The Dialectics of Oppression in Zaire (review)

264 SAIS REVIEW While he expands the traditional definition of aggregate power (rightfully emphasizing its non-military aspects), it is in the last two subdivisions that he makes his most significant contribution to the art of practical negotiation. Although aggregate power only changes slowly over time, the elements of issuespecific power (available alternatives, degree of control, and commitment to a solution) can change dramatically in the short term if the actors apply appropriate tactics. Habeeb's thoughtful selection of case studies provides convincing reinforcement for his thesis. Panama's skillful coalition-building during the Canal negotiations , Spain's patience and flexibility in fashioning a suitable agreement with the United States concerning basing rights, and Iceland's adherence to principle in the face of heavy British pressure during the "Cod Wars" of 1958, 1971 , and 1975 all offer instructive, even inspirational, guidance to "weaker" parties. There are advantages to being weak, says Habeeb, so there is no reason for any party to walk away empty-handed from a negotiation intelligently conducted. To round out the study, Habeeb succinctly summarizes the processual framework within which the tactics of power prevail. This negotiation process, first explained by I. William Zartman and Maureen Berman in The Practical Negotiator, consists of three broad phases. In the first, or diagnostic, phase, the relevant parties reach the decision to negotiate. In phase two, the parties search for a formula, or a shared perception of the "terms of trade," and in phase three, they hammer out the details that finalize the deal. Habeeb has skillfully used Zartman's conceptual loom to weave his newly conceived definition of power into a rich fabric, finally giving meaningful shape to the crazy quilt of previous negotiation scholarship. Habeeb has not written a cookbook or claimed to have done so. He clearly understands that negotiation is not an assembly line attended by robots, but rather an ambiguous milieu of fact and perception in which timing can affect the outcome as much as raw national power and in which human imagination is the greatest resource. Habeeb has done negotiators a great service. By providing them with a proper vehicle to navigate along Zartman and Berman's road map, he has made thejourney less improvisational and the destination more predictable. The Dialectics ofOppression in Zaire. By Michael G. Schauberg. (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988). 188 pp. $25.00/hardcover. Reviewed by Pierre Englebert, M.A., SAIS, 1988; consultantfor the World Bank. I suppose you know why you come back, patron .... Because you have nothing to come back to. You don't know? Nobody told you in London ... ? You don't have anything. They take away your shop. They give it to citizen Theotime. — Naipaul, A Bend in the River There is no certainty about anything in Zaire. There is no such thing as ownership . What you have is yours only to the extent that Mobutu Sese Seko, Zairian head ofstate, does or does not wish to take it away from you. This is true whether BOOK REVIEWS 265 you are at the top or at the bottom of the social and political hierarchy; whether Zairian or a foreigner. This is not only true for what you have but also for who you are. To have a secure, permanent position is a contradiction in terms. Freedom is not a right. It is granted and can be withdrawn. This system can destroy individuals. By giving, it ensures material satisfaction and consequent gratitude. By giving and taking away, it ensures a pitiful allegiance, a complete dependence. In The Dialectics of Oppression in Zaire, Michael G. Schatzberg attempts to demonstrate the mechanisms of this system, accounting for the foundations of Mobutu's power and providing hindsight on the relationship between the Mobutiste state and the Zairian society. Mobutu's regime unquestionably relies on violence, repression, oppression, and terror to maintain power. Why is oppression necessary? Because of the leaders ' insecurity and the scarcity of economic resources. According to Schatzberg: As personal, political, and economic insecurity increase, people in power seek to accumulate resources as rapidly as possible from those who occupy contextually inferior positions in the social hierarchy. However they can, while they can, they extract...