The Art of the Dialogue
Muharem Rusiti
November 2026
Diplomacy is often judged by what it produces: a dispute resolved, a deal reached, a treaty signed, a market opened. Yet some of its most consequential work takes place before an agreement is possible, in the relationships that shape how people interpret one another, communicate disagreement, and decide whether cooperation remains worth pursuing.
Formal institutions, established procedures, and clearly defined negotiating positions remain essential. But diplomacy is also conducted by people, whose personalities, communication styles, and mutual perceptions can influence how those structures work in practice. Familiarity and credibility can help create the conditions for progress; misunderstanding or a poorly judged exchange can make an already difficult negotiation harder. Personal diplomacy is not a substitute for institutional processes. It is one of the forces that can shape their outcomes.
The 2025–26 tariff dispute between Switzerland and the United States illustrates both the opportunities and the risks. On April 2, 2025, Washington announced a 31 percent tariff on Swiss goods as part of its new reciprocal tariff policy. [1] On April 9, following a call between Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter and President Donald Trump, the United States announced a 90-day suspension of country-specific tariffs for most trading partners, replacing them with an additional 10 percent tariff. [2][3] The broader measure offered Switzerland temporary relief and the prospect of a lasting resolution of the underlying dispute.
On July 31, the United States announced a 39 percent tariff on Swiss goods, set to take effect the following week. [4] Keller-Sutter and Trump had held another call that day. Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the call had turned tense and that the new rate was set within hours. [5] Trump later said publicly that he had not liked the way Keller-Sutter spoke to him and that he raised tariffs after their conversation. [6][7][8] Swiss officials had reportedly believed a draft framework was close to approval. The Swiss government declined to comment on the reported details of the call. [5] The episode showed how direct access to a leader can close a door as quickly as it opens one.
A different form of engagement followed. On November 4, six Swiss business leaders met Trump at the White House in an initiative the Swiss government described as private and independent of the Federal Council. Trump directed the U.S. Trade Representative to schedule follow-up negotiations with Swiss officials. [9] On November 14, Washington announced a framework under which the United States intended to apply a combined tariff rate of 15 percent to most Swiss goods, or the higher most-favored-nation rate where applicable, subject to specified exceptions. [10] The framework reflected a broader negotiation involving market access, investment commitments, and economic interests on both sides, and the business leaders’ meeting certainly played an important role in that process, though it was not the only factor behind the outcome.
Yet the framework did not definitively settle the dispute. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose general tariffs, the United States introduced temporary duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. These remained in place until July 24, when they were replaced by additional duties under Section 301. For Swiss goods, the new measures generally brought the combined tariff rate to 12.5 percent, taking existing most-favored-nation duties into account. Exemptions and separate sector-specific measures apply, including additional tariffs on certain pharmaceutical products that took effect on July 31, 2026. Negotiations on a longer-term trade agreement continued. [11] The sequence is a reminder that personal engagement takes place within a changing political and legal landscape, and that a breakthrough in one phase does not guarantee a lasting settlement.
The case also highlights why different forms of engagement can complement one another. Government officials bring formal mandates and an understanding of national interests; business leaders can contribute commercial knowledge and direct experience of the consequences of policy decisions. Personal encounters can help translate these perspectives, make priorities more tangible, and reveal the people behind negotiating positions. Their value lies not only in securing access to decision-makers, but also in shaping how interests are understood and how disagreements are handled.
The importance of personal relationships extends beyond the immediate negotiation. Understanding a counterpart’s personality, priorities, communication style, and constraints can help decision-makers choose the right approach, identify common ground, and recognize when a message might be better delivered through another channel. Understanding a counterpart does not mean endorsing their position or assuming that their interests align with your own. It means being better equipped to engage with them realistically and constructively. Rapport does not eliminate competing interests, nor does it guarantee agreement. It can, however, help preserve a working relationship through disagreement. Even when a conversation fails to produce an immediate result, it may clarify misunderstandings, maintain contact, and make future exchanges more productive.
This is where strategic advisory work can make a practical contribution. Sound preparation helps negotiators and decision-makers, as well as the businesses affected by their choices, assess the political context, understand competing interests, anticipate how an approach may be received, and determine who should deliver which message, through which channel, and when. Such preparation cannot control another person’s response. It can help ensure that engagement is informed by a clearer understanding of both the political environment and the human dynamics at play.
International relations will always be shaped by interests, power, and institutions. But these forces do not operate independently of the people who interpret them and decide how to respond. Personal diplomacy matters not because a good relationship can overcome every disagreement, but because it can influence whether differences become more entrenched or remain open to discussion. Sometimes its most important contribution is a deal. At other times, it is the dialogue that keeps the possibility of a deal alive.
Sources
[1] The White House. “Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits.” Executive Order 14257, April 2, 2025.
[2] The White House. “Modifying Reciprocal Tariff Rates to Reflect Trading Partner Retaliation and Alignment.” Executive Order 14266, April 9, 2025.
[3] Reuters. “Swiss President Talks Trade with Trump, Hopes for Fixes Soon.” April 9, 2025.
[4] Federal Register. “Further Modifying the Reciprocal Tariff Rates.” Executive Order 14326, signed July 31, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 37963, published August 6, 2025.
[5] Bloomberg. “Swiss Tariff Deal Push Hits Roadblock in Heated Trump Call.” Republished by SWI swissinfo.ch, August 2, 2025.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-push-for-tariff-deal-hits-roadblock-in-heated-trump-call/89772044
[6] SWI swissinfo.ch. “Switzerland Today: Briefing on Trump’s Speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.” January 21, 2026.
[7] SWI swissinfo.ch. “Trump Repeats Claim That Switzerland ‘Rips Off the United States.’” February 11, 2026.
[8] The Hill. “Trump Says He Raised Swiss Tariffs After Leader’s Call: ‘I Didn’t Really Like the Way She Talked.’” February 11, 2026.
[9] SupplyChainBrain. “Rolex, Partners Group Take Swiss Tariff Plea Direct to Trump.” November 7, 2025.
[10] The White House. “Joint Statement on a Framework for a United States – Switzerland – Liechtenstein Agreement on Fair, Balanced, and Reciprocal Trade.” November 14, 2025.
[11] State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). “Swiss-US Trade Relations.” August 17, 2026.
Comments