April 10, 2025 • 33 mins
Alfred Kellogg, a veteran attorney and negotiation expert, takes us deep into the strategic mind of Donald Trump's approach to international dealmaking. Drawing from decades of experience advising major multinational corporations, Kellogg unpacks the sophisticated methods behind what often appears as unpredictable behavior from the former and current President.
The conversation begins with Kellogg introducing his book "Negotiate Eight Keys to Winning Negotiations," which distills critical negotiation principles into a practical framework. Four keys focus on preparation – which Kellogg identifies as the most crucial yet frequently neglected element of successful negotiation – while the remaining four address conducting negotiations effectively. Throughout the discussion, he applies these principles to analyze Trump's distinctive negotiation style.
What sets Trump apart, Kellogg explains, is his recognition and willingness to leverage America's greatest asset: access to the U.S. market. "Nobody else really has that to offer," Kellogg notes, describing it as "the biggest bargaining chip in the world." This fundamental understanding powers Trump's approach to tariffs, which Kellogg breaks down into three strategic categories: economic tools for revenue generation, national security protections for critical industries, and punitive measures against adversarial nations.
The most fascinating aspect of Trump's approach, according to Kellogg, is how he seamlessly integrates business, finance, diplomacy, and national security considerations into cohesive negotiation strategies. "He doesn't have lines," Kellogg observes, allowing Trump to reach across traditional boundaries to create leverage. This cross-disciplinary thinking enables creative solutions, as seen in his approaches to Panama and Greenland. Perhaps most importantly, Trump's established reputation means counterparties can't dismiss his threats as empty – "you already know his reputation, you already have a belief that he will pursue the issue."
Want to develop your own negotiation skills and understand the principles behind high-stakes international dealmaking? Visit negotiateeight.com to learn more about Kellogg's approach to winning negotiations in both business and diplomatic contexts.
For more information about our podcasts, see our website at www.Great-Thinkers.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Welcome to Conversations with Great
Thinkers.
Our guest today is Mr AlfredKellogg.
Mr Kellogg is an attorney who,over the course of decades, has
conducted and advised onnegotiating agreements and
resolving business disputes.
He has worked as a seniorcounsel and as an officer of
major multinationals, includinga luxury hotel chain, an airline
(00:34):
and two leading internationalbanking firms.
Mr Kellogg is the author ofNegotiate Eight Keys to Winning
Negotiations eight keys towinning negotiations.
He'll provide us with histhoughts and perspectives on the
negotiating style and strategyof the current United States
President, donald J Trump.
(00:54):
Mr Kellogg, welcome to our show.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Maybe the easiest way to begin our discussion today
is to let our audience getfamiliar with the book that you
wrote and the reasons that youwrote it.
So let me turn the microphoneover to you.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Well, I wrote a small book called Negotiate and
you'll forgive me if I point outthat it's spelled N-E-G-O-T-I
and the number eight, so it's alittle bit cute Negotiatecom
eight keys to winningnegotiations, and in it I tried
to distill some of my principlesthat I have found in my
(01:40):
negotiating experience.
In my negotiating experience,some of it derived from things I
had read or heard, but a lot ofit derived from what I have
found works and I found myselftrying to create a checklist of
things that I wanted to have inmind in going to any negotiation
(02:03):
.
Even the most experienced pilothas a checklist that he goes
through before takeoff.
And my checklist is not paintby the numbers, because every
negotiations different, butthere are elements that are
present in every negotiation andI tried to explain and
(02:26):
highlight these.
Their relative importance willchange from one negotiation to
the other, so there is nopaint-by-the-numbers solution
for every negotiation, but thereis something that can remind
you have I thought through this,that and the other thing?
Have I thought through this,that and the other thing?
And the book does something Ididn't see elsewhere, which is
(02:48):
it has four of my eight keys areprompting you on how to prepare
for the negotiation Because, inmy experience, preparation is
the single most importantelement in successful
negotiating, at least in thebusiness context, and frequently
(03:11):
the least observed in practice.
So four of the keys are toprepare for your negotiation.
Four are to conduct anegotiation.
Negotiation is a learningprocess that continues
throughout, so you're alwaystrying to understand, both from
external sources but also fromyour counterparty in a
(03:32):
negotiation, and they will tellyou many things, either directly
in response to questions orsometimes involuntarily, in
their reaction to to things.
Negotiation is somewhat akin topoker, in that you are trying
to read, you know what the otherparty is up to.
(03:52):
So that's it in a nutshell.
The book talks about two typesof negotiations One is
transactional and one is longerterm.
So it's become very fashionablefor people to talk about
win-win negotiating andconsidering the interests of the
(04:14):
other parties.
This is all valid, but it'sreally of greater interest where
there's a continuingrelationship relationship.
Most of what Trump would haveto do in the international arena
in his negotiations is in thatcategory.
(04:35):
You are dealing with othercountries that you will have an
ongoing relationship with, sowhen you're talking about
tariffs or treaties of almostany description, you are talking
about a longer-termrelationship.
And the key thing here is that,as I like to put it, it's
(04:57):
possible to win too big.
In other words, if you use thepower, you have to kind of crush
the other side, you create anunstable relationship where over
time, they're not getting atleast the minimum that they need
out of it.
Well, let's take that point.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Let's take that point, if wecan, because you've touched on
tariffs, which is really animportant topic at the moment
and a lot of Americans aregetting dizzy from we're putting
tariffs on.
We're not putting tariffs on.
How do you see the currentnegotiating style of the
president in connection withtariffs, whether specific
(05:35):
tariffs with regard to autos orquid pro quo tariffs with regard
to other nations?
