Trump calls Kim’s bluff and finesses him
At least, that’s the way I see this announcement:
“Please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place,” Trump wrote in a letter to Kim.
Why?:
On Wednesday, a top North Korean official launched another verbal fusillade at the Trump administration, calling Vice President Pence a “political dummy” and saying his government is just as ready to inflict an “appalling tragedy” on the U.S. as it is to talk.
The president returned the favor in his letter, writing that while Kim likes to “talk about” his nuclear capabilities, “ours are so massive and so powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.”…
Trump, however, did not close the door to sitting down with the reclusive North Korean leader in the future.
“Some day, I look very much forward to meeting you,” he wrote. “If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.”
I used two metaphors from card playing: calling a bluff (poker) and finessing (bridge). Not being much of a card player myself, maybe I’m not using then exactly correctly. And of course negotiations with North Korea are not a game.
Except that all negotiations are games, not in the sense of being light entertainment, but in the sense of strategy and tactics and sizing up one’s opponent. Here Trump is delivering a message that says: you think you’re in charge? Think again. If you want to meet with me, there’s a certain standard of behavior that’s required.
Whether the message will be received in a way that ends up being to the US’s advantage—and, as Trump suggests, to the world’s advantage—remains to be seen.
Somewhere, in a marble hall in the depths of some palace, in one or those monstrously large armchairs, Little Rocketman is saying to himself, “Well, shit! That didn’t work.”
Kim is probably hoping that Democrats can stampede Trump into signing a bad deal, the way they did with Bush.
I still haven’t seen Pence’s comments but any mention of Libya in connection with denuclearizing is bad psychology. Hillary poisoned that well forever.
Right Mike K. I just don’t get Pence and Bolton suggesting the Libya model. The USA (Obama Admin.) supported regime change in Libya AFTER they gave up their Nukes. Basically what Kim heard is, “Give up your nukes and we’ll oust you. Keep them and we’ll leave you alone.” Dumb!
So if a bad attitude costs Kim, imagine what screwing around will get him. Good opening move.
Kim will never agree to giving up nuclear weapons. He may well sign an agreement, with some future Obama-like Democrat, to denuclearize, but that will mean removing American forces from South Korea. They will never permit verifiable inspections in North Korea.
Kim and the North Korean military think in terms of tribute and patrons. That may be the politics of a different era, but it’s an era that’s lasted for thousands of years, and isn’t over in many parts of the world. North Koreans would only meet with Americans to extract tribute. If there’s little prospect of tribute, then there’s no meeting. If China becomes an unreliable patron, then Korea will switch to Russia.
Maybe Kim will meet with Trump someday, but I doubt it. It’s far more likely that they just wait out Trump and keep painting him as a war monger seeking Armageddon. Meanwhile, they keep building more ICBMs. When they need cash, they sell a missile to Iran. Sooner or later, Americans will elect somebody like Bernie Sanders. Negotiations will then begin in earnest.
NK and probably China are testing djt. They just learned Trump is not even remotely like wjc, gwb, or bho. I think Kim will eventually signal he’s ready for a deal on Trump’s terms. Bottom line, even rocket boy realizes that when push comes to shove we can annihilate his dynasty.
Kim and his generals want to stay in power. If they shut down their nuclear/missle program (verified of course) sanctions will be lightened and everybody, except the majority of those who suffer under the regime, will be happy.
Trump handled it well.
Bolton and Pence mentioning Libya holds no upside for America. Either a moment of unconscious stupidity or intentionally seeking to derail the meeting. If so, they greatly overstepped their authority.
But I’ve never entertained the notion that the Norks were ever serious about negotiating. IMO, this has been about buying time while they continue to work on reducing the size of the nuke to fit on an ICBM and developing air burst capability.
At this point there’s no way they’re giving up their pursuit of nuclear ICBM capability. Kim is counting on Trump’s unwillingness to risk nuclear war with China.
GB,
IMO China is not excited by the thought of exchanging warheads over propping up the Kim dynasty. They can easily set up a more docile puppet regime. If whoa fat believes that he is dumber than I imagine.
I agree that Bolton and Pence were stuck on stupid referring to Libya which worked out so well for our security. A better, more appropriate example, would be Saddam.
I’m with Purdie and Geoffrey Britain: mentioning Libya was idiotic.
This is fun to watch unfold. Both parties are good and clever. I would not be surprised to learn the reference to Libya was done to test Kim, to learn, or confirm, from his response what he values. Trump knows concessions will have to be made, he wants to figure out which ones will get the best return.
Trusting Obama didn’t work out for Quadaffi, being fearful of what Bush might havce done kept Quadaffi alive and in power after Saddam was swinging. Obama’s “handling” of Lybia didn’t work out well for Quadaffi or for the Middle East and North Aftica.
Yes indeed. All negotiations can be considered ‘games’.
In mathematics study of such problems is called, appropriately enough, Game Theory.
You got to know when to hold ’em,
Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealing’s done.
— Kenny Rogers, 1978
parker,
I agree that China does not want to get into a nuclear war with America. However, IMO they believe that once the balance of power has shifted, when push comes to shove, we’ll be the ones backing down.
Plus, if a more docile N.K. is what they want, why let things get to this point? Is it reasonable to imagine that China didn’t long ago foresee where this road would lead? The Chinese have been enabling the Norks pursuit of nuclear ICBMs for what 50 years? Which begs the question; what purpose does a nuclear ICBM capable N.K. serve for China?
I’ve wrestled with that question and can come up with only one practical possibility. Leverage.
IMO, the Norks overriding societal goal is reunification of Korea under the North. It explains all of their actions.
Nuclear ICBM capability is a game changer. It’s the one thing that could prevent US interference in the event of an invasion of the South by the North.
So too with China and Taiwan. But of course, China already has that capability and has yet to place that card on the table… which is where the Norks come into play. They are the pawn China is employing to establish precedent.
That precedent being nuclear blackmail.
We might doubt that China would actually threaten innocent populations but no one will doubt Kim’s intent. Once Kim obtains an arsenal of nuclear ICBMs, he won’t launch a suicidal attack upon the US. He’s a monster but he’s not an idiot. Nor is the N.K. leadership that supports him.
Instead, he’ll threaten to immolate multiple regional population centers as a deterrent to our interference when he attacks the South. And, we have no way to defend or prevent a N.K. nuclear ICBM attack on regional population centers. Think 150 MILLION innocent hostages…
I can’t imagine Congress agreeing to risk that many people’s lives. Nor can I imagine a President risking both those lives and certain impeachment if the worst happens. It’s a no win scenario for the US. No matter what happens we get the blame.
IF successful, the Chinese have a clearly established path forward to Taiwan, unchallenged regional dominance and global ‘influence’.
If unsuccessful, China has risked little.
Richard Saunders,
How apropos. I’m not a fan of Rogers but “The Gambler” and “Lucille” are truly memorable songs.
Trump also reminded Rocketman that I have a very large stick with which to deal with you should you act out.
Thanks, GB, glad you liked it. There’s no question in my mind that the relaxing the sanctions on ZTE was a direct response to China’s purported pressure on L’il Kim. Trump noted, in one of his off-hand lawn pressers, that the Norks changed their tune after a surprise and unpublicized meeting between Rocketman and Xi. Don’t be surprised if the sanctions against ZTE suddenly spring back to life.
This is, of course, the correct thing to do.