Worst negotiator ever
One of the interesting things about Trump is that his statements are so often the exact opposite of reality. When he says he’s really smart, or no one respects women more than him, or that press criticism is fake news, the truth is almost always the precise opposite. Now we find out that not only is Trump not a great negotiator, he might be the single worst negotiator ever to serve as President of the United States.
We’ve seen his inability to get a Republican House and Senate to replace Obamacare. His inability to get them to put up money for a border wall, even though in other areas Congress has been spending money like a drunken sailor. (Nor has he been able to get Mexico to pay for the wall, as he promised.) Now this:
When he emerged from his summit with Kim Jong Un last month, President Trump triumphantly declared that North Korea no longer posed a nuclear threat and that one of the world’s most intractable geopolitical crises had been “largely solved.”
But in the days and weeks since then, U.S. negotiators have faced stiff resistance from a North Korean team practiced in the art of delay and obfuscation.
Diplomats say the North Koreans have canceled follow-up meetings, demanded more money and failed to maintain basic communications, even as the once-isolated regime’s engagements with China and South Korea flourish. . . .
The lack of immediate progress, though predicted by many analysts, has frustrated the president, who has fumed at his aides in private even as he publicly hails the success of the negotiations.
N. Korea is toying with us, because they knows that Trump’s eager for an agreement. Any agreement.
When Trump showed an almost pathetic eagerness to meet with Kim, he put the US in a very weak negotiating position. The North Koreans are not dumb; they know that Trump’s only goal is personal success—ideology is secondary. If Obama had done a nuclear agreement with North Korea and put sanctions on Iran, then Trump would have torn up the Korea agreement and started cozying up to the mullahs. Trump’s only goal is to do the opposite of Obama, to one up him. But that makes it hard for people in the Trump administration, some of whom (like Mike Pompeo) actually do have ideological beliefs.
It’s actually good that Trump is so bad at negotiating. Because he has such bad instincts on policy questions, it’s better if he gets nothing done. That’s not to say he won’t occasionally luck into a successful policy, like the recent corporate tax cut (something all our competitors did years ago—Obama’s biggest failure was to not see the need.) But Trump will usually be wrong.
In his recent negotiation with Juncker, the EU leader took him to the cleaners. The Independent explains how:
European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly used brightly coloured flash cards to explain international trade to US president Donald Trump.
The pair met at the White House earlier this week for trade negotiations and Mr Juncker used cards with simple language and easy-to-understand explanations, according to a senior EU official who was at the meeting and spoke to the Wall Street Journal.
Trump agreed to back off on a trade war with the EU in exchange for meaningless promises. But that’s really good news.
Trump has lots of bad qualities; stupidity, extreme egotism, corruption, dishonesty, cruelty, incompetence, bad taste, bigotry, no sense of humor, cowardice, I could go on and on. He has no good qualities, unless one views a talent for conning voters to be a positive attribute. But his complete lack of negotiating skills turns out to be a plus for America, even if it’s just one more of his seemingly endless bad qualities.
PS. Brightly colored flash cards? How can you not love that story?
Tags:
29. July 2018 at 20:12
FYI, here’s Obama in 2014 as quoted by Luigi Zingales:
“I know we need to cut the corporate tax rate. But, in order to make this effective and important, it needs to be a large tax cut.”
http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2018/article/capitalisn-t-obama-wanted-corporate-tax-cut-too
I believe it was included in every one of his budget proposals from 2012 on.
29. July 2018 at 20:14
Don’t believe everything you read.
This is true, and an indictment of both congressional Republicans and Trump.
29. July 2018 at 21:08
[…] réponses à cette entrée en utilisant le flux RSS 2.0 . Vous pouvez laisser une réponse ou Rétrolien depuis votre propre […]
30. July 2018 at 02:53
Good post . The whole issue of his personality , and the way he handles things , is amazingly complicated. Just worth to note , that in foreign policy issues , particularly concerning Iran and North Korea , it is not , that he looks for doing the opposite from what Obama had done , but rather :
He takes to consideration both main factors :
Fighting terror ,and not less than terror , he is greatly , deeply influenced by evangelistic believers ( and neoconservatives ) and supporters of Israel in his administration and generally speaking . As such :
North Korea , is perceived , as less severe issue . This is because , North Korea , is not considered as terror supporter ( at least not as the Iranians ) while Iran , is perceived of course , as the utmost bitter enemy of the Israeli state ( declaring and stating clearly , over and over , that their apparent goal , is to destroy and eradicate the Israeli state ) .