What are some of your thoughtson that framework with regard to
other nations?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
What are some of your thoughts on that framework?
Well, let me start with acouple of observations.
First of all, trump is ready,willing and able to use whatever
power levers are available tohim.
He has often made commentsabout how, you know, we've been
treated unfairly by tradepartners and indicating that the
(06:10):
prior administrations pluralwere essentially negligent and
incompetent in this part, and Ithink that's because Trump sees
everything as a negotiation andTrump it almost offends him when
he sees people leave things onthe table.
(06:30):
So, to the extent that prioradministrations haven't in trade
relations haven't been designedusing the power elements that
the United States can bring tobear the power elements that the
United States can bring to bear, he's upset about it.
And now what are the powerelements?
(06:51):
Well, he's got one giantbargaining chip on his side,
which is the greatest bargainingchip in the world, which is
access to the US market.
Nobody else really has that tooffer.
If you deal with the EU, you'reoften dealing one country at a
(07:11):
time.
If you're dealing with EUoverall, they're still in their
marketplace.
You don't get entry and thenget to sell across Europe with
no problems.
There are different standards,in some cases different
languages on your labeling.
There's just a lot ofimpediments.
But what you have to offer ifyou'll let someone on the terms
(07:35):
you'll let someone into the USmarket is wide, open access to
the biggest consumer market andbusiness market in the world,
and that's of incredible value.
So Trump holds the card that hecan cut off or greatly reduce
or encumber access to the USmarket, and he knows that, of
(07:57):
course.
And that is the underlyingpower.
So Trump's style is veryinteresting because he we're
used to governments often beingvery discreet about their
negotiations and they go onbehind closed doors and then
(08:18):
they may or may not announcesome sort of agreement and often
these agreements sort ofagreement and often these
agreements paper particularly inthe diplomatic context, paper
over issues which are actuallyleft unresolved.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think I want
to clarify for our listeners.
Is it safe to presume that fromyour perspective, you see that
tariffs can be effective as ameans of achieving foreign
policy goals, and maybe youcould comment on what, if any,
risks you see in that regard?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, the tariffs don't serve a single purpose.
They have different purposes indifferent contexts, and this is
why the discussion can easilybe oversimplified.
So I think Trump does wanttariffs as an economic matter.
(09:18):
He feels that there's a lot oftrade where there should be
tariffs.
For many years, particularlythe Republicans have told us
that we're in favor of freetrade, neglecting to mention for
the public, which is oftenunaware of this the tremendous
tariffs and trade barriers weface in going into many other
(09:39):
markets.
So the free trade was all onour side.
You know.
We should have no tariffs orvery low tariffs.
Trump is trying to even that up.
So there's the economic aspect,which is let's get some more
government revenues and let'stake care of our business.
(10:02):
Then there is the nationalsecurity aspect, which is we
must absolutely protect ourcritical industries, and there
we should have whatever hightariffs are required in order to
keep our supply lines andproduction domestic and protect
(10:24):
national security.
And then the third bucket Iwould say offhand is a big stick
where we have a problem withsomeone over national security
issues, serious issues,something like Iran, you know,
or something where you want tohave a trade policy that
(10:49):
punishes them.
Now, of course, in the case ofIran, we go beyond tariffs to
boycotts of various types.
But the point is, it's all inthat context of someone viewed
as a bad actor with whom we haveserious disputes, and so there,
terrorists may form a portionof a stick in a carrot and stick
(11:14):
structure where we reallyintend to punish somebody.
So therefore, it's difficult,and the concept of reciprocal
tariffs, which Trump has raised,is attractive on the face of it
, and yet it's not an answer toeverything, because if you have
(11:41):
equal auto tariffs on a countrythat produces no autos, where's
the symmetry?
There isn't symmetry in whatRicardo would call the
comparative advantages thatexist in trade.
This is why I believe thetariff negotiations ultimately
(12:03):
will percolate down to anynumber of specific negotiations
and the outcomes will vary basedon the factors on the ground
and in the commercial anddiplomatic relationship, as well
as the nature of the reason forhaving the tariffs.
So Trump has launched thetariff issue in a big way with
(12:27):
some very general statements inorder to put pressure on other
parties to come to the table.
If he says I'm going to put a25% tariff on you and you
realize, your critical export tothe United States is affected
and a big part of your GDP.
You're the other country inthis example.
(12:48):
Then you will come to the table.
You'll need to talk to Trump,because the US market is the
best and biggest in the world,so tariffs will ultimately get
way and more and morecomplicated as you percolate
down to the individual details.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Thanks.
Those are some prettyinteresting perspectives that
you've offered, but I'm going tosee if we can shift the
discussion a little bit at thispoint, if you're comfortable
doing so.
There are a couple otherprominent case studies and
really complex negotiations atthe moment, including, for
example, the Panama Canal.
Are you prepared to say a fewwords about the negotiating
(13:30):
strategy?
Oh, by the way, I should sayparenthetically that I think I
heard correctly on the news thismorning that Hutchinson-Wampoa
has just withdrawn from theproposed agreement to sell the
canal or the facilities ateither end of the canal to Black
(13:50):
Rock or Blackstone.
Do you have some thoughts onwhat has happened so far with
regard to the Panama Canal andwhat may happen?
Speaker 2 (13:59):
I think it's Black Rock in this situation regard to
the Panama Canal and what mayhappen.
I think it's BlackRock in thissituation.
Well, let me say this, and Iwant to make this disclaimer I'm
not a Washington insider, so Idon't have inside information on
any of these issues, but I am aperson experienced in
negotiating, so my comments areon what you and I can see in the
(14:22):
paper and on the news, andbased on that, I think I can
make some observations that maybe useful for people to
understand what's going on, butI'm not the insider.
