In what amounts to a master class on high-stakes negotiation strategy, President Donald Trump’s first several weeks back in office have transformed global diplomacy into a public boardroom. With characteristic directness, he has positioned himself as America’s Chief Executive Officer, wielding executive authority with the singular focus of a corporate turnaround specialist. His administration’s approach mirrors that of a Fortune 500 CEO—prioritizing the satisfaction of customers (citizens) while delivering returns to shareholders (taxpayers). Through decisive action on international trade and security matters, Trump has articulated a coherent philosophy: America achieves peace and prosperity only through military strength and economic markets that are simultaneously free, fair, and transparent to all participants.
Some of the best-selling books on negotiation strategy—including Roger Fisher and William Ury’s “Getting to Yes,” Herb Cohen’s “You Can Negotiate Anything,” Chris Voss’s “Never Split the Difference,” and Trump’s own “The Art of the Deal”—universally advocate beginning with a clear articulation of desired outcomes. This foundational principle sets the tone and trajectory for productive discussions by establishing unambiguous objectives from the outset. However, the practical execution of this seemingly straightforward concept varies dramatically across negotiating styles and cultural contexts. When applied to complex international relations with centuries of historical context, not all approaches yield the sustainable, mutually beneficial results that characterize truly successful diplomacy.
Chris Voss’ approach may be best for tariffs and for peace. Fighting with China, Mexico and Canada over trade imbalances while simultaneously trying to get Russia and Ukraine to stop a war whereby both sides will be satisfied with the outcome presents distinct challenges that require nuanced negotiation tactics. The conventional hardline approach to tariffs risks escalating tensions, while peace negotiations demand creating an environment where all parties can save face.
The Right Approach: Tactical Empathy In International Relations
Tactical empathy—actively understanding the other party’s perspective without necessarily agreeing with it—stands as perhaps the most crucial element in both trade and peace negotiations. In the context of tariffs with China, for instance, acknowledging their developmental goals and economic priorities doesn’t mean conceding America’s interests. Rather, it creates a foundation for productive dialogue.
When Trump engages with trading partners, successful outcomes hinge on his ability to recognize legitimate concerns on both sides. Understanding why Canada protects its dairy industry or why Mexico seeks to preserve manufacturing jobs provides leverage points for creating mutually beneficial solutions rather than zero-sum confrontations.
Labeling: Addressing Unspoken Concerns
The technique of labeling—verbally identifying another party’s unstated concerns—could transform current international negotiations. When negotiating with China over intellectual property protections, explicitly stating, “It seems like you’re concerned that rapid changes to IP enforcement might disrupt your economic growth model,” can defuse tension and demonstrate comprehension.
This approach contrasts sharply with public ultimatums that force counterparties into defensive positions. By articulating the underlying anxieties that drive resistance, skilled negotiators create opportunities for collaborative problem-solving rather than competitive positioning.
The Process Matters As Much As The Outcome
Voss emphasizes negotiating the process before diving into specifics—a principle often overlooked in high-stakes international discussions. Establishing clear structures for who participates, what topics will be addressed, and how decisions will be implemented creates predictability that benefits all parties.
In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, for example, defining neutral mediators, ensuring equal representation, and establishing timelines for implementation would establish the trust necessary for substantive concessions. The right approach involves transparent process design before substance negotiations begin.
Active Listening: The Underutilized Superpower
The most powerful negotiators often speak less than their counterparts. Active listening—truly absorbing what others say rather than merely waiting to respond—reveals insights that transform negotiation dynamics. When Trump meets with international leaders, his effectiveness correlates directly with his willingness to hear underlying concerns rather than dominating conversations.
In tariff discussions, listening carefully to industry representatives from both countries can uncover creative solutions that address core economic concerns while avoiding unnecessary pain points. The wrong approach rushes to solutions before fully understanding problems.
Creating Positive Emotional Environments
Negotiations conducted in atmospheres of threat and intimidation rarely produce lasting results. Creating positive emotional environments—where all parties maintain dignity and respect—generates goodwill that translates into substantive progress.
This doesn’t mean avoiding hard truths or difficult decisions. Rather, it means presenting challenges in ways that invite collaboration rather than resistance. When addressing trade imbalances, framing discussions around mutual prosperity rather than punishment creates space for constructive engagement.
The Way Forward
As Trump navigates complex international relations, his effectiveness will largely depend on balancing assertiveness with these sophisticated negotiation principles. The right approach combines clear objectives with tactical empathy, careful labeling of concerns, well-structured processes, active listening, and positive emotional environments.
The wrong approach relies exclusively on leverage and threats, ignores underlying concerns, bypasses process considerations, talks more than listens, and creates atmospheres of hostility that undermine long-term relationships.
America’s interests in both fair trade and global peace are best served when negotiations build sustainable relationships rather than merely extracting short-term concessions. The true art of the deal lies not in dominating opponents but in creating outcomes where all parties see value in upholding agreements long after the negotiators leave the room.
Read the full article here
