Let’s start with assuming that, whether we are talking about the G7 Summit, the Singapore meeting with Kim Jong Un, the recent NATO talks or the upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin, that everyone analyzing Trump’s foreign policy would like there to be less war, more prosperity and less human rights violations. We can assume that people would like to see better trade deals and less threats to America from overseas.
Watching Trump has given authors at many major news outlets the impression that Trump is either woefully incompetent, understanding nothing about foreign policy, or genuinely evil and working against America’s interest (perhaps at Putin’s behest?). I see nothing in particular that concerns me, nor do I think there’s any reason to doubt that Trump’s goals are the same as described above.
Why the disconnect?
Whenever you have a goal you want to accomplish, you start with a strategy. You can think of a strategy as are short-term goals that will help you reach your long-term goal. More precisely, it is the “What” in the question “What are we going to do?”. Tactics are the “How” in “How are we going to do it?”.
I think what many people seem to misunderstand about Trump is that they have bought into the Obama foreign policy strategy so completely that they assume it is the one and only strategy available short of war. Obama’s strategy was based on the assumption that all of America’s problems were due to mistakes we’ve made as a country that led to people wanting to harm us. It is axiomatic on the left, and even in some libertarian circles, that people are our adversaries due primarily to American belligerence. That *can* be true, but it is not necessarily true. Certainly, bombing innocent people in the Middle East is not making us friends, but it would be foolish to assume that all jihadists would be fine with America if we never got involved.
This is a politician’s strategy. A politician is an expert at getting people to like them, personally and politically. This is why you see the “politician kissing babies” trope. If that is your strategy, being personally likeable, bowing to them, apologizing to them and generally promoting a dialogue that smooths over disagreements are good tactics. It’s all about talk, because it’s all about perception. You’re trying to manipulate the perception that people have of you, and broadly, of America. In this case, tactically you need to make sure you’re on the “right” side of every issue. You speak kindly to your friends. You may speakharshly to your foes, but you never follow through on threats. Since it’s all perception, the only thing that matters to you is that everyone knows you’re a nice guy who is looking out for your best interests.
But that’s not a deal-maker’s strategy. A deal-maker’s strategy says: “We need to get as much benefit for our side while giving up as little as possible to the other side”. This is a strategy where goodwill is a tactic, not a strategy. Perception being good or bad is not a strategic goal, though it may be a tactical one. In this strategic frame, you treat everyone as a potential adversary, rather than as a family member with whom you have had a spat.
This has echoes of the idea of realpolitik. If you believe that these countries are willing to take advantage where they can find it and would just as soon betray American interests if it suits them to do so, you need to approach talks with them carefully. You cannot simply give away the bank and hope that they reciprocate. (Iran deal anyone?)
Instead, you must make sure that you have something that they want, and not give it to them until they give you something that you want. In practice, this means that, in the case where we have been helpful to countries in the past, we need to remind them that that help is not unconditional. Since we are not in open conflict with them, the only leverage we have is this sort of reminder. What this looks like in practice is tough talk, telling them that they need to step up and treat us with reciprocal good will, if they wish to remain in our good graces.
In the case where we are treating countries harshly from a policy perspective, by arming their adversaries or levying sanctions, weshould let them know that we aren’t unreasonable, that America is not permanently an intractable foe. We must let them know that if they’re willing to work with us, they could get some concessions from us. If we instead present ourselves as their permanent adversary, denouncing them harshly and demanding things of them, it will likely get us nowhere, as they have no reason to believe that we would be friendlier to them, even if they do as we demand.
Negotiations require a combination of tough talk, flattery and leverage. Sometimes you must be harsh with someone, letting them know they can’t get the best of you. Other times you must be a beaming ray of optimism, reminding them that this could work out great for them if they do business with you. These are the tactics of a deal maker in action and it should not surprise us to see Trump engaging in them.
So rather than getting all wrapped up in the nonsense about what Trump says or which non-binding accords or group statements he signs, let’s see what actual results he gets. If America ends up in a better geopolitical position after negotiations with NAFTA or Putin, we won’t be remembering that he was mean to Theresa May or that he was too nice to Putin, we’ll be praising the results he got. This is because if your strategy is to make deals, the final contract is all that matters.
