Understanding Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy: Implications for Global Relations
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Donald Trump made headlines with a blunt declaration: "You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember." This moment encapsulates his approach to international relations: transactional and often viewed as domineering by his counterparts, particularly in Europe. A senior European leader, when asked about Trump’s supposed retreat from military threats, confirmed this sentiment but added a striking caveat: "He treats us with contempt." Such statements reveal a significant shift in the dynamics of U.S. diplomacy.
Trump’s leadership style is distinctly transactional. He prioritizes leverage, often asking, "Who holds the most power?" When viewing this hierarchy, if he believes the answer is himself, he does not hesitate to push aggressively. This assertive stance is not simply about achieving outcomes but is also about demonstrating dominance. His tactics often resemble a high-stakes game where diplomacy is akin to an art of squeezing out the best deal, regardless of the consequences.
For instance, last year he imposed tariffs on Switzerland, raising them after a perceived slight from the Swiss president. Trump recounted this episode with satisfaction, illustrating how his approach leans more towards public displays of strength than strategic diplomacy. This transactional nature doesn’t merely apply to allies; it is a consistent theme across his international engagements.
Trump’s interactions with NATO provide further insight into his style. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s comparison of Trump to a "daddy intervening in a schoolyard brawl" amusingly highlights the dissonance in his approach. His quest for validation leads him to relish even insincere flattery, further solidifying his perception of power.
His behavior towards various nations reflects an unsettling consistency. In Ukraine, frustration is often directed at the nation for not acquiescing to perceived secondary status in relation to other countries. Conversely, Trump’s tone shifts to one of deference when negotiating with powers like China, which possess the capability to impose tangible costs on the U.S. His admiration for Gulf monarchies is similarly predictable; he respects their wealth and influence.
This is a stark departure from traditional American diplomacy. The United States has wielded its global power for nearly a century, often with an understanding that true leadership involves more than coercive measures. Previous leaders recognized that lasting influence relies on legitimacy, partnership, and a mutual sense of dignity among allies.
Franklin D. Roosevelt exemplified this when he met with Churchill and Stalin during World War II. Despite his infirmity, he traveled great distances to meet them as equals, showing respect and forging a coalition based on mutual interests rather than superiority. George H.W. Bush took a similar approach after the Cold War, choosing not to "dance on the wall" after the fall of communism to avoid humiliating Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
In contrast, Trump’s tactics appear to reflect a simplistic view of international relations—seeking immediate gains without considering long-term repercussions. Take India, for instance. Despite its growing importance, Trump views the nation through a narrow lens of economic output. This perspective results in harmful tariffs that overlook the strategic benefits of fostering goodwill.
The implications of this transactional approach extend beyond individual relationships. By treating relationships as short-term exchanges, Trump risks building a less stable global order. Countries that once relied on American leadership may begin to hedge their bets in dealings with Washington. A senior European official’s sentiment—"we will remember"—sums it up: trust is eroding.
Despite the turbulence of political currents, many at Davos remained optimistic about the U.S. economy. Yet, Martin Wolf, chief economic commentator at the Financial Times, aptly noted, "Trust is gone." This erosion of trust presents long-term costs that may lead countries and businesses to question their partnerships with the U.S. The very nature of international trade could shift, as nations become wary of engaging with a superpower whose policies seem erratic and extortionate.
In summary, Trump’s transactional governance invites a shift in global alliances. As countries adapt to this new reality, the international landscape may see an increased emphasis on self-reliance and strategic caution. While Trump may indeed extract short-term concessions, the long-term ramifications of his approach may create a world less defined by cooperation and more by unpredictability. The lesson, as one European leader put it, is clear: "We will remember."
