When a Bad Leader is on the Good Side of History

Image source: actionsports © 123RF.com

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut!

Discussing foreign policy is a dubious undertaking. Any critical analysis of a heated political issue, which is simultaneously circulating the media and the public discourse, is usually directed at the consequences of that issue, with reference being made to its effectiveness, without giving it a second round of deeper considerations. For instance, it has become the norm to talk about Donald Trump's character, when contesting his presidential orders.

People like to talk about his narcissism, his delusions of grandeur and his bloated ego, however, people never fail to neglect the fact that even a bad leader with weak character can be right on a particular issue, every once in a while.

However, does an effective foreign policy, which is carried out for the wrong reasons, be considered a success? The bigger problem under evaluation here is connected to the centuries-old debate in political discourse, namely – does the end goal justify the means?

No matter on which side of the argument you find yourself, your opinion is undoubtedly going to affect your value judgement of foreign policy. So, even a president with an unsavoury character, such as Donald Trump, can occasionally be on the right side of history, case in mind being the US/North Korea nuclear weapons deliberations. Only the future knows, whether Trump will manage to provoke Kim Jong-Un to suspend his nuclear program and consequentially secure world peace, however, if he succeeds in that endeavour we can be confident that future commentators will turn a blind eye to the means with which he achieved that. As the old saying goes, history is written by the victors.

There is more to consider here. Regardless of whether Trump manages to win over his negotiations with the North Korean leader, his political struggle might be predisposed by less awe-inspiring ideals of global peace and his rationale might be far less benign. As history has proven time and time again – even a lousy leader can defend moral ideals for the wrong reasons.

Stopping North Korea's program of developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) is of vital importance for the future of global peace talks and mutual collaboration on an inter-state level. Moreover, Donald Trump's administration has not thus far derailed too far of course from the long history of US policy in the Korean peninsula. Trump has embraced the already proven American policy of deterrence and smothering of the Kim family's nuclear ambitions, by implementing trade embargo and isolating the DPKR's economy from the rest of the world. What was different from his approach with that of his predecessor Obama, was that initially, Trump was very vocal and stringent in his public outbursts of condemnation directed at Kim's nuclear policy.

By referring to his North Korean counterpart with expressions, such as “little rocket man” and talking about his “bigger desk button”, Trump has managed to encapsulate the public's imagination and presented himself as a determined leader, who was not going to back down from his initial position, no matter what. In comparison, Obama was much less clamorous in his foreign policy towards North Korea, keeping it somewhat side-lined to his political struggles at home, most notably pushing for the implementation of his Obamacare act.

In the wake of last year's summit between Trump and Kim Jong-Un in Singapore, the US president's verbal assault was perceived as a refreshing stance on foreign policy by the general public, as oftentimes people consider loudness the same as effective when it comes to politicians. That is a common misconception, because of which the world of today is suffering under the pressure of rising populism. Trump was right to condemn the Korean leader for pushing on with his nuclear agenda, but this moral stance should not so lightheartedly be confused for a benevolent defence of pacifism. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut every once in a while!

So, what happened last time when those two met? The highly anticipated summit between the US president and the North Korean leader in mid- July of 2018 was a milestone in the diplomatic ties between the two countries, and the global community was eager to see what the long-lasting consequences were going to be. Before the two leaders faced off, they had entirely different experiences at the same time.

On the one hand, Donald Trump was enjoying a high point in his presidency with his victory in the elections still resonating in US politics, his protectionist policies still gaining momentum and arguably winning the support of allies and opponents alike. Additionally, the major US indexes, including the Dow and the S&P, it seemed were on an unprecedented course of breaking gain records, virtually on a daily basis. At that point in time, the loom of a growing out of proportion US federal budget deficit was not a serious concern for investor confidence, rather it was a small noise distortion to the intoxicating melody of easy profits, which were gained from Trump's tariffs policy.

Those were times before the Democrats had managed to regain the majority in the House and not even the Muller probe into Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential election seemed a serious threat to Trump's solidified position.

Hence, his relatively smooth sailing experience in the domestic political arena granted President Trump a sense of comfort, which he could use to shift his focus towards the external political arena. For the most part of his first two years in office, Trump's agenda resembled that of a mythological knight who was out on a quest to slay as many dragons as he could find along his journey. Hence, for Trump, the opportunity to resolve the ongoing conflict with North Korea seemed a prime opportunity for him to score some extra points and flood his twitter account with tales of his glory.

On the other hand, for Kim, the situation was far from perfect. North Korea was facing an ever-increasing list of economic sanctions and restrictions, most notably from the US, and this almost complete exclusion from the global economy was having a detrimental toll effect on the reclusive state. Not even with all the informational blackouts in the world, could Kim's regime hope to sustain a healthy state of affairs for his domestic politics. His only alternative for foreign friendship was Xi Jinping's China, which maintained a certain degree of trade relationship with North Korea from a distance, however, it was far from enough for the globally ostracized North Koreans.

