Trump made history by meeting with Kim (not the Kardashian, the other one) to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The reaction to this event has been mixed. As would be expected, people tend to respond along their party affiliations and pundits have tended to stick with their usual lane.
One interesting counterfactual question is to ask how people would respond if Obama had been the one to meet with Kim during his presidency. Presumably, people would divide up by their party affiliations and pundits would stay in their usual lanes. For example, Fox New would probably have run harsh criticisms about Obama being a buddy to a tyrant and being weak. There would presumably also have implied that Obama was a secret communist.
Speculation about the reaction to a hypothetical meeting between Obama and Kim can be grounded by considering the response to a nuclear deal actually conducted by the Obama administration, namely the Iran deal. Trump harshly criticized the deal as did many of the pundits and politicians on the right. While a deal more favorable to the United States is imaginable, more objective observers tended to agree that it was a decent deal and was generally positive in its consequences. It is also important to note that Iran, as far as all the evidence showed, was sticking to the deal. As such, Trump broke a deal in which the other party was sticking to the terms. While this is the way of Trump, it certainly undermined the credibility of the United States and violated a basic principle of agreements, namely that they should be followed unless there is adequate justification to break them.
Trump and his supporters did allege that the deal was a bad one but tended to be short on evidence-based details regarding exactly why the United States should break this agreement. Breaking the deal was, of course, consistent with Trump’s generally approach of undoing what Obama did. It was also consistent with his vision of himself as the master deal maker. This leads to the obvious question of whether Trump’s deal is better than Obama’s deal. If Trump secured a better deal, then it would be reasonable to consider Trump’s claims that he is a skilled deal maker and that he needed to break the old Iran deal—presumably because he can get a better deal.
While it is better that Trump and Kim are talking and not engaged in war, the deal Trump has worked out seems to be worse than the Iran deal. This point is, obviously enough, a contentious one: Trump’s supporters will assert that Trump got the better deal; his most devoted detractors will simply insist on the opposite. However, it is possible to compare the deals point by point to see were they differ and Trump supporters need to argue why the attacks on the Iran deal would not also apply to the North Korea deal and show it to be as bad (or as good). As with all matters political, it could be contended that whether the deal is better or worse does not matter, what matters is the perception of the base and how it impacts upcoming elections in the United States. However, the possibility of a nuclear conflict should make this a matter of greater concern that transcends the scoring of short-term political points. Sadly, the Iran deal shows that this is not the case. A possible reply is to point out that perhaps the meeting will result in North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons.
The obvious concern here, one that is always raised when a country is asked to give up a nuclear weapon program, is that the country is well-aware that its nuclear program is the reason it is being offered a deal. I will look at this matter using two different analogies.
One way to look at it is analogous to a person who has something of great value, like money. Other people want to make deals to get that money (or just take it). However, if the money runs out, then there is no longer any reason to make deals. Or stick to past deals. Unless, of course, that person was able to get more money in the future.
The same would seem to apply to a nuclear program—if North Korea gives up its weapons, then there would no longer be any reason to make nuclear deals with them—or keep past deals. Unless, of course, North Korea was able to get more nuclear weapons in the future. Given the past references to basing the North Korea deal on the Libya model (in which Kaddafi ended up being sodomize with a bayonet and then killed), perhaps this is Trump’s plan—to play Kim until he can bayonet him.
Another way to look at the matter is analogous to a person who has a drug or alcohol addiction—they have something bad that makes them terrible. In this case, the point of a “deal” is to get them to be rid of the drugs. In this case, the person making the deal has an incentive to keep dealing to keep the addict from going back to the drugs. The addict thus has an incentive to stay clean, assuming the deal is better than the drugs. This deal might, for example, involve being able to stay in a relationship or keep a job.
In the case of North Korea, perhaps Kim wants something that he is willing to give up his weapons for, such as membership in the international community. That is, he is like the addict who wants to go and stay clean to get into a relationship that requires him to be clear.
As a closing point, it is worth noting that Kim might simply be playing Trump and the United States and that he has no intention of yielding anything of value. Other than stroking Trump’s ego, of course.
TJB says
June 13, 2018 at 2:43 pmIt’s kind of amusing to watch people go from “Trump is about to start WWIII” to “Trump is a weak appeaser” in a few short months…
DH says
June 13, 2018 at 3:08 pmweeks
Michael LaBossiere says
June 15, 2018 at 9:23 pmSuch is politics. Obama, for example, was cast as a weakling who also slaughtered too many people with his murder drones.
DH says
June 13, 2018 at 3:07 pmLike so many of your posts, your take on the Trump/Kim summit reveals an unbalanced point of view that echoes the sentiments of the left.
My first question is, “What deal?” There is no deal. Trump says there is no deal, the signed paper that emerged from this meeting is little more than a “Letter of Intent”, and Trump himself has said that his gesture of removing troops from the area and ceasing military “war games” is little more than a gesture of good faith. There is nothing to “go back on” here.
Critics of this “deal”, like Chuck Schumer of New York, are criticizing something that is made up. Schumer says,
“Trump is giving a brutal dictatorship legitimacy”
Well, consider the alternatives. For decades, the strategy of not giving them “legitimacy” hasn’t worked out so well. They are isolated from the world, they are living under severe trade sanctions that harm their citizens, and they have been aggressively pursuing dangerous military nuclear capabilities.