In the case of Panama, trumpfollowed his pattern of putting
the issue on the table in a bigway, in a very public way, and
(14:48):
in so doing, he accomplishes anumber of things, one of which
is he informs the US public.
The issue of Panama has notbeen on people's radar for years
, and so it was not prior toTrump raising it.
I'm not aware that it was beingtreated as a current issue of
(15:12):
importance, and that's for anumber of reasons, largely the
lack of information on the partof the population.
So he does that.
At the same time, he makes ademand and puts pressure on the
opposing party, but one of theinteresting things that I think
the Panama situation illustrates, although, as you say, it does
(15:35):
appear that some of this isfalling apart now, but I think
that would be temporary.
I do not expect Trump to relenton pushing on this issue.
But one of the things thatillustrates is Trump has a very
broad-ranging experience.
(15:55):
He's previously been presidentof the United States, been
President of the United States,head of a major company in real
estate development and hotelsand golf courses, and so on and
so forth Quite a significantcompany.
He is somebody who has anaffinity with the military.
(16:16):
He didn't have a big militaryrecord, but he was trained at
school as a military cadet andso on, and so he has a very wide
range of interests and it'swhat you might call a talent or
skilled stack.
Is Trump the world's bestnegotiator?
I don't know, but he's a verygood negotiator.
(16:38):
Is Trump the world's biggestmilitary expert?
No, I don't think so, but he'sinterested and he follows it and
he's a very fast learner.
Is Trump the best financialanalyst in the world?
Well, maybe not, but he's got avery sophisticated
understanding of money and tradeflows and so on.
(17:00):
By the way, he has made himselfon the topic of the tariffs,
apparently made himself quite astudent of it in recent times,
and so he's aware of somehistory that a lot of people
aren't, which is that when wehad tariffs in the past, the
United States was flourishingeconomically.
(17:20):
A lot of people have beentrained to associate tariffs
with Smoot-Hawley, which somepeople have blamed for the Great
Depression.
That's highly debatable, buttariffs themselves are not
something that collapseseconomies.
Well, let me return to Panama.
So, because of this wide rangeof experience and insight, trump
(17:44):
, there are no dividing linesbetween diplomacy, national
security, business, finance,trade.
He doesn't have lines.
He reaches across all of thesedifferent topics to try to
create elements and bring theminto a negotiation as
(18:05):
advantageous.
So, in the case of Panama, thewhole idea of buying the firm
that had rights to manage thecanal, which is
Hutchinson-Winepoa this wasreally a commercial answer to a
national security issue, and Ithink we see this a lot with
(18:30):
Trump that he reaches forcommercial answers often to
things that somebody raisedpurely in the diplomatic or
national security arena mightnot see as solutions, might not
be creative in that way.
But what will happen withPanama?
(18:51):
I'm afraid I don't have anypredictions right now, other
than that I don't see the issuegoing away.
Trump will continue to press it.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Well, let's see if we can ask you to take out your
crystal ball again and take alook at the Greenland situation,
because I don't think thestrategic importance of
Greenland was on too many radarscreens before President Trump
took office.
Now I would be quick to saythat I've seen some marvelous
(19:22):
movies about the World War IIera, when the critical
importance of Greenland wasbrought to the attention of then
President Roosevelt and thesteps that he took to be able to
get bases there.
But apparently since that timeGreenland has not been the focus
(19:43):
of US strategic interests.
But now it is, and so are theredifferent negotiating
considerations with regard toGreenland versus what you've
mentioned with regard to Panama.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Well, as I said, everything's different.
Well, as I said, everything'sdifferent.
(20:26):
Greenland followed a kind of asimilar pattern where Trumpading
it to buying it, to having somesort of a trade or other
agreement or security agreementwhere we feel we have it within
our control to the extent weneed to, and I think he intends
to keep that vague and see wherehe can.
The Greenland thing I think itillustrates another interesting
(20:51):
aspect.
Most people in my experiencewho are going to looking for a
book or some interestinginformation about negotiating
that will help them, they thinkthat the answer is always going
to lie in personal relationsthem.
They think that the answer isalways going to lie in personal
relations they tend to look forhow do I present things, what
(21:14):
words do I say, how do I behave,and so on.
Trump it's interesting to watchTrump in this regard because in
general, I think Trump feels,as I do, that you have to show
respect for your negotiatingpartners.
The one thing you don't want todo typically is show any
(21:37):
disrespect, because thatintroduces an element of
personal animosity or resentmentthat could impair your path to
a satisfactory result.
So, in the case of Greenland,it's interesting that Vance, our
(22:00):
vice president, just went downthere and started chastising
Denmark for doing a lousy job.
And you might say well, that'sstrange.
You know, trump is oftencriticized for being respectful
to Putin, and here we've gotwhat is a friendly country and
(22:21):
they're calling him bad managers.
Why is that?
Well, I think the difference andthe difference with Panama
certainly is that Greenland isvery remote from Denmark.
Denmark doesn't have a verygood way to protect Greenland.
The US obviously could easilyinvade in the worst case, which
(22:46):
I'm not saying I expect at allbut the other counterparty is
not sure what Trump is willingor able to do, and I'll get back
to that in a second.
So but the Vance and othersimilar statements I think are
not intended for Denmark.
(23:06):
They're intended for thepopulation of Greenland and to
the for the population ofGreenland and to the extent the
population of Greenland isbrought around to the idea in a
big way that it would bewonderful to be part of the
United States as a territory ofpossession, even ultimately a
state, that this would enhancetheir quality of life and their
(23:30):
opportunities.
