Last January, prior to Donald Trump’s second coming as US President, I mulled his preference for haggling tactics – making extreme proposals in order to make the merely unreasonable look acceptable. As he returned to the White House, Trump had notably refused to rule out military action when it came to supporting his desire to acquire Greenland – the mere idea of one NATO ally using their military to invade another being extreme, to put it mildly. Interestingly, the Danish government very quickly announced a 12bn DKR investment in Greenland’s defence infrastructure – an apparent direct response to a classic haggling gambit. At the time, I wrote: “It'll be interesting to see whether this throwback tactic continues to produce the results it seems to have already generated – but given the fact that so far it has delivered tangible results, my view would be to expect more of the same.”
So, where are we one year on? The sabre rattling has carried on and indeed intensified around Greenland’s status. This week has seen the announcement of further bolstering of Greenland’s defence, with troops from Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France being committed to the island, and exploratory conversations with other NATO allies continue. In other words, more of the same. But fascinating as all of this is on the geo-political front, it’s the negotiating insights I’m drawn to. And there are a few:
- Having a flexible strategy (ie a plan B and maybe even plan C) is crucial in enabling you to achieve your objectives. Non-US NATO allies do seem to be sticking with plan A, the 200+ year old convention of diplomacy. Witness this statement from the German government, who stated that their military contribution was to "explore the general conditions for possible military contributions to support Denmark in ensuring security in the region". Nuanced, caveated, meticulously polite in not mentioning the US, and vague enough to be interpreted on many levels, it epitomises the language of diplomacy. Contrast this with Trump’s language: “It is vital for the Golden Dome (missile defence system) that we are building”. Direct, urgent and demanding. The very opposite, as has always been the case. Thinking about whether the etiquette of traditional diplomacy is working doesn’t appear to have altered European sensibilities when dealing with Trump, which may be risky.
- What are Trump’s objectives? From his statements, it seems clear he wants US “ownership” of Greenland. And yet Trump’s negotiating history (and indeed his ghost-written “Art of the Deal”, recommended if only to understand what you might want to avoid doing if you want a long and successful career) tells us that he is very much of the “keep your counterparty guessing” school. It’s entirely possible that once what Trump sees as an appropriate non-US NATO force is stationed in Greenland he will present this as a zero-cost to the US triumph in regional security, which he secured.
- What might look effective on the stage of world politics doesn’t necessarily translate into the vast majority of negotiations. Bombastic threats, extreme demands and hidden agendas might appear to be working for Donald Trump – but in most of our own situations, were we to attempt a similar approach I doubt we’d be met with gracious politeness, unconditional concessions and signals that more are on the way, if only you keep this rudeness going. Much more likely would be high tension, confusion around objectives and deadlock.
We’ve seen “more of the same” from Trump since his return to power, and I’d be interested to see if and when any country or bloc attempts an alternative strategy when it comes to dealing with Trump. I’ll certainly be keeping an eye out for anything different.
