at the outset, they likely would have been cut out of drafting those critical operational details and enforcement clauses altogether.
After the session, an older delegate from a smaller state who’d once been a striker and a protester took Mina aside. “We used to think absence was the purest form of protest,” he said. “Now we know it can be a luxury. If you can make absence hurt the system more than it hurts you, do it. But if absence only means you lose your chair, you must be at the table.” Mina realized then the paradox that sat at the heart of the reference she’d been given months earlier: boycotts can be a blank check, an unconditional surrender, or a leverage tactic — but without careful strategy, legal awareness, and a credible BATNA they risk exclusion from the very results that shape people’s lives.
⸻
Lessons in Mina’s notebook — practical, technical, and political:
• Know your BATNA and build it before you walk away; leverage is strongest when you can credibly live without the deal.
• Use principled negotiation: focus on interests, generate options, and insist on objective criteria so outcomes are durable.
• Symbolic boycotts can draw public attention (as diplomatic boycotts of major events have shown), but symbolism rarely substitutes for the technical clauses that govern implementation.
• Political boycotts can backfire by excluding actors from drafting and oversight, leaving implementation to others; sometimes a threatened boycott — kept as a credible escalation — works better than abandonment.
• Legal and economic contexts matter: targeted market pressure can be effective, but anti-boycott rules and other legal constraints can blunt or invert such tactics.
Mina closed her notebook and walked back to the river. The current was thinner than it had been, but it still flowed. She had not won every demand; she had not staged the moral drama of a boycott. Instead she had combined technical leverage, legal awareness, public pressure held in reserve, and the simple, stubborn work of drafting words that would govern how water moves. In that, she had ensured that when the ink dried, her people’s name was on the clause that mattered most — the one that let them call for an emergency allocation if the river ever ran out.
And somewhere between the chair’s gavel and the riverbank, Mina understood the oldest truth of negotiation anew: absence can be powerful. But so can presence — especially when it is purposeful, informed, and tied to alternatives that make walking away an actionable choice, not an accidental exile.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
US absence at SA’s G20 Summit threatens to upend Ramaphosa’s agenda
Comments