Of course, the other scenario under which “legitimacy” appears so prominent is as regards Iran’s view of Israel. In the eyes of Iran, the State of Israel has no legitimacy, they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol, and have called out several times for its destruction. As a result of this, there is a constant state of war between the two nations. Imagine what might happen if Iran were to capitulate on this “legitimacy” issue, and attempt to establish diplomatic relations through a summit between Rouhani and Netanyahu. No doubt hard liners on both sides would echo the same criticisms now being levied against Trump.
I would maybe re-word Schumer’s statement –
“Trump is acknowledging that a brutal dictatorship is now a force that needs to be dealt with”
There are only a few options on the table here – diplomacy, war, or laissez-faire. We know what the last one has led to, so that’s not acceptable. Diplomacy has never before been an option – and the only other option is war. Does Schumer or the other critics have a better idea? Do you?
Continuing with Schumer’s statments (I’m using his statements because he is in a position politically to act as a spokesperson for his party, which I think he is doing), he says that the deal “Lacks in detail” and gives Kim “too much room to back out”. Again, I ask – “What Deal?”
He continues by saying, “It is best not to dive in head first and hope for the best but rather to work slowly, transparently and verifiably to build trust and lock in concessions,”
I worry about Schumer’s ability to comprehend what is in front of him. His criticism describes pretty much exactly what is going on. How can you hammer out details in a four hour meeting, and “not dive in headfirst” at the same time?
Everything else Schumer says is true. Kim does have a history of backing out. We know this. Kim may not agree to any more concessions now that he has scored the public relations coup of meeting with the US President. We know this. Schumer is critical of the suspension of military exercises with South Korea, our “longtime ally” – perhaps in an attempt to paint a picture of betrayal of our allies on behalf of Trump – but in reading the opinions of the people and the government of South Korea, there is no betrayal sensed, only hope and joy. The summit between Trump and Kim is very similar to the meeting between Kim and Moon.
So in answer to my own question, “What Deal”? here is the full text of the signed agreement.
I’ve read it several times – the goal of the meeting is clearly stated as “an exchange of opinions” regarding the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, with a goal of peace. There is nothing to detail here, nothing to back out of, nothing committed except opinion and intent.
Here’s an analogy – there are many changes going on in my school; curricular, personnel, long-term and short-term goals and obligations. I sent an email to my dean asking for a meeting. During the half hour meeting, we talked about some of the changes that were afoot; I expressed concern for some of them, support for others, and made sure that my goals as a faculty member were addressed. The dean is new, we had met before but only briefly. She listened to my concerns – she expressed her gratitude to me for voicing them. She expressed her own commitment to make sure that all of the proposed changes addressed faculty concerns and were implemented in a way that worked for everyone. And then, at the end of the meeting – We agreed to commit to future meetings, with specific agendas, to discuss details and alternatives.
The purpose of our meeting was to take a measure of each other – personally and politically – to see if we could get along well enough to make future meetings fruitful. Neither of us expected to resolve anything at the meeting, nothing was signed or expected to be signed.
And so it was with this “Summit”. It is a first step to diplomacy. As Trump himself says, “We shall see”. As my father used to say in various contexts, “It’s better than the alternative”
Beyond the fact that the two men got together and agreed to continue efforts to diplomacy, any praise or criticism of the content is ridiculous.
DH says
June 13, 2018 at 5:47 pmwow – apologies for the huge link and the runaway italics … didn’t proofread and apparently neglected to put in the in a few places.
DH says
June 13, 2018 at 5:11 pm…”One way to look at it is analogous to a person who has something of great value, like money. Other people want to make deals to get that money (or just take it). However, if the money runs out, then there is no longer any reason to make deals.”
This is not a surprising comment, given the ways in which you have described the free market and/or capitalism in the past.
A better way to look at this would be if both parties had something of value – in particular, of value to the other party, and they each make a deal to further their own interests. This is a matter of negotiating, compromising, showing good faith in some areas and holding firm in others. The essence of a good deal is when both parties are able to get enough of what they want to be satisfied, with all cards being on the table.
Who knows what Kim wants? There is a lot more at stake than just giving up Nuclear Weapons. Once that deal is done (assuming it will be), the world will open up to DPRK, one small step at a time. The rest of the industrialized world realizes the benefits to this – Maybe Kim is envisioning a future in which DPRK can play a big part in the world economy instead of living in isolation, protectionism, brutality and threat.
Once the nukes are gone, then the sanctions are lifted. Once the sanctions are lifted, dozens of new trade partners exist. Once the new trade partners emerge, participation in a global economy ensues.
On the other side of that, he keeps the nukes and the only deals he can make are based on threats.
Of course, that’s a pretty “Pollyanna” outlook – so I repeat Trump’s words – “We shall see. Maybe a year from now we can look back and say that this was a big mistake. Maybe not.”
Kevin Henderson says
June 13, 2018 at 6:20 pmIt is good that Trump is talking to North Korea. It’s amusing that the far-right press praises his cordiality towards a known dictator. Let’s hope Trump makes similar ties to anti-gun or atheist communities and see how far the right will concede their prophet must be on to something.