If there's a really strongpolitical movement within
Greenland, it's kind of hard tosee what Denmark would do to
resist it.
It certainly limits theiroptions.
It certainly limits theiroptions.
(23:52):
So that's kind of what I thinkis going on with Greenland.
Trump, by all objectivemeasures I've seen, is
completely correct about thenational security importance,
particularly the northernwaterways that go past Greenland
, which apparently now have alot of Chinese and Russian
(24:15):
shipping and the Chinese havebeen buying properties in
Greenland.
So it is a serious nationalsecurity interest and something
will happen.
My guess is there'll be someface-saving there or there will
be some sort of a jointownership or operation of
(24:36):
Greenland between the US andDenmark.
That's a guess as to where wemay end up with that one.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Interesting.
I know our time is somewhatlimited today and in the time
that we do have left, and thismay be terribly unfair,
difficult or maybe evenimpossible, but I'd like to take
a look at both the Ukraineconflict and the war in Gaza and
ask what your thoughts are,with regard to not only
(25:05):
President Trump but his alterego, mr Witkoff, in terms of the
way those negotiations arebeing handled and what, if
anything, you see, that mightcome out of that.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Well, ukraine is first of all, I think, ukraine,
although it has the elements ofa negotiation I'll explain in a
minute it might more properly bedescribed as a mediation which
Trump is trying to see, ifthere's a way to bring Putin
(25:42):
together with Zelenskyy slashUkraine.
So it's a little bitcomplicated, and then we become
a party to it to the extent wehave to put in some sort of
guarantees or engage in thisagreement, which I guess is
already complete, on rare earthminerals.
One of the things that is goingto be present, particularly in
(26:10):
the Middle East and Ukraine is,you know, the famous meeting at
the White House that blew up inmy observation was largely
although people bring in againall the personal kind of veneer
to it but I think basically itwas that Zelensky was trying to
(26:33):
get Trump to commit to asecurity guarantee of some sort,
which and he clearly iscollaborating closely with some
European countries and theywould all like that too and
Trump resisted that and, innegotiating terms, trump walked
(26:55):
away.
He said no, that's not it and Iwon't accept it and we'll cut
off the negotiation.
Now Zelensky, in that case, hadto come back and, in
negotiating terms, generallyspeaking, when you have to come
back after walking away, itmeans somebody called your bluff
and you're generally in aweaker negotiating position.
(27:19):
So, but the mediation thing ifyou, if you're mediating a
dispute and thing, if you'remediating a dispute and you are
looking, trying to look at itobjectively and say where is it
(27:40):
possible to get an agreement,you often find that one party
has a much stronger positionthan the other and you
inevitably, to make theagreement, are going to try to
move the party in the weakerposition towards the one in the
stronger position, not becauseyou favor one over the other
personally, but because this isthe way an agreement can be
accomplished.
And I think that Trump sees theresolution of the Ukraine war as
(28:09):
highly important strategicallyfor the United States.
He thinks that our mainadversary is China and that we
should not be involved in orworrying about wars in Europe
and so on at this time.
So Trump has been accused offavoring Putin.
(28:30):
I don't think he favors anybody, but in order to get a deal
done, as he told Zelensky to hisface, you don't have the cards
at the White House meeting.
So, again, time will tell.
Not everything is predictable,but this is the general
(28:51):
direction it's taking and thedanger, of course here is that
Putin feeling he has a stronghand is going to be more and
more difficult and demanding,but I also think that there's a
good case to be made that Putinhas plenty of reasons to try to
resolve this himself.
(29:12):
So I'm not personally.
I suspect there will beultimately an agreement, but the
Russian style of negotiation isto drag it out and drag you
down and dip away, and so it maynot be fast.
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
That is really, really helpful.
Let me ask you in the fewmoments that we have left here,
do you have any final thoughtson negotiations in what I'll
call the world of real politic?
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Well, again one thing I'd like to say, and some
people listening to this mayhave seen the Steve Witkoff
interview and he made a pointsimilar to one that had occurred
to me, which is if you and Iare starting a negotiation with
somebody that we have notpreviously dealt with, one of
(30:04):
the things that, of course, isconstantly going on a
negotiation is evaluating theother party.
Do they mean what they say?
To what extent are theybluffing?
Is their position weak orstrong?
Trump has complete and, by theway, in my view, a lot of these
(30:26):
early issues and signaling areof critical importance.
Very often the negotiation islargely complete by the time the
parties meet, because theto-ing and fro-ing and
positioning tends to be veryeducational on both sides.
(30:46):
But with Trump, you alreadyknow he's famous, he has a
history in negotiating, he has ahistory as president.
So Trump is pretty convincingthat he means what he says and
he's very capable of takingstrong and even disruptive
(31:07):
action if he needs to.
So if you are going tonegotiate with Trump, it's very
hard to be complacent.
If Trump says he's going to putheavy tariffs on your country,
one thing you can't do is saywell, he'll back down or it'll
(31:27):
go away.
And Trump doesn't have to say aword because you already know
his reputation, you already havea belief that he will pursue
the issue and it's just aquestion of where you come out.
But the status quo is not goingto remain.
You're not going to be able toprotect it going to remain.
(31:48):
You're not going to be able toprotect it.
In a power-oriented negotiation,trump starts with a goal.
Woodclaw said that himself.
I think it's a lot of people intheir personal negotiation.
They often don't stop and saywhat is my goal?
What do I want here?
What's the best thing?
They also don't stop andexamine where would I walk away
(32:13):
if I can't achieve it?