That is why mainly , Iran and North Korea , are different issues for him .
For the rest we won’t stay young here .
One may read here for example :
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconservative-ideology-in-the-trump-white-house-u-s-military-power-torture-and-the-defense-of-israel/5634336
Thanks
30. July 2018 at 03:55
‘If Obama had done a nuclear agreement with North Korea and put sanctions on Iran, then Trump would have torn up the Korea agreement and started cozying up to the mullahs. ‘
I understand the main point you are making here but as an aside, the Iranians are making it particularly difficult to shoot for a NK-type resolution (even if this were the current aim of US policy).
Simply put, for a grand television-worthy handshake, you need the other party to speak of one voice. A telegenic handshake is not possible if there are continuously 10 voices in the background (random IRFC commander, clergy member, and local IRR politician) taking on twitter each eager to vent their own random ‘witticism’ to the world.
In other words, a byzantine system like the IRR is uniquely incapable of dealing with DJT.
30. July 2018 at 06:53
Alex, Yes, I recall he supported the cut–so he should have just done it.
el roam, You said:
“North Korea , is perceived , as less severe issue . This is because , North Korea , is not considered as terror supporter ( at least not as the Iranians ) while Iran , is perceived of course , as the utmost bitter enemy of the Israeli state ( declaring and stating clearly , over and over , that their apparent goal , is to destroy and eradicate the Israeli state ) .”
Even I don’t think he’s that dumb. N. Korea’s just as much a threat to the South as Iran is to Israel, probably more. And of course N. Korea is a terrorist nation, having committed numerous major terrorist acts. Trust me, Trump couldn’t care less about any of these issues, only his ego matters.
You said:
“The whole issue of his personality , and the way he handles things , is amazingly complicated.”
No it’s not. The only question is: “What’s good for Trump’s ego?”
Vak, You said:
“taking on twitter each eager to vent their own random ‘witticism’ to the world.”
Glad we don’t have that problem here–just one lunatic! Seriously, of the course the answer is that deals should not be about personalities.
30. July 2018 at 07:38
Ssumner :
You can’t claim on one hand , that his ego is the whole issue ( and I didn’t claim that there is no such issue at first place , but it doesn’t fill so many gaps with all due respect ) and then to claim , that the North is more dangerous to the South and he is aware of it . For , how it does explain at first place , why as you have admitted , he treats differently Iran Vs. North Korea . And anyway ,as explained , and directed by the link ( if you have bothered ) the issue is the source of inspiration or influence for him or for his thinking or policy . For , South Korea , doesn’t even start to reach , the lobbies the Israeli state has , in the Pentagon , and generally speaking in the US .
It seems Ssumner with all due respect , that you are not acquainted at all with the “Aipac” lobby and alike in the US ( all over the US , unbelievable things ) . For 20 years , presidents of the US , have promised over and over , to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem , but , Only Trum has delivered , not in vain ! Just read some more here if you want :
https://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-backed-us-house-bill-seeks-to-broaden-iran-sanctions/
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/106997-160322-trump-ahead-of-aipac-speech-israel-should-pay-for-us-aid
Thanks
P.S : concerning North Korea , I have written ” perceived ” not whether they support or not actually so .
30. July 2018 at 09:38
“like the recent corporate tax cut (something all our competitors did years ago)”
The competitors paid for corporate tax cuts (CTC) with VATs. Most economists–left- and right-of-center–believe that shifting from corporate tax to VAT is good economic policy.
Under Obama, Congress wanted to pay for CTC with spending cuts. Many economist–mostly right-of-center–consider that this is good economic policy.
Under Trump, Congress paid for CTC by borrowing money. Is this really good economic policy?
30. July 2018 at 14:51
el roam, I told you the reason, Trump simply wants to reverse anything Obama did. The reality of geopolitics is irrelevant to him.
The embassy move perfect fits the pattern–reverse Obama’s policy. Trump could care less about Aipac.
As far as “perceived”, last time I looked the administration listed N. Korea as a terrorist nation. Has that changed?
LK, You asked:
“Under Trump, Congress paid for CTC by borrowing money. Is this really good economic policy?”
The tax cut is good, the deficit part is bad. The overall effect is debatable. But what is not debatable in my view is that it gives a short term boost to growth. BTW, the corporate tax cut is only a small part of the increased deficit. It’s mostly other tax cuts and spending.
