“`html
Trade agreements have occupied a prominent position in recent headlines, fueled by former President Donald Trump’s strategy of leveraging tariff threats to compel nations into new agreements with the United States. This raises a crucial question: What is the established process for negotiating trade deals between countries, and has the former US president’s assertive approach altered the dynamics of these discussions?
Jason Langrish, a former Canadian trade negotiator, suggests that the use of tariff threats has undeniably soured the atmosphere within negotiation rooms.
“In recent times, with the rise of nativist and nationalist sentiments, these trade negotiations have adopted a more defensive and accusatory tone,” he explains.
Langrish, who played a role in Canada’s trade agreements with the EU and India, notes that this represents a departure from the conventional approach to such agreements. “Traditionally, trade talks were viewed positively, focusing on enhancing existing agreements between countries.”
He highlights the ongoing trade discussions between Canada and the US as an example of this shift in atmosphere, with both teams working towards a new agreement.
“It’s what we would characterize as a defensive negotiation. Canada did not initiate this, but we are compelled to participate.”
Another seasoned trade negotiator, Karl Falkenberg, who represented the EU in numerous talks, asserts that former President Trump “does not adhere to the established rules of engagement.”
But what specific procedures govern trade talks? What transpires behind closed doors during these negotiations?
“Each side appoints a chief negotiator,” explains Langrish. “Teams are then assembled for specific areas, such as tariffs, regulations, and government procurement, each with its own sub-negotiator.”
He adds, “and then the process begins,” while noting that deals often require years to finalize.
Falkenberg describes a typical negotiation day as involving morning and afternoon sessions, recalling instances of “leaving the office at 5 a.m.”
“When meeting the deadline seems feasible, participants are willing to endure extended hours—the longest I experienced was 24 hours,” he recounts.
While political dramas often dramatize the conflict inherent in negotiations, many in the field emphasize that the real progress occurs quietly, through lengthy periods of strategic compromise.
“Ultimately,” says Falkenberg, “as a negotiator, your goal is to reach an agreement with the other party, which necessitates building trust and rapport.”
Wendy Cutler, who served as a negotiator for the US Trade Representative’s Office for 27 years, was asked if she was ever assigned a “good cop” or “bad cop” role during her tenure.
She smiles, stating, “I’ve played various roles, but I’m unsure which one I excelled at the most.”
For Cutler, trust was the most valuable tool in negotiations.
“You won’t have complete trust, as each side pursues its national interests,” she says. “However, if you feel comfortable informally sharing proposals with the other side, with the assurance that they won’t be leaked to the press or disseminated to stakeholders, it becomes easier to reach a successful outcome.”
While the internal dynamics of the negotiation room are significant, Langrish emphasizes that external factors can often determine the fate of a deal, citing opposition from negatively affected economic sectors or domestic political forces.
“It’s not only about those who support the trade agreement,” he says. “There are also individuals and sectors that stand to lose, and they wield political influence. The political aspect ultimately slows down the process.”
Cutler adds that US negotiating teams face the daunting challenge of concluding new deals with numerous countries within a compressed timeframe, as exemplified by former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s declaration that the US would secure “90 deals in 90 days.”
“Attempting to finalize 90 deals in 90 days has proven too ambitious, even for former President Donald Trump,” says Cutler.
Since that statement, the US has announced agreements with the UK, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, and the Philippines, as well as a partial agreement with China.
“From the outset, the US government has lacked the necessary bandwidth to address the numerous requests for meetings and negotiations with various countries,” she adds.
Her advice to the former president and his administration is to curtail their use of social media. “Excessive public engagement during negotiations can impede progress by creating impasses and escalating tensions, making it more difficult for either side to compromise.”
Meanwhile, as US tariffs continue to fluctuate, trade lawyers are in high demand.
Companies are actively seeking their expertise to determine the applicable import and export duties. Mollie Sitkowski, a partner at US commercial law firm Faegre Drinker, states: “This is the busiest I’ve ever been.”
A summit between China and the European Union is cut to just a day as ties grow fraught.
An agreement, first announced in May, to slash tariffs and boost trade has been signed by the UK and Indian prime ministers.
Here’s a quick guide to what’s been agreed and what it could mean for you.
Data shows a slump in car and van production as the industry trade body hopes a UK-US tariff deal will bring “confidence”.
The Australian government says it has not compromised on its strict biosecurity laws.
“`