J.P. Singh
Thucydides’ maxim from the 5th century B.C. — that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” — seems to be the core of President Trump’s negotiating strategy. Herein lies the Greek tragedy. President Trump is miscalculating the odds of a win with this approach when applied to American trade policy in the 21st century.
Here are three things that Trump does well in terms of his negotiation calculations and three things that he does not understand at all.
First, Trump’s recurring negotiation tactic is that if he inflicts economic harm on the trade partners, they have no choice but to negotiate. A “win” in the trade negotiation depends on alternatives for each side. Negotiation theorists use of the term BATNA or “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” refers to the alternatives available to negotiating parties. Trump calculates that America’s 15.9 percent of total global imports, the biggest market in the world, forces countries to fall on their knees — in his own words, “kissing my ass” — to negotiate with the U.S.
Second, the politics: Trump is right that America can get a better deal from bilateral than from multilateral negotiations involving three or more countries. In bilateral negotiations, the U.S. holds better cards, to use the metaphor that Trump deployed in his contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
No comments:
Post a Comment