Diplomacy: When a winner-take-all approach risks losing big

Olivier Matthys/AP
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (left) walks with Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel prior to a meeting in Luxembourg, Sept. 16, 2019.

Two ways to read the story

  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 3 Min. )

Give-and-take diplomacy has lost ground in recent years to promises of crushing wins over rivals. Yet amid standoffs between Britain and the European Union, and between the United States and China, North Korea, and even Iran, finding a way forward through compromise appears again to be gaining. 

With Iran, President Donald Trump has shown signs of a change in tack. He called off a retaliatory strike after the downing of a U.S. drone in June. He floated easing sanctions, as well as meeting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. On North Korea, a third summit with dictator Kim Jong Un has been raised, despite the lack of progress toward “denuclearization.” On China, the Trump administration has shown signs of a readiness to retreat from the latest round of tariffs.

In the U.K., Prime Minister Boris Johnson has ramped up talks despite promises of a no-deal Brexit by Oct. 31. Though there has been no real progress, there’s an interest in avoiding further uncertainty. On both sides of the Atlantic, any renewed negotiations would have to scale back expectations or involve considerable give-and-take. And leaders will have to rise to another challenge: selling any agreement as a diplomatic and political win to those who had expected a winner-take-all outcome.

Why We Wrote This

It’s tempting to think diplomatic breakthroughs can be driven by taking unyielding stands. But it’s often when leaders step back from hard lines that progress gets traction.

It may seem hard to imagine, with tension between the United States and Iran ratcheted up to its highest level in decades. But there have been signs across a range of world trouble spots that old-fashioned, give-and-take diplomacy could be poised for a comeback.

It’s been driven out of fashion, to put it mildly, by populist leaders promising both breakthrough solutions to their countries’ main international challenges and all-out wins over diplomatic rivals. Yet now – from Britain in its standoff with the European Union, to China, North Korea, and even Iran – there has been renewed talk of seeking some compromise way forward.

That won’t be easy. The biggest obstacles are political. Leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson have raised expectations of clear diplomatic wins, on their own terms. If they do change course, they’ll risk a backlash from more hard-line supporters. And they will need to find a way to sell any compromise as a victory.

Why We Wrote This

It’s tempting to think diplomatic breakthroughs can be driven by taking unyielding stands. But it’s often when leaders step back from hard lines that progress gets traction.

For an example, look to Iran

The escalating crisis with Iran has provided a dramatic illustration of potential obstacles.

Late last year, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the international agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program. He decried it as a weak-kneed lifting of economic sanctions that did not fully end Iran’s nuclear-weapons threat, its ballistic missile development, or its support for proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The administration adopted a “maximum pressure” policy of tightened economic sanctions.  

President Trump has, however, shown signs of a possible change in tack.

He ordered, but then stood down, a retaliation strike after the downing of a U.S. drone in June. In the past week, he has parted ways with the hawkish John Bolton, his former national security adviser, while also discussing the prospect of easing sanctions and a possible meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the United Nations later this month.

The first backlash may have come from Tehran. If the U.S. is right in suggesting Iran was involved in last weekend’s attack on key Saudi oil installations, one catalyst may have been a desire by Iranian hard-liners to forestall any Trump-Rouhani meeting. Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made that position formal in a statement on Tuesday, conditioning any renewed U.S.-Iran talks on Washington’s return to the nuclear agreement.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s raising the idea of a possible counterstrike on Iran’s oil installations was an indication of President Trump’s need to be able to sell any change of approach politically.

Getting beyond ‘winner take all’

The same could apply to the possibility of a third summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, despite the lack of progress toward the goal of “denuclearization.” On China, too, there have been signs within the Trump administration of a readiness to retreat from the latest round of tit-for-tat tariff increases – though, as economic concerns mount, a return to more traditional diplomacy on that front would likely face less pushback.

Still, with the winner-take-all approach having failed to deliver its promised results, any renewed negotiating process would either have to scale back expectations or involve considerable give-and-take. Probably both.

In Britain, the prime minister has promised that his country will leave the EU by Oct. 31, even if he can’t reach an agreement on withdrawal terms – a so-called no-deal Brexit. But having been mandated by Parliament to seek an extension of the departure date if he can’t get a deal, he has ramped up talks. 

He, too, has essentially held out the promise of “winner take all” – by reiterating his determination to get out by the end of next month and saying, in effect, that it’s up to the EU to prevent a no-deal outcome by rewriting the compromise deal reached with his predecessor, Theresa May. 

There’s been no sign of real progress yet. But both sides do have an interest in avoiding further political and economic uncertainty around Brexit, and in moving on to the next stage: a transition period during which a new Britain-EU trade agreement would be negotiated. So it’s not inconceivable that some last-minute deal will emerge. If it does, it’s also possible it would win approval in Parliament, since many MPs would be relieved to have avoided the prospect of leaving with no deal at all.

The problem, again, is raised expectations. Mr. Johnson has repeatedly voiced his readiness to go for a no-deal – something the more hard-line Brexit supporters in his Conservative Party would actually prefer. If he does get a new deal, it is unlikely to represent a radical overhaul of Ms. May’s agreement. That might seem to them – and to the recently formed Brexit Party, which trounced the Conservatives in this year’s European Parliament elections – like a surrender.

The need, in other words, would be for Mr. Johnson to sell his agreement as a diplomatic and political win.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.