Opinion: How Fares ‘The Art of the Deal?’

OPINION

President Donald Trump is warning the world that his tariffs are back on track as of the first of August. It’s one of several deadlines announced and rescinded as he tried to secure favorable trading terms at the expense of his partners and adversaries. As markets reacted to the tariff announcements, and stocks fell, Trump shifted.  Still, the president wants the world to know he’s no “chicken” just because he’s repeatedly backed off high tariff threats.

“You call that chickening out?” Trump said.  “It’s called negotiation,” adding that he sets a “ridiculous high number and I go down a little bit, you know, a little bit” until the figure is more reasonable.

Negotiation? Only in Trump’s world is that what it is.

In the tit for tat tariff battle between the U.S. and China, each of the global powers is waiting–and hoping—for action by the other.  Neither waiting nor hoping is likely to end the dizzying escalation of their tariff war, unraveling a relationship the two nations have forged over decades, despite enmity and competition, because it has provided “value” to both countries.

Unless they reach an accommodation, they will continue to place both countries in positions precarious enough that they could drag down the world’s economy. That accommodation, at a minimum, has to reflect America’s desire to correct the trade imbalance—we resist the flooding of our markets by Chinese-subsidized manufactured goods–without placing in jeopardy what America does need from China.  And America needs to acknowledge and deal with China’s situation:  the nation needs markets for its products.

Speaking at the White House a few weeks back, Mr. Trump said “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it.” And he does?

Adversaries and friends negotiate because they have overlapping interests; they have things to gain, things to lose; in the current standoff, the super powers can’t walk away from a relationship that has yielded benefits to both countries, but, it’s clear enough, they need to change the terms of that relationship, their intertwined economies, and establish boundaries they can both live with.

A brief look at what has brought these countries to the brink is eye-opening because when actions are taken, based on expectations that have no solid grounding, and are found wanting, a base for effective negotiations is seriously lacking.  And that is certainly the situation with the author of “The Art of the Deal.”

Trump’s Art of the Deal

There has never been a president quite like Donald Trump, and certainly not one in recent years who has leaned on his “deal-making” success in his quest for the nation’s highest political office, twice.

Trump set the tone for his confrontational negotiation style when, during the announcement of his initial run for president, he said:

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say China, in a trade deal?  They kill us. I beat China all the time.  All the time.”

In Trump’s reality, there are only winners and losers.  In his own estimate he is a winner and he has to be in control.  Cooperation is not his forte and, evidently, neither is planning in advance for what reactions may come from his actions.  And building a consensus to develop policy doesn’t appeal to him either:  “Committees are what insecure people create in order to put off making hard decisions.”

He just goes “with his gut,” he says.

But, international relations and global diplomacy, not to mention domestic politics and governing, require the experience, the instincts and skills to manage crises and to solve problems. Gaining victories at the expense of those who occupy the same planet is hardly wise strategy.

In an increasingly interdependent world, leaders cannot safely pursue a unilateral, single-minded, concern for their own nation’s interests.  The stakes are too high. That approach, rarely successful anyway, creates unwanted consequences, encounters constraints by others, and, moreover, those affected can undermine the intended results or get even in other ways.

How does Trump’s approach—in his own words in recent days and in his book, “The Art of the Deal”–conform to the needs of the world?

Negotiation

Negotiation is a give and take process between two or more parties, each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints, with both (or all parties) seeking, on common ground, to reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.

Once a largely competitive and adversarial process, negotiation has evolved into a relationship-based, ongoing process that puts a premium on empathy and cooperation.

Trump’s view of negotiation, in stark contrast, pits one against another with the aim of producing a winner and a loser.  That approach rarely produces remedies that work, or, that last.

Trump is forcing his view of “fairness” in trade, so-called reciprocal tariffs, while demonizing and threatening the Chinese.  Not an effective opening for negotiation as he has learned.  The Chinese retaliated.  Trump didn’t expect that reaction.  And, at a loss, he escalated; and the Chinese retaliated again. His approach failed.

Why didn’t Trump make a timely call?  Offer to negotiate?  And why make his demands public before entering negotiation, particularly if a deal, once reached, doesn’t conform to what you said you had demanded?  No competent negotiator discusses positions, interests, demands, let alone potential concessions, in the press.  Once stated in a public way, it’s virtually impossible, even for Trump, to walk even tentative concessions back.

Most disputes are not zero-sum, win/lose, situations and should not be approached that way, certainly not if the objective is to generate sound solutions.   In dealing with seemingly intractable political conflicts and, say, international agreements on trade, negotiations that take a zero-sum approach can fail to optimize results, if indeed they succeed at all.

In these complex contexts, negotiators must not see their negotiating partners solely as adversaries, but as partners, with differences, that help one another manage mistrust, think creatively and collaboratively, and, in many instances, help one another to sell the terms of their agreements to their constituents and to other affected players on the world stage.

Political posturing runs the risk of poisoning prospects for future negotiations. So does insulting those with whom you hope to execute binding agreements. Grandstanding, issuing ultimatums and hurling threats are counterproductive as well.

Demonstrating knowledge of and interest in the other’s position and their interests, a fundamental element of good negotiation practice, is not Trump’s style.   In fact, it’s all about him, and about winning, defeating the other, and “keeping score.” So, from the start, he ignores what may be critical to a good outcome, an awareness of the interests and needs of others and how to meet at least some of them to forge an agreement that will hold.

A resolution, as opposed to a victory, is important because there is a mutual investment in it, having value for all parties so that they will commit, together, to make it work.

Trump’s bullying approach creates unwanted consequences, encounters constraints by others, and, moreover, those affected can undermine the intended results or, as noted, they can seek to get even in other ways.

Negotiation is rarely easy.  It takes skill and patience and it operates in a context in which there may be barriers that can stand in the way.  The barriers need to be in clear focus as negotiators try to use everything at their disposal to diminish those that make the conflict seem unsolvable or the deal impossible.

The president is facing a world of complex global concerns and grave matters of war and peace. In this world, insults lead to escalation. Ultimatums lead to impasse.  We need to cooperate. And we need a president who understands this.

Unfortunately, Trump has yet to learn the value of keeping adversaries close.  As he seeks to bring benefits to the country he leads, he believes his negotiating partners must gain none. And yet, if negotiations provide at least minimal benefits to those he seeks satisfactory trade—and other—relationships with, Trump could do better than the two deals he appears to have secured during his “90 deals in 90 days” plan.  He can be “the winner” he wants to be without a necessary loser in the equation.

At the same time, deals between nations that provide mutual gain can add a degree of certainty and calm–valuable commodities in this turbulent world.

Linda Stamato is a Senior Policy Fellow, New Jersey State Policy Lab, and Co-Director of the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University