Trump´s "Realtor Diplomacy"
I first wrote this blog sitting in a hotel in Beijing waiting for a car to take me to the airport. I put it to one side. As some readers will recall, I dislike the idea of creating “new diplomacies “ which distract the attention and focus from the practices of diplomacy itself. However, Trumps recent behaviour over Greenland makes a consideration of “Realtor Diplomacy” even more relevant than when I started sketching out these ideas. There is a tendency to talk about Trump´s TACO behaviour-Trump always chickens out-but this is a mistake. If European leaders think that Trump backed down on Greenland because they maintained a unified front against him (which in any case, they did not) they are in for more unpleasant surprises in the future. Trump‘s performance over Greenland was not a reflection of his personal feelings, but rather the extent to which his foreign policy and his approach to diplomacy is shaped by his years as a real estate developer in New York City.
Trump’s background as a New York real estate developer shows through in his approach to diplomacy in various ways:
· He begins with the idea that a deal is available. The deal does not always benefit both sides, but it gives the “loser” enough to accept it.
· The stronger party is always going to get the better part of the deal, but there is enough in it for the weaker party not to walk away.
· This is based on the idea that both parties rationally analyse their interests and understand the balance of interests in the deal. The weaker party knows that their interests are better served by a poor deal than by no deal at all.
· Negotiation is a process in which bully tactics, theatre and threats to walk away are routinely deployed in order to browbeat the other side: a New York take on Schelling´s theory of conflict as communication.
· Any deal is fundamentally economic/financial. The weaker party accepts the deal because the financial returns are sufficient. Outside financial benefits can be used to “sweeten” the deal.
· Deals cannot always be made. Sometimes you just have to walk away and look for a different deal. Successfully pursuing high profile real estate deals has a non-financial benefit as well - prestige among your peers - put the name on the front of the building and secure acceptance in New York Society (which doesn’t like loudmouthed real estate developers).
All these elements can be seen in Trump‘s approach to peace-making in Ukraine and Gaza. They are also present in his approach to increasing the US presence in Greenland: the implicit threat to use force and the explicit threat of tariffs against European allies are designed to maximise pressure on the counterparties to secure a deal (whatever that deal may have been). In the end, the nature of the deal is less important than the securing of it. His urgent desire for the Nobel Peace prize also originates in New York. Just as he sought recognition from New York society, so he also seeks it from an international community which barely conceals its social contempt for him.
Trump offers economic or financial inducement to the parties to come to the deal, with economic compensation for any losses in territory or sovereignty. This approach has been clear in the case says of Gaza and Ukraine but is also implicit in his approach to Greenland. He also seeks economic compensation for the US (for which read the Trump family) as reward for his efforts.
The problem lies in the differences between New York real estate deals and diplomacy:
· Parties in international conflicts are not only, or even primarily, driven by economic considerations. Arguments about territory and sovereignty are driven by deep emotional and historical factors which are not subject to the particular rationality of New York real estate market. Palestinians are unmoved by promises of real estate development in Gaza as compensation for losing their hopes of a two-state solution. Ukrainians are not attracted by joint economic projects in exchange for surrendering territory to Russia. Trump cannot understand this and gets frustrated.
· In international relations, you cannot simply walk away when you cannot find a deal. In real estate, this is straightforward. There is always a new deal you can make, and the abandoned deal has little long, or even medium-term consequences. In international relations, the conflict you walk away from does not go away. It intensifies, continues to de-stabilise the international system and in the end return to bite the dealmaker who abandoned it.
· The insistence on a financial benefit for any peace deal for the US, the reward for the US‘s mediation efforts, undermines the credibility of the mediator. In the end it is seen as a squalid attempt by to promote US (for which again read Trump family) economic interests.
This should not be seen as a complete rejection of Trump‘s Realtor Diplomacy. The Abraham Accords in his first administration were a significant achievement. It was the Biden administration’s refusal to recognise this which resulted in Biden allowing the Middle East to drift that ultimately lead to the horrors of 7 October and all that followed. When the Europeans complain about Trump‘s approach to Ukraine, he is surely right in his retort of asking the Europeans what realistic alternative they propose aside from allowing the horror to continue.