Last week I revisited some of the tactical haggling we’ve been gawping at recently, concerning the future status of Greenland. One lesson for negotiators was drawn from the chosen European strategy of responding in very conventional and traditional diplomatic ways – restrained, polite and suitably vague. Given the apparent lack of impact on Trump’s “I want it all and I want it now” approach, I wondered whether sticking with plan A might be bettered by trying out an alternative strategy. Skilled negotiators focus on their objectives more than the strategy deployed to deliver them, as it’s very useful in helping identify when that strategy might not be working well. It makes it a lot quicker to arrive at the sensible question: can I still achieve my objectives if I do things differently?
So fast-forward to a whole week later and Davos, where politics and business don’t so much as collide as embrace warmly. Immediately, signals were flowering like so many exploding fireworks that plan A had been quietly ditched and replaced with an alternative strategy – one a great deal more robust. First among these signals was a speech from a leader who has consistently been ahead of the Europeans in terms of pursuing a non-diplomatic strategy when dealing with Trump’s US, Mark Carney of Canada. His speech was, on the one hand, a stark and bleak assessment of the rise of power-based politics at the expense of post-WW2 consensus, institutions, and the rule of law. On the other, it was a blueprint for middle-range powers in managing their response to this and as such compelling. Carney’s thesis – that what is happening is a rupture and the new reality, not something that can be wished into a 4 year presidential cycle and then gladly forgotten about – has already seen Canada sign a trade agreement with China.
Similarly, the contrast between the UK PM’s equivocal word-salad in response to US intervention in Venezuela and his clear-as-day message that the UK would not yield to pressure from the US in their position on Greenland was noticeable. Starmer chose to deliver that message in Parliament, rather than Davos – potentially a more subtle but equally powerful signal around the supremacy of elected representation as opposed to the whim of an individual leader. Whether the US Congress picks up on that signal, of course, is not guaranteed (and at this point, in your own negotiations, best advice would be to be clear. Relying on a signal being received and understood is risky; a lot of people will simply miss them). Meanwhile, various EU representatives and European politicians were making it very clear that the EU’s so-called “trade bazooka” was very much on the table as an option to respond to the proposed tariffs Trump had raised to sanction European countries not supporting his acquisition of Greenland. Plan B? Looks like it to me.
Of course, a strategy is onlyof any use if it helps you achieve your objectives. If a week is a long time in politics, then yesterday (21st Jan, when Trump spoke to Davos) crammed in quite the sea of change. Firstly, Trump appeared to take the use of force to seize the island off the table. He might revert – consistency appearing to be to Trump simply one of the many clubs he selects from his bag, depending on the shot he’s taking. But in doing that, things change from absolute – I must have it, give it to me now, I will take it if you don’t, etc. – to qualified. There is a flexibility previously absent. That’s good for negotiators. Secondly, a short few hours after speaking and coming from a meeting with NATO’s General Secretary, Mark Rutte, Trump announced that his proposed tariffs on nations opposing his Greenland takeover were also off the table. Again, that might be until he changes his mind, but it’s yet more flexibility that wasn’t there only yesterday morning.
For negotiators, the key lesson is: keep your strategy flexible. We’ll never know whether continuing to pursue traditional diplomacy would have produced the same results. But, looking at the distinct change in strategy and what followed, suggests that plan B worked, if only more effectively than plan A. That alone has plenty of value.
