Omar Bennett
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that favours bilateral relations over multilateral ones, focusing on short-term wins rather than long-term strategic foresight. It is based on a quid pro quo logic, where every cooperative move becomes a fungible and potentially tradable asset. In other words, it is a give-and-take approach, where nothing is done for free and all gains are relative. Transactional diplomacy is devoid of principled assumptions and is dominated by cost-benefit calculations. It has been criticised for sidelining human rights and democratic governance in favour of national security, domestic prosperity, and big-power relations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Favours bilateral relations over multilateral relations | Short-term wins over long-term strategic foresight |
| Focuses on immediate, short-term trade or security gains | Zero-sum worldview |
| Rejects value-based policymaking | Deals and quid pro quos |
| Does not follow a grand strategy | Politicization of quid pro quo negotiations |
| Devoid of principled assumptions | Propensity toward profit |
| Dominated by cost-benefit calculations | Limiting cooperation commitments |
| Sidelines the role of institutions | Favours national interests |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Transactional diplomacy is based on a quid pro quo logic
In transactional diplomacy, cooperative moves in the economic, institutional, or security spheres become fungible and potentially tradable assets. Military basing rights, overflight rights, transit rights, intelligence sharing, police cooperation, immigration, arms control, trade, the environment, and finance are all examples of areas that can be negotiated and traded.
The logic of quid pro quo is not new in diplomacy, and such exchanges are often called "side-payments" or "issue-linkages". For example, countries may use these exchanges to win votes in the UN Security Council or UN General Assembly. Additionally, military coalitions are rarely constructed without offering some side-payments and issue-linkages to reluctant allies.
In a transactional world, states have an interest in limiting their cooperation to the minimum necessary to ensure their "profit margins". This can lead to a lack of commitment to long-term relationships and a focus on short-term gains, potentially sacrificing human rights and democratic values.
The election of Donald Trump brought a wave of unease to many Asian capitals due to his brand of transactional diplomacy. Trump's foreign policy has been characterised by his "America First" policy, where he seeks friendship and goodwill with other nations but with the understanding that nations have the right to put their own interests first. This has been reflected in his negotiations with other world leaders, where he has sought personal and financial gains rather than what is best for American interests.
Political Campaign Gear: Signs, Stickers, and Buttons
You may want to see also
It perceives a zero-sum world
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that perceives a zero-sum world. This means that it is believed that what benefits one party does not benefit the other. As a result, any cooperative move becomes a fungible and potentially tradable asset. For example, military basing rights, overflight rights, transit rights, intelligence sharing, police cooperation, immigration, arms control, trade, the environment, and finance can all become bargaining chips in a negotiation.
Transactional diplomacy is often associated with former US President Donald Trump, who declared his preference for it before he was elected. Trump's brand of transactional diplomacy was particularly focused on what was good for him personally and financially, rather than what was good for American interests. This was exemplified in his response to the Ukrainian leader's request for additional arms to battle Russia, where he pressed Mr. Zelensky to deliver dirt on political rival Joe Biden.
Trump's transactional diplomacy has been criticised for taking his 'America First' policy too seriously, triggering a peculiar foreign policy overture that some have called "shopping diplomacy". During the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's visit to the White House, for example, he made it clear that he was bringing a "strong value proposition" to the United States.
The shift towards transactional diplomacy has also been observed in Turkey's relations with the European Union. Under the rule of the AKP government, Turkey has chosen to directly negotiate short-term, highly popular bilateral deals with particular EU members, rather than going through EU institutions.
Transactional diplomacy is based on a quid pro quo logic, where states have an inherent interest in limiting their cooperation to ensure their "profit margins". This can lead to a deleterious propensity toward profit, where global interactions are driven by financial gain rather than long-term strategic foresight or value-based policymaking.
Diplomacy vs Foreign Policy: Understanding the Key Differences
You may want to see also
It sidelines the role of institutions
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that favours bilateral relations over multilateral ones. It focuses on short-term wins and cost-benefit calculations rather than long-term strategic foresight and value-based policymaking.
In transactional diplomacy, the role of institutions is often sidelined as negotiations become politicized and centred around the interests of individual leaders rather than the collective interests of nations. For example, in the case of Turkey's relations with the European Union, the shift towards transactional diplomacy sidelined the role of EU institutions as the chief conduits for member states to exert influence and leverage on Turkish foreign policy. Instead, the Turkish government chose to directly negotiate short-term bilateral deals with individual EU member states.
Similarly, in the United States, President Trump's brand of transactional diplomacy has been criticized for prioritizing his personal interests over American interests and sidelining the role of established diplomatic institutions. Trump's focus on "America First" and striking better trade deals has led to concerns that he views diplomatic relations in purely transactional terms, potentially undermining the long-term relationships and values that traditional diplomacy upholds.
In a transactional diplomatic world, states have an inherent interest in limiting their cooperation commitments to ensure their "profit margins." This can result in a lack of trust and a breakdown of collective action, as states may become more concerned with maximizing their gains rather than working together towards a common goal.
