FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Where Is Trump Going With His Foreign Policy — Especially When It Comes To North Korea?

Just learned from a release by the Associated Press that President Trump has dumped Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Wow!  It’s getting hard to know who is in his Cabinet without a numbered sweater.  What’s even more interesting is that Tillerson’s dismissal comes following Trump’s announcement that he plans to meet with the “little rocket man” — Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s Dictator. Just by sitting down with the President, Kim Jong Un will get what he craves the most: legitimacy.  Of course, this sudden move on the part of Trump most likely caught the former Secretary of State off guard.  Indeed, the entire State Department and foreign service were probably excluded from the decision-making process.  Instead, it appears that the South Korean administration is driving the agenda.  That leaves the Trump administration with few people with experience in dealing with North Korea, while those in the North Korean Foreign Ministry have been working on little else.

No one really knows Kim Jong Un all that while. He certainly has studied Donald Trump.  In the short-run, sanctions relief is definitely one of his goals.  In addition, there is little doubt that the planned May meeting is a ploy on the part of North Korea. Any unlikely peace treaty would require addressing issues regarding the U.S. military’s presence in South Korea and its transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea and United Nations forces in South Korea.

Trump is employing a very high-risk strategy which could backfire spectacularly. Kim Jong Un will never agree to so-called “denuclearization” without major unacceptable concessions by the U.S.  Any concessions will certainly strengthen his regime’s safety externally while ensuring his continuing internal control over the North Korean people.  As one expert on North Korea noted: “Kim wants to portray himself as the bold leader of a normal, peace-loving nuclear power who can meet an American president as equals.” For Kim, the associated propaganda will greatly benefit him on the home front where the current sanctions have had a detrimental impact on the day-to-day lives of North Koreans.  Expect more displays of affection for the regime.

The real danger here is that Trump may be all too willing to concede on a number of important policy matters in order to claim some sort of diplomatic triumph. Donald Trump may perceive himself as a “great negotiator”, but he is no match for the North Koreans.  I suspect that Rex Tillerson recognized this, warned Trump, and subsequently left following his voiced objections.  This is an all too familiar occurrence within Trump’s administration, and can only lead to greater White House problems and internal dissension.

Leave a comment »

With Trump, ‘Brinksmanship’ Appears to be the Name of the Game

Brinksmanship is defined as the pursuit of a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping. When it comes to Syria, North Korea and Iran, it appears that President Trump is willing to employ this approach to his foreign policy. What is curious, is the fact that during his campaign Donald Trump indicated that he wanted the U.S. to avoid becoming the world’s policeman. Even then, his platform was and continues to be incoherent as evidenced on his changed stance on Russia and NATO. Putin was a good guy, now not so much!  NATO was obsolete, now not so much!  Worry about ISIS, not about Syria’s Assad regime. All that changed with the recent use of chemical weapons by Assad on civilians, including children.

I remember the Cuban blockade of Soviet Union cargo ships which was imposed unilaterally by President Kennedy in response to Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. Fortunately, this scary example of brinksmanship did not lead to a full-out nuclear war because of delicate behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations with Moscow at the time. The U.S. had to agree to withdraw its missiles stationed in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. Both sides came to their senses, and back room diplomacy saved the day.

The U.S. is today’s only real superpower. With respect to the proportion of its GDP in terms of military spending, it far outspends countries such as China and Russia. However, even though the U.S. currently has enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy any country, President Trump wants to increase its nuclear arsenal. Given such policies, one would think that other countries would see his position as a further threat to their internal and external political and economic objectives.  Whether one agrees or not with American intentions, launching unilateral military strikes against countries or carrying out military exercises off their shores is being interpreted as belligerent actions.  Moreover, saying that foreign regimes “must behave” sends an ‘inciteful’ message.

I would suggest that American behaviour has to also be in accordance with international laws and coherent foreign policy goals. The way to avoid brinksmanship is to keep open the lines of communication through diplomatic channels, including those of one’s allies.  Canada and its other NATO allies cannot afford to sit back, wait and watch as this dangerous drama unfolds on the international stage. It is incumbent upon America’s allies to provide a stabilizing effect when confronted with any form of brinksmanship. As during the Cuban crisis, we may be able to avoid future conventional wars, and even all-out nuclear conflicts.

Leave a comment »