And then they don't impose timedeadlines.
Trump does all of those things,although he may not divulge the
walkaway, which is often kepthidden.
So that's his basic approach,which is what I call the power
approach.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Mr Kellogg, I am so grateful.
I think we've all learned anenormous amount from your
insights and perspectives.
Thank you very, very much.
Before we conclude this, can Iask you to please tell our
listeners where they can findyour book and tell them the name
again, because it's a littleunusual.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Well, the book.
Thank you, Jim.
The book is available on Amazonnow.
It's called Negotiate, with thenumber eight instead of the
letters A-T-E, so it'sN-E-G-O-T-I, number eight dot
com and you can find it onAmazon.
(33:12):
And I have a website which isnegotiate eight dot com, again
with the same number, and thereif you want to consult with me
on any topic relating tonegotiations or help arrange a
training or a seminar, you canput yourself in my calendar and
reach me very easily.
So thank you very much.
(33:33):
Appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Thank you.
Welcome to Conversations with Great
Thinkers.
Our guest today is Mr AlfredKellogg.
Mr Kellogg is an attorney who,over the course of decades, has
conducted and advised onnegotiating agreements and
resolving business disputes.
He has worked as a seniorcounsel and as an officer of
major multinationals, includinga luxury hotel chain, an airline
(00:34):
and two leading internationalbanking firms.
Mr Kellogg is the author ofNegotiate Eight Keys to Winning
Negotiations eight keys towinning negotiations.
He'll provide us with histhoughts and perspectives on the
negotiating style and strategyof the current United States
President, donald J Trump.
(00:54):
Mr Kellogg, welcome to our show.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Maybe the easiest way to begin our discussion today
is to let our audience getfamiliar with the book that you
wrote and the reasons that youwrote it.
So let me turn the microphoneover to you.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Well, I wrote a small book called Negotiate and
you'll forgive me if I point outthat it's spelled N-E-G-O-T-I
and the number eight, so it's alittle bit cute Negotiatecom
eight keys to winningnegotiations, and in it I tried
to distill some of my principlesthat I have found in my
(01:40):
negotiating experience.
In my negotiating experience,some of it derived from things I
had read or heard, but a lot ofit derived from what I have
found works and I found myselftrying to create a checklist of
things that I wanted to have inmind in going to any negotiation
(02:03):
.
Even the most experienced pilothas a checklist that he goes
through before takeoff.
And my checklist is not paintby the numbers, because every
negotiations different, butthere are elements that are
present in every negotiation andI tried to explain and
(02:26):
highlight these.
Their relative importance willchange from one negotiation to
the other, so there is nopaint-by-the-numbers solution
for every negotiation, but thereis something that can remind
you have I thought through this,that and the other thing?
Have I thought through this,that and the other thing?
And the book does something Ididn't see elsewhere, which is
(02:48):
it has four of my eight keys areprompting you on how to prepare
for the negotiation Because, inmy experience, preparation is
the single most importantelement in successful
negotiating, at least in thebusiness context, and frequently
(03:11):
the least observed in practice.
So four of the keys are toprepare for your negotiation.
Four are to conduct anegotiation.
Negotiation is a learningprocess that continues
throughout, so you're alwaystrying to understand, both from
external sources but also fromyour counterparty in a
(03:32):
negotiation, and they will tellyou many things, either directly
in response to questions orsometimes involuntarily, in
their reaction to to things.
Negotiation is somewhat akin topoker, in that you are trying
to read, you know what the otherparty is up to.
(03:52):
So that's it in a nutshell.
The book talks about two typesof negotiations One is
transactional and one is longerterm.
So it's become very fashionablefor people to talk about
win-win negotiating andconsidering the interests of the
(04:14):
other parties.
This is all valid, but it'sreally of greater interest where
there's a continuingrelationship relationship.
Most of what Trump would haveto do in the international arena
in his negotiations is in thatcategory.
(04:35):
You are dealing with othercountries that you will have an
ongoing relationship with, sowhen you're talking about
tariffs or treaties of almostany description, you are talking
about a longer-termrelationship.
And the key thing here is that,as I like to put it, it's
(04:57):
possible to win too big.
In other words, if you use thepower, you have to kind of crush
the other side, you create anunstable relationship where over
time, they're not getting atleast the minimum that they need
out of it.
Well, let's take that point.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Let's take that point, if wecan, because you've touched on
tariffs, which is really animportant topic at the moment
and a lot of Americans aregetting dizzy from we're putting
tariffs on.
We're not putting tariffs on.
How do you see the currentnegotiating style of the
president in connection withtariffs, whether specific
(05:35):
tariffs with regard to autos orquid pro quo tariffs with regard
to other nations?
What are some of your thoughtson that framework with regard to
other nations?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
What are some of your thoughts on that framework?
Well, let me start with acouple of observations.
First of all, trump is ready,willing and able to use whatever
power levers are available tohim.
He has often made commentsabout how, you know, we've been
treated unfairly by tradepartners and indicating that the
(06:10):
prior administrations pluralwere essentially negligent and
incompetent in this part, and Ithink that's because Trump sees
everything as a negotiation andTrump it almost offends him when
he sees people leave things onthe table.
(06:30):
So, to the extent that prioradministrations haven't in trade
relations haven't been designedusing the power elements that
the United States can bring tobear the power elements that the
United States can bring to bear, he's upset about it.
And now what are the powerelements?
(06:51):
Well, he's got one giantbargaining chip on his side,
which is the greatest bargainingchip in the world, which is
access to the US market.
Nobody else really has that tooffer.
If you deal with the EU, you'reoften dealing one country at a
(07:11):
time.