30. July 2018 at 15:16
Ssumner ,
Well , and I have explained to you , that it is definitely not the reason ( it is not even laughable with all due respect ) . Probably you haven’t bothered to read any link put in my comments . Those are more than trivial or common findings or assumptions . That is Trump !! And I have written to you , all previous presidents , including republicans , promised over and over , yet , non of them has delivered , but Trump. Now , if his ego was the issue , he new that it would generate overwhelming condemnations all over the world , but from the Israeli state of course . This really baseless Scot , here read some :
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-jerusalem-reaction/arabs-europe-u-n-reject-trumps-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-idUSKBN1E0312
Concerning terror , you don’t differentiate , between Islamic terror , directly menacing the US ( let alone after September the 11th ) and listing a state as supporting terror due to general enmity . In the eyes of the Pentagon , there is a huge difference between them both . North Korea , doesn’t pose the same daily and direct threat .The global fight against terror , initiated by the US , after September the 11th , has to do mainly with the Islam , the Jihad , and not North Korea , posing the same issue as before the twin attack .
Just Read some Scot ….
Thanks
30. July 2018 at 15:52
And by the way Scot , speaking of Iran , as you know , Trump has withdrawn from the JCPOA ( the nuclear agreement with Iran ) . He new , definitely new , that he would be condemned all over the world for it , yet , did it , without much hesitation . And again , I am not saying , that he lacks ego of course , but , when dealing with some issues , like : foreign policy , militancy , the US army , supporting Israel , fighting terror , it is absolutely not correct , that he lacks coherency or acting just in opposite to what Obama did , this is absolutely not so !
Here , condemnations , all over the world , and he new that it would definitely be so :
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/9/17335308/trump-decertify-iran-nuclear-deal-europe-sanction
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/world-leaders-react-trump-iran-nuclear-deal_us_5af1550be4b0ab5c3d6936fb
Thanks
30. July 2018 at 18:32
Unfortunately you are still completely off regarding Iran and North Korea.
This statement would be true regarding Obama’s Iran deal. Unfortunately Obama made it very clear from nearly the very beginning that he wanted that deal at nearly any cost. That’s not a smart negotiating tactic.
Trump actually called the meeting off with Kim Jong-un several times. It was usually Kim Jong-un who came back and if this was not the case then Moon Jae-in stepped in, met Kim and emphasized that Trump should meet Kim-Jong-un urgently.
You can repeat such self-deceptions as much as you want. The simple fact is that “Mr. Multilateral” Barack H. Obama completely alienated our closest allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, because of his completely mad Iran deal. There’s nothing good about his Iran deal. Israel and Saudi Arabia kept telling him that over and over again, but Obama ridiculed them, ignored them, and in the end completely alienated them. Why in the world did he do that?
I never heard a reasonable story from Obama, or the elites, or the mass media, or guys like you, why Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed this “great deal with Iran” with every fiber of their being. You guys simple ignore that part of the story completely. Why is that again? It seems to me that in this case Obama and his “attachments” are just a bunch of completely dishonest ignorant schmucks.
Absurdly enough it was “Mr. Unilateral”, the absurd Donald J. Trump, who restored the relationships with our allies Israel and Iran by calling this stupid deal off. The cancellation of the deal with Iran was euphorically welcomed by Israel and Saudi Arabia, now again the simple question: How is that possible if the deal was so great???
Now back to North Korea: So far there are only talking and meetings. There was no real deal reached so far, only promises made from both sides. Nothing more, nothing less. So the conclusion here is to remain neutral so far. Es könnte etwas Gutes daraus entstehen oder auch nicht. We just don’t know it yet. But notice the extreme difference to Iran: In the case of North Korea the closest allies of the region (South Korea and Japan) are embracing the meetings and are actually pushing for a deal. “Mr. Unilateral” Trump is working side by side with South Korea and Japan on this issue. They are pulling in the same direction while “Mr. Multilateral” Obama simply didn’t care about Israel and Saudi Arabia at all, switched sides and pulled in the exact opposite direction.
Again you are extremely biased. There was an exchange of promises (meaningless or not) but completely equal from both sides (similar to the North Korea meeting). Trump got nothing really solid in this meeting with Juncker except the windy promises you mentioned but you act like he gave something really solid up in return, which in fact he pretty much never does in those kind of meetings, and surely not in the meeting with Junker.
It was windy promises vs. windy promises, nothing more, nothing less (as I said a bit like with Kim Jong-un) but you guys act like Kim and Juncker run circles around him which is just extreme bias from your side. It also proves your delusion and how much debate has actually shifted.
