March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

April 15, 2017--America First?

Whatever became of America First? Donald Trump's nationalistic view that we have spent too much time worrying about what is going on in the world and not enough on America's needs? The need for more well-paying jobs, the restoration of manufacturing and extraction industries, infrastructure repairs, and sealed borders?

This was expressed legislatively and though the wielding of executive orders to contain immigration, lower taxes, reduce regulations, and of course "fix" the healthcare system.

But now we have Trump reversing himself in many regards very much including turning considerable attention to foreign affairs.

Most dramatically, he had President Xi of China spend two days bonding with him at Mar-a-Lago, sent Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the G-7 foreign ministers' summit and then on to Moscow for meetings with his Russian counterpart and a two-hour encounter with President Putin. And there was the missile strike against Syria.

And now North Korea appears to be occupying him. He is attempting to get China to "take care of the problem," all the while moving an aircraft carrier and its armada close to North Korean waters.

Usually it is not until their second terms in office that presidents turn their attention to international issues. To polish their legacies. Unless, like Johnson and Nixon they inherit a war. That by definition gets them involved with other countries.

I suspect Trump has shifted his focus off shore because he has come to realize that to concentrate on domestic issues means having to deal day-by-day with Congress. And we know what that means--a nightmare. Even with a Republican majority in both Houses we still have gridlock. At the moment not a bad thing. That's what happened to the campaign promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. With this effort collapsing he came to realize that with the domestic agenda there is very little "winning."

So Trump is pivoting, not from one domestic issue to another or compromising about the details of what might (or might not) replace Obamacare or be included in a tax reform package, but he is now shifting his attention from the U.S. to NATO,  China, Russia, North Korea,  and Syria.

It is in the international realm as commander in chief that he can exert virtually unchecked power. In other words, in world affairs he can behave as a CEO. Which is how he regards himself. And it is there, equally important to him, that he can reap the praise of even Democrats and the mainstream media.

He castigates the media, claiming it deals in fake news; but, let's be honest, would he prefer to hear positive things from Fox News or the New York Times?  The answer is a no-brainer.