If you're dealing with EUoverall, they're still in their
marketplace.
You don't get entry and thenget to sell across Europe with
no problems.
There are different standards,in some cases different
languages on your labeling.
There's just a lot ofimpediments.
But what you have to offer ifyou'll let someone on the terms
(07:35):
you'll let someone into the USmarket is wide, open access to
the biggest consumer market andbusiness market in the world,
and that's of incredible value.
So Trump holds the card that hecan cut off or greatly reduce
or encumber access to the USmarket, and he knows that, of
(07:57):
course.
And that is the underlyingpower.
So Trump's style is veryinteresting because he we're
used to governments often beingvery discreet about their
negotiations and they go onbehind closed doors and then
(08:18):
they may or may not announcesome sort of agreement and often
these agreements sort ofagreement and often these
agreements paper particularly inthe diplomatic context, paper
over issues which are actuallyleft unresolved.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think I want
to clarify for our listeners.
Is it safe to presume that fromyour perspective, you see that
tariffs can be effective as ameans of achieving foreign
policy goals, and maybe youcould comment on what, if any,
risks you see in that regard?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, the tariffs don't serve a single purpose.
They have different purposes indifferent contexts, and this is
why the discussion can easilybe oversimplified.
So I think Trump does wanttariffs as an economic matter.
(09:18):
He feels that there's a lot oftrade where there should be
tariffs.
For many years, particularlythe Republicans have told us
that we're in favor of freetrade, neglecting to mention for
the public, which is oftenunaware of this the tremendous
tariffs and trade barriers weface in going into many other
(09:39):
markets.
So the free trade was all onour side.
You know.
We should have no tariffs orvery low tariffs.
Trump is trying to even that up.
So there's the economic aspect,which is let's get some more
government revenues and let'stake care of our business.
(10:02):
Then there is the nationalsecurity aspect, which is we
must absolutely protect ourcritical industries, and there
we should have whatever hightariffs are required in order to
keep our supply lines andproduction domestic and protect
(10:24):
national security.
And then the third bucket Iwould say offhand is a big stick
where we have a problem withsomeone over national security
issues, serious issues,something like Iran, you know,
or something where you want tohave a trade policy that
(10:49):
punishes them.
Now, of course, in the case ofIran, we go beyond tariffs to
boycotts of various types.
But the point is, it's all inthat context of someone viewed
as a bad actor with whom we haveserious disputes, and so there,
terrorists may form a portionof a stick in a carrot and stick
(11:14):
structure where we reallyintend to punish somebody.
So therefore, it's difficult,and the concept of reciprocal
tariffs, which Trump has raised,is attractive on the face of it
, and yet it's not an answer toeverything, because if you have
(11:41):
equal auto tariffs on a countrythat produces no autos, where's
the symmetry?
There isn't symmetry in whatRicardo would call the
comparative advantages thatexist in trade.
This is why I believe thetariff negotiations ultimately
(12:03):
will percolate down to anynumber of specific negotiations
and the outcomes will vary basedon the factors on the ground
and in the commercial anddiplomatic relationship, as well
as the nature of the reason forhaving the tariffs.
So Trump has launched thetariff issue in a big way with
(12:27):
some very general statements inorder to put pressure on other
parties to come to the table.
If he says I'm going to put a25% tariff on you and you
realize, your critical export tothe United States is affected
and a big part of your GDP.
You're the other country inthis example.
(12:48):
Then you will come to the table.
You'll need to talk to Trump,because the US market is the
best and biggest in the world,so tariffs will ultimately get
way and more and morecomplicated as you percolate
down to the individual details.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Thanks.
Those are some prettyinteresting perspectives that
you've offered, but I'm going tosee if we can shift the
discussion a little bit at thispoint, if you're comfortable
doing so.
There are a couple otherprominent case studies and
really complex negotiations atthe moment, including, for
example, the Panama Canal.
Are you prepared to say a fewwords about the negotiating
(13:30):
strategy?
Oh, by the way, I should sayparenthetically that I think I
heard correctly on the news thismorning that Hutchinson-Wampoa
has just withdrawn from theproposed agreement to sell the
canal or the facilities ateither end of the canal to Black
(13:50):
Rock or Blackstone.
Do you have some thoughts onwhat has happened so far with
regard to the Panama Canal andwhat may happen?
Speaker 2 (13:59):
I think it's Black Rock in this situation regard to
the Panama Canal and what mayhappen.
I think it's BlackRock in thissituation.
Well, let me say this, and Iwant to make this disclaimer I'm
not a Washington insider, so Idon't have inside information on
any of these issues, but I am aperson experienced in
negotiating, so my comments areon what you and I can see in the
(14:22):
paper and on the news, andbased on that, I think I can
make some observations that maybe useful for people to
understand what's going on, butI'm not the insider.
In the case of Panama, trumpfollowed his pattern of putting
the issue on the table in a bigway, in a very public way, and
(14:48):
in so doing, he accomplishes anumber of things, one of which
is he informs the US public.
The issue of Panama has notbeen on people's radar for years
, and so it was not prior toTrump raising it.
I'm not aware that it was beingtreated as a current issue of
(15:12):
importance, and that's for anumber of reasons, largely the
lack of information on the partof the population.
So he does that.
At the same time, he makes ademand and puts pressure on the
opposing party, but one of theinteresting things that I think
the Panama situation illustrates, although, as you say, it does
(15:35):
appear that some of this isfalling apart now, but I think
that would be temporary.
I do not expect Trump to relenton pushing on this issue.
But one of the things thatillustrates is Trump has a very
broad-ranging experience.