Before Trump new tariffs were unthinkable (for good reasons) but now the tariffs are still in place, especially those steel and aluminum tariffs, that the EU does not want at all. Now Juncker comes back with nothing (tariffs still in place!!!) except non-binding letters of intents (the EU is famous for that) and you guys are boasting that Juncker “run circles” around Trump. If this your version of “running circles around Trump”, then I never ever want to see you guys losing against Trump.
P.S. Elections are pretty much similar to negotiations. Elections could be described as negotiations between candidates and the electorate. The candidates offer their qualifications and outline their concepts, and the voters give input by asking questions (etc) and by making a choice at the end. Trump’s qualifications have been “suboptimal” (to put it very mildly) and his concepts were oftentimes “vague” and “grotesque” (to put it very mildly), and yet he convinced his counterparts to elect him. So calling him “the worst negotiator ever” seems to be a bit biased again (to put it mildly).
31. July 2018 at 10:22
What is the purpose of these posts? Just venting frustrations? Trolling Trump supporters? This isn’t going to convince anyone or change any minds.
1. August 2018 at 10:32
Christian, Saudi Arabia? That’s the country we should rely on? Remind me, where did the 9/11 bombers come from? Who finances international terrorism? Who is currently creating a human rights disaster in Yemen?
And yes, both the US and the EU each still have a few tariffs on each other’s goods. How’s that a win for Trump?
Massimo, I enjoy rubbing it in. As soon as the Trumpistas admit they were wrong about Trump, I’ll stop.
1. August 2018 at 18:43
Reading comprehension? I never said that Trump won. I doubt that he can “win” any of the conflicts he created, maybe he can shift the debate a bit (like Peter Thiel implies). I only said that it is a tie so far. Everybody without TDS can see that it is a draw so far but you claimed that Juncker ran circles around Trump, which is a bit hard to see for a neutral observer (to put it mildly).
That’s not even question, it’s a fact. The US and Saudi Arabia have been close strategic allies for decades. The only closer ally in the region is Israel. You are making up silly excuses all the time.
At the core the “Iran situation” is a conflict Israel/Saudi Arabia against Iran. In order to improve the situation you really need to get Israel (and Saudi Arabia) on board. Obama did the opposite. Tell me again what so great about this idea. You are coming up with zero arguments, just one smoke grenade after another. Let’s assume Trump would have made an absurd deal like that, the mainstream media would have crucified him on the spot. But TDS and ODS (Obama Devoutness Syndrome) made you guys completely blind.
Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Yemen conflict is a dirty proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Another reason why Saudi Arabia needs to be on board. You should really know that. Let me guess, your next question is „What is Aleppo?“
Since Obama took office, the U.S. has sold at $110 billion in conventional arms to Saudi Arabia. And that’s pre-Trump. Then Obama lifted the sanctions on Iran despite all the warnings that this will lead to massive Iranian military expansion. Now three years later it’s evident that even the darkest prophecies of the critics have become true, the Iranian expansion was massive. Nevertheless the defenders of the Iran deal act like it was a huge success. I can only speculate about the reasons for this hypocrisy and complete denial of reality. Is it ODS? Madness? Ideology? A completely flat learning curve?
I said it before but I say it again: I find it astonishing (and completely shocking) that a madman like Trump is capable of a foreign policy that (as of yet) is more reasonable than the one of Obama and his elite buddies ever was (in this part of the world). That’s the really shocking part to me in this troubled times: A madman has a clearer view of reality than the so-called “reasonable” guys. I wish so much that it would be the other way around, but unfortunately it isn’t so.
3. August 2018 at 17:49
Christian, Take a deep breath–I didn’t even vote for Obama.
As far as Saudi Arabia, Saudi money finances much of the terrorism in the world.
6. August 2018 at 17:44
Scott,
you are still unable to come up with any arguments, only one red herring after another, which is quite astonishing for a professor. It’s quite nice that I’m supposed to have a breathing problem, that you didn’t vote for Obama, and that there are Saudis who finance terror.
As we can see impressively from your example, it is not far-fetched to assume that the negotiations with Iran and North Korea are unfortunately typical issues that are extremely influenced by the ordinary partisan hackery in the classical Western countries. There seems to be no common ground between the camps.
So I outlined two simple approaches how to judge those negotiations / deals more fairly. First: What is the opinion of the “non-western” Allies, who are most affected by the outcome of the negotiations, namely Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Second: What happened after the Iran deal? Who was more correct, the critics or the advocates? You can not just act in a vacuum, you have to allow falsifiability and some kind of benchmark.