George Friedman
U.S. President Donald Trump has developed a clear model for exercising diplomacy. He begins by making demands of other nations, then calls for negotiations. If the negotiations do not take place or fail to produce some kind of accommodation, he takes punitive action. All the while, he alternatively issues threats meant to intensify the process or encourages action by praising his antagonist.
This model was on full display during the recent episode with Iran. Trump demanded that Iran abandon its nuclear weapons program, threatening consequences if it failed to do so. He then engaged in indirect negotiations with Iran, noting publicly that the negotiations showed promise. At a certain point, he set a date for the negotiations’ completion, and when that date passed, he took dramatic military action.
A similar process is underway with regard to NATO. He began by saying NATO was not living up to its military obligations and that this failure shifted the primary burden to the United States. He made clear that this situation could not continue, implying that the U.S. could withdraw from the alliance if Europe didn’t pay its way in the future. Extensive negotiations took place, punctuated by periodic warnings from Trump. At last week’s NATO meeting, European countries agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product. Trump praised his negotiating partners and made it clear that the U.S. remained committed to NATO.
In both cases, there was a radical demand followed by a period of negotiation and signals of willingness to take drastic action if talks failed, or to reconcile if talks succeeded. In Iran, this process resulted in airstrikes. With NATO, it resulted in accommodation.
No comments:
Post a Comment