(15:55):
He's previously been presidentof the United States, been
President of the United States,head of a major company in real
estate development and hotelsand golf courses, and so on and
so forth Quite a significantcompany.
He is somebody who has anaffinity with the military.
(16:16):
He didn't have a big militaryrecord, but he was trained at
school as a military cadet andso on, and so he has a very wide
range of interests and it'swhat you might call a talent or
skilled stack.
Is Trump the world's bestnegotiator?
I don't know, but he's a verygood negotiator.
(16:38):
Is Trump the world's biggestmilitary expert?
No, I don't think so, but he'sinterested and he follows it and
he's a very fast learner.
Is Trump the best financialanalyst in the world?
Well, maybe not, but he's got avery sophisticated
understanding of money and tradeflows and so on.
(17:00):
By the way, he has made himselfon the topic of the tariffs,
apparently made himself quite astudent of it in recent times,
and so he's aware of somehistory that a lot of people
aren't, which is that when wehad tariffs in the past, the
United States was flourishingeconomically.
(17:20):
A lot of people have beentrained to associate tariffs
with Smoot-Hawley, which somepeople have blamed for the Great
Depression.
That's highly debatable, buttariffs themselves are not
something that collapseseconomies.
Well, let me return to Panama.
So, because of this wide rangeof experience and insight, trump
(17:44):
, there are no dividing linesbetween diplomacy, national
security, business, finance,trade.
He doesn't have lines.
He reaches across all of thesedifferent topics to try to
create elements and bring theminto a negotiation as
(18:05):
advantageous.
So, in the case of Panama, thewhole idea of buying the firm
that had rights to manage thecanal, which is
Hutchinson-Winepoa this wasreally a commercial answer to a
national security issue, and Ithink we see this a lot with
(18:30):
Trump that he reaches forcommercial answers often to
things that somebody raisedpurely in the diplomatic or
national security arena mightnot see as solutions, might not
be creative in that way.
But what will happen withPanama?
(18:51):
I'm afraid I don't have anypredictions right now, other
than that I don't see the issuegoing away.
Trump will continue to press it.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Well, let's see if we can ask you to take out your
crystal ball again and take alook at the Greenland situation,
because I don't think thestrategic importance of
Greenland was on too many radarscreens before President Trump
took office.
Now I would be quick to saythat I've seen some marvelous
(19:22):
movies about the World War IIera, when the critical
importance of Greenland wasbrought to the attention of then
President Roosevelt and thesteps that he took to be able to
get bases there.
But apparently since that timeGreenland has not been the focus
(19:43):
of US strategic interests.
But now it is, and so are theredifferent negotiating
considerations with regard toGreenland versus what you've
mentioned with regard to Panama.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Well, as I said, everything's different.
Well, as I said, everything'sdifferent.
(20:26):
Greenland followed a kind of asimilar pattern where Trumpading
it to buying it, to having somesort of a trade or other
agreement or security agreementwhere we feel we have it within
our control to the extent weneed to, and I think he intends
to keep that vague and see wherehe can.
The Greenland thing I think itillustrates another interesting
(20:51):
aspect.
Most people in my experiencewho are going to looking for a
book or some interestinginformation about negotiating
that will help them, they thinkthat the answer is always going
to lie in personal relationsthem.
They think that the answer isalways going to lie in personal
relations they tend to look forhow do I present things, what
(21:14):
words do I say, how do I behave,and so on.
Trump it's interesting to watchTrump in this regard because in
general, I think Trump feels,as I do, that you have to show
respect for your negotiatingpartners.
The one thing you don't want todo typically is show any
(21:37):
disrespect, because thatintroduces an element of
personal animosity or resentmentthat could impair your path to
a satisfactory result.
So, in the case of Greenland,it's interesting that Vance, our
(22:00):
vice president, just went downthere and started chastising
Denmark for doing a lousy job.
And you might say well, that'sstrange.
You know, trump is oftencriticized for being respectful
to Putin, and here we've gotwhat is a friendly country and
(22:21):
they're calling him bad managers.
Why is that?
Well, I think the difference andthe difference with Panama
certainly is that Greenland isvery remote from Denmark.
Denmark doesn't have a verygood way to protect Greenland.
The US obviously could easilyinvade in the worst case, which
(22:46):
I'm not saying I expect at allbut the other counterparty is
not sure what Trump is willingor able to do, and I'll get back
to that in a second.
So but the Vance and othersimilar statements I think are
not intended for Denmark.
(23:06):
They're intended for thepopulation of Greenland and to
the for the population ofGreenland and to the extent the
population of Greenland isbrought around to the idea in a
big way that it would bewonderful to be part of the
United States as a territory ofpossession, even ultimately a
state, that this would enhancetheir quality of life and their
(23:30):
opportunities.
If there's a really strongpolitical movement within
Greenland, it's kind of hard tosee what Denmark would do to
resist it.
It certainly limits theiroptions.
It certainly limits theiroptions.
(23:52):
So that's kind of what I thinkis going on with Greenland.
Trump, by all objectivemeasures I've seen, is
completely correct about thenational security importance,
particularly the northernwaterways that go past Greenland
, which apparently now have alot of Chinese and Russian
(24:15):
shipping and the Chinese havebeen buying properties in
Greenland.
So it is a serious nationalsecurity interest and something
will happen.
My guess is there'll be someface-saving there or there will
be some sort of a jointownership or operation of
(24:36):
Greenland between the US andDenmark.
That's a guess as to where wemay end up with that one.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Interesting.