The food shortages on the domestic level forced North Korean fisherman to venture illegally into Japanese waters, however, they did so with unreliable wooden vessels, which were far from safe. Consequently, the Japanese services reported on multiple occasions drowned North Korean fisherman, whose boats simply could not survive the rough waters of the open sea. For Kim, it seemed, the only leverage under his disposal was the development of his nuclear arsenal, and most specifically, the possession of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which could deliver its payload to American soil.

The summit itself concluded with an indecisive result, which analysts labelled as muddled. Even though both leaders signed a document to signify the commencement of a mutual effort of working towards the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the plan itself left a lot to be desired, as it failed to promote a viable and precise conceptualization of how exactly that goal was to be achieved. Promising to work towards denuclearisation is one thing, but showing the public how you are going to make it is something else. The other highlight of the summit was Kim's acceptance of the US` demands to retrieve the bodies of the American servicemen, who had laid down their lives on North Korean soil since the 1950s.

This agreement was left shrouded in mystery as well, because it was not defined clearly enough as to how this procedure was going to be carried out, nor was it pointed out by the two sides what the procedural steps were going to be. Either way, this was more of a symbolic victory for the Trump administration, as US foreign policy has been struggling for decades to secure some sort of agreement with the Korean counterparts on the issue. However, it remains to be seen whether last years` Singaporean adventure of Donald Trump is going to become a long-lasting steppingstone in the warming up of the US-DPKR relations, or would it turn out to be a mere blowing off smoke. One thing is clear though, it took only a couple of days for Donald Trump to change his rhetoric by 180 degrees, as he went from calling Kim a “little rocket man” to referring to him as a “great leader”. That is comparable to JFK hypothetically calling Nikita Khrushchev a great leader to his people, amidst the Kuban missile crisis.

We can only speculate about the real meaning behind Trump's public discourse on social media (because of him the presidential administration was forced to open a new department on foreign policy, simply to react to his perpetual flow of controversial tweets). However, it goes to show that Trump's agenda is less preoccupied with resolving global issues, and it is more focused on retaining the publicity of grandeur. That is why, just because Donald Trump was right to provoke a confrontation with a more autocratic leader, in the face of Kim Jong-Un, does not mean that he was entirely honest about his real motivations. Even a stopped clock is going to show the right time, twice a day!

A point of concern for prominent analysts is the fact that recent satellite imagery shows activity on some of the nuclear sites in North Korea, which were supposed to discontinue operation following the Singapore agreement, and the process of dismantling long-range ballistic missiles is not going according to plan. One thing is certain, ahead of the next summit with Kim Jong-Un in Vietnam, Donald Trump needs to find a new way to pressure the North Korean leader and demand further commitment on his part towards the previous agreement. So, what are to expect from the forthcoming meeting between the two at the end of February and what are the hidden prospects of the Vietnam summit?

It is prudent to point out that Donald Trump currently finds himself in a much less favourable situation domestically, which might be the reason why he called in this meeting so abruptly, followed by an announcement of his second visit to the UK, which is suggestive of an attempt at shifting the focus from the domestic to the foreign arena. The House in the Senate is currently under the control of the Democrats, that now have a majority of the seats. This majority disrupted the GOP and extended the Republican concerns to the president himself, who recently suffered a dramatic defeat at the hand of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party when he surrendered his 5.7 billion budget demands for his Border Wall.

As you might remember, Trump had shut down the Federal Government right before Christmas of last year and had pledged to keep it that way, as leverage in his hopes to sway the Democrats’ vote in favour of his demands. Even though this turned out to be the longest-lasting federal shutdown in US history, eventually Trump reluctantly surrendered his initial position and succumbed to the public pressure to reopen the Federal Government. This domestic defeat came amidst rising speculations of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and the Muller probe, as well as following the conviction of Michael Cohen, Trump's previous attorney, who was found guilty of lying to a Senate committee when asked to give details about the possible construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump currently finds himself in hot water, and it is fair to say that he'd once again try to win the public support by going head to head against the rocket man/great leader Kim.

A political win abroad might solidify his stance at home, however, analysts would be looking for a more conclusive outbreak of the talks this time, so convoluted promises of peace will just not do it this time. Therefore, anything but a clear-cut victory for Trump in Vietnam (and not in the guns blazing/Fortunate Son/Apache attack helicopters approach of the '70s) would bring only more troubles over his head and could potentially signal the end of the happy times and easy profits with unchallenged stock market rallies. Hence, the rest of February is going to be a crucial month not only for his presidency but for the economy as well.

Increased volatility can be expected towards the end of February, with the fast-approaching summit, on the biggest American indexes. However, the meeting itself could potentially turn into a smoking barrel and unleash havoc upon the highly liquid American indexes after it is concluded. The bond market could potentially turn into a victim/benefactor as well, depending on which direction the negotiations take, as investors would be looking to hedge themselves against market speculation, with gold futures the following suit.