Why Obsessive Dealmaking Perverts Diplomacy
Amateur envoys and mercurial foreign-policy decision-making aren’t attributes of a serious world power.
I’ve recently developed a revulsion to the word “deal” — not only because I’ve heard it more times than even “tariffs” in just four months. The main reason is that the Trump administration’s obsession with dealmaking, the dominant staple in its foreign-policy toolbox, is perverting diplomacy and eroding its power.
Mercurial decision-making by one man — without any semblance of an interagency policy process — and the replacement of professionals with amateur envoys who lack fundamental diplomacy skills have resulted in weakness and embarrassment. This approach to foreign policy is as far removed from statecraft as I’ve ever seen. True, adhering to the traditional rules of statecraft hasn’t always produced the best outcomes, but the problem is that currently there aren’t any rules, other than whatever the president says.
Trump has drastically upended international relations, trading diplomacy for erratic transactionalism — to a much greater extent than he did during his first term — with no regard for a comprehensive foreign policy or long-term vision beyond amassing power and money.
The world no longer takes the United States seriously. The speed with which Trump makes and reverses decisions that could affect billions of people, often basing them on made-up “facts” and lack of understanding of both historical and current events, has been head-spinning for friends and foes alike. Foreign officials are as gobsmacked, incredulous and dazed as ordinary citizens. And they have received the memo that benefiting Trump and his family matters more than advancing the U.S. national interest.
Although I saw and heard these reactions with my own eyes and ears during my recent round-the-world book tour, I kept hoping that my concern was exaggerated, eager to be proven wrong. No such luck, alas.
Few results so far
Trump’s dealmaking fixation has yielded few actual deals — two come to mind, both with caveats. The first is the release of American-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander earlier this month, after 584 days in Hamas captivity. While a significant achievement, it was less the result of a deal and more an unusual goodwill gesture by Hamas, facilitated by a private mediator with ties to the administration and intended to influence Trump to seek an end to Israel’s war in Gaza. The second example is a five-page framework for a trade agreement with Britain, the specifics of which have yet to be negotiated.
Other successes have proved more elusive. Russia has escalated its war in Ukraine despite Trump’s repeated calls for peace talks, Israel’s assault on Gaza continues, and a nuclear deal with Iran remains out of reach. Yes, during Trump’s trip to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this month, the three countries announced plans to make major investments in the United States. But those were unilateral decisions, not negotiated deals, and how fully they materialize is yet to be seen.
It has been particularly difficult for Trump to deliver on his repeated promise to end the war in Ukraine. Frustrated by the failure of their weeks-long attempt at peacemaking, administration officials threatened to abandon it in April, declaring that the conflict is “not our war.” Who knew diplomacy was so hard?
Erratic peacemaking
What had transpired — and is still unfolding — is a textbook example of amateur diplomacy, though even calling it that may be too generous. It bears none of the hallmarks of a serious diplomatic process. It lacks a strategy — giving the warring parties a list of demands and telling them that, unless they agree to it quickly, you will “move on” is not a strategy. The three members of the U.S. delegation who met with seasoned Russian diplomats in March have no diplomatic experience.
So it was hardly surprising when the Americans appeared to come away sympathetic to the Russians’ views and quickly committed to improving relations — a trap laid by President Vladimir Putin to avoid making any concessions on Ukraine in exchange for better ties. He desperately needs a thaw that would lift U.S. sanctions and help revive his struggling economy. So he dangled the prospect of lucrative business deals for American companies, knowing it would resonate with Trump.
The chief U.S. negotiator, Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor turned Middle East envoy, visited Putin in Moscow three times in less than two months, exuding conspicuous servility and parroting Russian talking points to the press. His behavior, along with Trump’s blaming Ukraine for the war and conceding two of Russia’s main demands in his proposal — keeping the Ukrainian territory it has occupied and blocking NATO membership for Ukraine — revealed where the administration’s sympathies lay. Yet even that couldn’t persuade Putin to accept Trump’s deal.
Putin hasn’t changed
Nor has Putin agreed to Trump’s call for a 30-day ceasefire. Having insisted that only he and Putin can make progress after failed lower-level Russian-Ukrainian talks in Turkey this month, Trump spoke with the Russian leader on the phone, only to abruptly conclude that progress was entirely up to the two fighting sides, and there wasn’t much more he could do. Earlier this week, after Russia stepped up its assault on Ukraine, Trump called Putin “crazy” and threatened new sanctions. But he had issued such threats before, without following through on them.
“I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin. I’ve known him for a long time,” Trump said. In fact, those who really know Putin weren’t surprised in the least. They understand that his plans don’t include a free and independent Ukraine, and he won’t agree to stop the war anytime soon.
Most politicians think that diplomacy is a common-sense endeavor that any smart person can master. In reality, diplomacy is a complex undertaking, even under the best of circumstances. When you are trying to end a war, it can be excruciating, with no clear end in sight.
Best practices
There certainly is a place for dealmaking. But as I point out in my book “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” there is a fundamental difference between an everyday negotiation — whether in business or a marriage — and a diplomatic one. While other types of negotiation are mostly transactional, negotiating in diplomacy can’t be isolated from the overall relationship with the other party or parties, and the stakes are much higher, of course.
You need to understand your foreign interlocutors’ history, culture, interests, worldview and decision-making structures, so you can exert influence effectively. Speaking their language can put them at ease, and it can also help you pick up critical clues when they talk among themselves.
One of the most essential diplomatic skills is the ability to build a basis for empathy. This not only helps convey your motivations in a relatable way, reducing the risk of misunderstanding, but it also gives you insight into the other side’s mindset and perceptions. A truly successful diplomatic negotiation doesn’t just resolve a short-term problem; it ensures that relations with the other side will serve your country’s interests in the long run.
Redefining ‘negotiation’
It’s hard to see how any of these best practices have informed the administration’s attempts at dealmaking, including the trade agreements it seeks with 150 countries to avoid higher tariffs on their exports to the United States than the current 10 percent. In fact, it has redefined what “negotiation” means. Although at least some level of compromise is unavoidable in diplomacy, Trump expects other countries to make all the concessions. In his mind, not imposing additional tariffs — a problem he created, based on false assumptions and distorted trade statistics — counts as a favor.
Still, as David Sanger noted recently, other countries are catching on to Trump’s tactics — he often issues maximalist demands, only to retreat and declare victory. For a celebrated dealmaker, he has squandered rare opportunities to advance U.S. interests and made it surprisingly easy for foreigners to manipulate him.
On a whim during his Gulf trip, Trump decided to lift all sanctions on Syria and held a hastily arranged meeting with its new president, a former U.S.-designated terrorist, because the Saudi and Turkish leaders urged him to do so — and he got nothing in return. He ordered a halt to his own bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen without a formal deal, because “they gave us their word” to stop attacking U.S. ships in the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump agreed to a years-long Israeli push to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, again in exchange for nothing.
The bottom line is this: Diplomacy is complicated — and not a hobby. Dealmaking and other forms of transactionalism are no substitutes for it. As I say to all our students at the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, diplomacy remains the world’s best hope.
What’s your take?
Am I too harsh on the administration or not harsh enough?
Leave a comment below.
Nicholas Kralev is the founder and executive director of the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, and a former Financial Times and Washington Times correspondent. His books include “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” “America’s Other Army” and “Diplomats in the Trenches.”
Another very good article! Keep them coming.