Transactional diplomacy can also lead to a deleterious propensity toward profit, infiltrating global interactions. For example, if one country demands payment for providing a service, other countries may follow suit, leading to a breakdown of cooperation and an increase in costs for all parties involved.
Camilla Harris: Why She Should Be Your Next Vote
You may want to see also
Explore related products
It focuses on short-term wins over long-term strategic foresight
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that focuses on short-term wins over long-term strategic foresight. It is characterised by a zero-sum worldview where gains are relative and reciprocity is absent. This type of diplomacy is devoid of principled assumptions and is dominated by cost-benefit calculations. It involves a quid pro quo logic where states engage in deals that are fungible and potentially tradable assets. In this context, cooperative moves in the economic, institutional, or security spheres become bargaining chips.
Transactional diplomacy can be understood as a negotiation between two or more parties attempting to find common ground on a deal to trade something of tangible or intangible value. It is important to note that this does not necessarily require adversarial bargaining and that effective bargaining strategies can be achieved through clear-eyed preparation. However, transactional diplomacy can become problematic when negotiations become personal.
The concept of transactional diplomacy has been associated with former US President Donald Trump, who declared his preference for this approach before taking office. Trump's brand of transactional diplomacy has been described as focusing on what is good for him personally and financially, rather than what is in the best interests of the United States. This was exemplified in his dealings with Ukraine, where he asked for political favours in exchange for providing additional arms to the country.
The implications of transactional diplomacy can be far-reaching. For instance, it can lead to the politicisation of quid pro quo negotiations, limiting the political leeway of diplomats. It can also result in a propensity towards profit, influencing global interactions. Furthermore, transactional diplomacy may undermine global human rights institutions and enable autocrats to worsen human rights violations.
While transactional diplomacy offers short-term gains, it lacks a grand strategy and can complicate foreign policy. It is important to note that this approach may not be sustainable or effective in the long term, as it prioritises immediate benefits over long-term relationships and strategic foresight.
Stop Political Mailers: Your Privacy, Your Choice
You may want to see also
It is complicated to the point of possible failure
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that favours bilateral relations over multilateral ones, focusing on short-term gains rather than long-term strategic foresight. It is based on a zero-sum, quid pro quo logic, where all gains are relative and reciprocity is absent. While ""give-and-take" is a normal part of diplomatic relations, transactional diplomacy is complicated and may lead to failure for several reasons.
Firstly, transactional diplomacy sidelines the role of institutions as the chief conduits for member states' influence and leverage on foreign policy. This can be seen in Turkey's relations with the European Union, where the Turkish government chose to directly negotiate short-term, bilateral deals with individual EU members, rather than working through EU institutions. Such an approach can undermine global human rights institutions and enable autocrats to worsen violations.
Secondly, transactional diplomacy can become problematic when negotiations become personal, as seen in the case of President Trump's dealings with Ukraine and Australia. Analysts suggest that Trump's transactional approach was driven by his personal financial and political interests rather than broader American interests, which led to his impeachment inquiry.
Thirdly, in a transactional world, states have an interest in limiting their cooperation to the bare minimum to ensure their 'profit margins'. This can hinder effective problem-solving, as states are reluctant to fully commit to cooperation, potentially jeopardizing deals. For example, the US paid Kyrgyzstan a substantial sum for a military base critical to US operations in Afghanistan, as Kyrgyzstan was aware of the US's reliance on the base, increasing its bargaining power.
Finally, transactional diplomacy may fail to account for the emergence of alternative providers of "services" or capabilities. For instance, countries may question if they can obtain cheaper services from other nations like China or Russia, or develop capabilities independently, reducing their reliance on transactional deals.
In conclusion, transactional diplomacy, as practiced by President Trump, has been characterized by a focus on short-term gains, personal interests, and limited cooperation, which has complicated international relations and potentially led to failure.
Mastering Diplomacy: Artful Sentence Construction
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Transactional diplomacy is a foreign policy approach that focuses on short-term wins and bilateral relations, instead of long-term strategic foresight. It is devoid of principled assumptions and is dominated by cost-benefit calculations.
Transactional diplomacy is based on a quid pro quo logic, where a cooperative move becomes a fungible and potentially tradable asset. It adheres to a zero-sum worldview where all gains are relative and reciprocity is absent.
Transactional diplomacy can lead to the politicization of quid pro quo negotiations. It can also result in a propensity towards profit in global interactions, with states limiting their cooperation commitments to ensure their 'profit margins'.
All diplomacy involves a certain degree of transactionalism, but transactional diplomacy takes it to an extreme. It becomes problematic when transactions become personal, as seen in the case of President Trump, where deals were made to further his personal financial and political interests rather than the country's interests.
The AKP government in Turkey signed a deal with the EU in 2016 regarding the management of refugee traffic from Turkey to EU member countries. This is an example of transactional diplomacy as it involves negotiating short-term bilateral deals.