I know our time is somewhatlimited today and in the time
that we do have left, and thismay be terribly unfair,
difficult or maybe evenimpossible, but I'd like to take
a look at both the Ukraineconflict and the war in Gaza and
ask what your thoughts are,with regard to not only
(25:05):
President Trump but his alterego, mr Witkoff, in terms of the
way those negotiations arebeing handled and what, if
anything, you see, that mightcome out of that.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Well, ukraine is first of all, I think, ukraine,
although it has the elements ofa negotiation I'll explain in a
minute it might more properly bedescribed as a mediation which
Trump is trying to see, ifthere's a way to bring Putin
(25:42):
together with Zelenskyy slashUkraine.
So it's a little bitcomplicated, and then we become
a party to it to the extent wehave to put in some sort of
guarantees or engage in thisagreement, which I guess is
already complete, on rare earthminerals.
One of the things that is goingto be present, particularly in
(26:10):
the Middle East and Ukraine is,you know, the famous meeting at
the White House that blew up inmy observation was largely
although people bring in againall the personal kind of veneer
to it but I think basically itwas that Zelensky was trying to
(26:33):
get Trump to commit to asecurity guarantee of some sort,
which and he clearly iscollaborating closely with some
European countries and theywould all like that too and
Trump resisted that and, innegotiating terms, trump walked
(26:55):
away.
He said no, that's not it and Iwon't accept it and we'll cut
off the negotiation.
Now Zelensky, in that case, hadto come back and, in
negotiating terms, generallyspeaking, when you have to come
back after walking away, itmeans somebody called your bluff
and you're generally in aweaker negotiating position.
(27:19):
So, but the mediation thing ifyou, if you're mediating a
dispute and thing, if you'remediating a dispute and you are
looking, trying to look at itobjectively and say where is it
(27:40):
possible to get an agreement,you often find that one party
has a much stronger positionthan the other and you
inevitably, to make theagreement, are going to try to
move the party in the weakerposition towards the one in the
stronger position, not becauseyou favor one over the other
personally, but because this isthe way an agreement can be
accomplished.
And I think that Trump sees theresolution of the Ukraine war as
(28:09):
highly important strategicallyfor the United States.
He thinks that our mainadversary is China and that we
should not be involved in orworrying about wars in Europe
and so on at this time.
So Trump has been accused offavoring Putin.
(28:30):
I don't think he favors anybody, but in order to get a deal
done, as he told Zelensky to hisface, you don't have the cards
at the White House meeting.
So, again, time will tell.
Not everything is predictable,but this is the general
(28:51):
direction it's taking and thedanger, of course here is that
Putin feeling he has a stronghand is going to be more and
more difficult and demanding,but I also think that there's a
good case to be made that Putinhas plenty of reasons to try to
resolve this himself.
(29:12):
So I'm not personally.
I suspect there will beultimately an agreement, but the
Russian style of negotiation isto drag it out and drag you
down and dip away, and so it maynot be fast.
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
That is really, really helpful.
Let me ask you in the fewmoments that we have left here,
do you have any final thoughtson negotiations in what I'll
call the world of real politic?
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Well, again one thing I'd like to say, and some
people listening to this mayhave seen the Steve Witkoff
interview and he made a pointsimilar to one that had occurred
to me, which is if you and Iare starting a negotiation with
somebody that we have notpreviously dealt with, one of
(30:04):
the things that, of course, isconstantly going on a
negotiation is evaluating theother party.
Do they mean what they say?
To what extent are theybluffing?
Is their position weak orstrong?
Trump has complete and, by theway, in my view, a lot of these
(30:26):
early issues and signaling areof critical importance.
Very often the negotiation islargely complete by the time the
parties meet, because theto-ing and fro-ing and
positioning tends to be veryeducational on both sides.
(30:46):
But with Trump, you alreadyknow he's famous, he has a
history in negotiating, he has ahistory as president.
So Trump is pretty convincingthat he means what he says and
he's very capable of takingstrong and even disruptive
(31:07):
action if he needs to.
So if you are going tonegotiate with Trump, it's very
hard to be complacent.
If Trump says he's going to putheavy tariffs on your country,
one thing you can't do is saywell, he'll back down or it'll
(31:27):
go away.
And Trump doesn't have to say aword because you already know
his reputation, you already havea belief that he will pursue
the issue and it's just aquestion of where you come out.
But the status quo is not goingto remain.
You're not going to be able toprotect it going to remain.
(31:48):
You're not going to be able toprotect it.
In a power-oriented negotiation,trump starts with a goal.
Woodclaw said that himself.
I think it's a lot of people intheir personal negotiation.
They often don't stop and saywhat is my goal?
What do I want here?
What's the best thing?
They also don't stop andexamine where would I walk away
(32:13):
if I can't achieve it?
And then they don't impose timedeadlines.
Trump does all of those things,although he may not divulge the
walkaway, which is often kepthidden.
So that's his basic approach,which is what I call the power
approach.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Mr Kellogg, I am so grateful.
I think we've all learned anenormous amount from your
insights and perspectives.
Thank you very, very much.
Before we conclude this, can Iask you to please tell our
listeners where they can findyour book and tell them the name
again, because it's a littleunusual.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Well, the book.
Thank you, Jim.
The book is available on Amazonnow.
It's called Negotiate, with thenumber eight instead of the
letters A-T-E, so it'sN-E-G-O-T-I, number eight dot
com and you can find it onAmazon.
(33:12):
And I have a website which isnegotiate eight dot com, again
with the same number, and thereif you want to consult with me
on any topic relating tonegotiations or help arrange a
training or a seminar, you canput yourself in my calendar and
reach me very easily.
So thank you very much.
(33:33):
Appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.