The appalling exchange between Presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump was a wake-up call to all leaders, whichever side they took. Homework is required. Now more than ever, leaders need to work out how best to prepare for negotiations, then work on how to focus both themselves and their agenda, and, finally, work up ways to win.
Back in the day, when I used to manage ministers’ offices – and mind the ministers within them – the most critical matter was always how exactly to advise a minister. My own solution was to offer three points of advice before any important meeting or engagement. Two points was too few, likely to be construed as insulting. Four was too many: merely confusing. Three was, if not the gold, then the Goldilocks standard.
Ministers in charge of foreign policy or defence, those habitually dealing with foreigners, confront still more obstacles when juggling three points. They regularly do so in an alien setting, through another language, amid a cluttered maze of convoluted precedents, abstruse position papers and intricate diplomatic puzzles. Security blankets come in different shapes and sizes. Having three points ready to hand might prove particularly reassuring in such a tight spot.
Where I grew up, the local pie maker used to advertise that a consumer could “meet the meat first bite”. Leaders should aspire to the same punchiness.
For foreign ministers, the simple alternative to mastering a few specific points is relying on the official, bureaucratic armoury of comprehensive talking points. That form of pidgin ventriloquism demeans both the drafter and the speaker. No conundrum cannot be trivialised, no tactic not bowdlerised, no grand statement of principle not pulped into dot-dash trivia.
Foreign ministries are too often converted into factories for the manufacture of endlessly updated, finessed, overtaken, polished talking points. I have watched generations of diplomats poring over the minutiae of talking points as though they were monks crafting an illuminated manuscript in the Middle Ages.
The opportunity cost in true reflection and analysis is inordinately high. Reductive, repetitive refinement of banalities can only produce mush. I recall one official talking point which asked whether a hackneyed piety – this one about the rules-based order – still held water. That note concluded:
. As is government policy
- we think
. YES
With luck, the foreigner on the receiving end of that wisdom might have left merely baffled.
Besides, whoever is sitting on the other side of the table can easily detect the symptoms of passive regurgitation of talking points. Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin reportedly decided not to take Ronald Reagan seriously after he watched the US President reading from index cards in the Oval Office. Germany’s Angela Merkel had to riffle through her cards to work out what to say to Scott Morrison, or, perhaps, who he was. When I asked one prime minister about themes for a speech, he replied: “how do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
Nevertheless, for ministers a few simple hints (here, more than three) might prove helpful.
Seeking a meeting of minds is futile; a convergence of interests should remain the goal. Leaders aspiring to become a guard dog or seeing-eye dog for their counterparts, as Tony Blair with George W. Bush, might end up impersonating a poodle.
Writing out key points in your own time, with your own hand, means you can own the argument. Talking points need, first, to be thinking points. Active listening can help push a discussion into greater complexity and depth, as well as demonstrating respect. Digressions, humour and irony are artful tricks, but ministers should bear in mind Jimi Hendrix’s counsel about musical riffs. He commended them, while noting that riffs needed to be based on a profound respect for the instrument and on thousands of long hours of hard practice.
Preparation should be exacting. One Australian prime minister used to summon his staff before Question Time, demanding that they pepper him with the sharpest, nastiest questions they could imagine. Afterwards, opposition sallies across the dispatch box seemed agreeably milquetoast. American political parties do similarly intense simulations before presidential debates. The beleaguered Zelenskyy might have benefited from a warm-up bout like that before talking to Trump.
In the meeting itself, come to the point straight away, recognising that time is short, opportunities are limited, leaders are tired, and discussions are transactional. Where I grew up, the local pie maker used to advertise that a consumer could “meet the meat first bite”. Leaders should aspire to the same punchiness. Winston Churchill used to reserve his most stirring lines for the perorations of his speeches. In a discussion, nobody listens to famous last words.
Officials may deplore an independent minister unburdened by talking points. One-on-one meetings between ministers can quickly expose those not up to the job. Neville Chamberlain still bears personal responsibility for the Munich debacle. Conversely, Reagan’s walk in the woods with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Reykjavik summit could have up-ended the superpowers’ established strategic doctrines. Nonetheless, who really wants a house-trained, docile lion tamer, high-wire walker?
