In his nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran, and disputes over Chinese trade and a Mexican wall, US President Donald Trump bet that his bullying style would get results.
Trump was quick to claim vindication on Wednesday when China reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is ready to talk nuclear disarmament at their upcoming summit. Indeed, the US president often boasts he has already won concessions from cowed foes and contrite allies, but some say it is too soon to identify major breakthroughs.
For, while Trump’s high-stakes gambles have triggered diplomatic scrambles, they have also boosted the risk of conflict without yet delivering a payoff. His ultimatums have also accelerated the diplomatic time frame by setting new deadlines, and thus, increasing the odds of a breakdown that could lead to war.
Illustration: Constance Chou
“For years and through many administrations, everyone said that peace and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was not even a small possibility,” he tweeted. “Now there is a good chance that Kim Jong-un will do what is right for his people and for humanity. Look forward to our meeting!”
Trump’s decision to accept an invitation to talks, to be held before the end of May, dumbfounded foreign policy experts and caught his own staff off guard. Yet it was typical of his style of tearing up the diplomatic rulebook.
It matches his threat to tear up the Iran nuclear deal if European allies do not agree to tougher measures against Tehran and his vow to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico do not make trade concessions.
Trump’s supporters point to the fact that the US’ allies have engaged with US negotiators to find a way to appease some of Trump’s concerns.
However, it is not clear that his acceptance of Kim’s invitation is a win for Washington’s campaign of “maximum pressure.” Some see it as a gift to a regime that has long seen its drive to obtain nuclear weapons as a means to win international respect — and face-to-face talks.
“On the one hand, Trump does seem to have shaken things up and moved things forward in a way that was unimaginable,” Andrew Mertha of Cornell University said. “Unfortunately it comes at the price of pretty much giving Kim what he wanted.”
Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said sanctions and Trump’s unpredictability have forced opponents like Kim to engage, but, added: “all these stories are yet to be written.”
“On North Korea, we’ve seen perhaps the most tangible results, although we certainly don’t see a final outcome,” he said.
Kim visited Beijing this week to confer with Chinese leaders, a reminder that Washington does not hold all the cards.
Kim confirmed to China that he is ready to discuss the “denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula, but this might mean different things to each side.
Washington would accept nothing less than Pyongyang verifiably giving up its nuclear arsenal, fuel enrichment and ballistic missile program. However, Kim is likely to insist “denuclearization” includes withdrawing the promise of a US “nuclear umbrella” to deter attacks on its treaty ally South Korea.
He is also likely to repeat his demand that US forces leave the peninsula, an extraordinary concession that it is hard to imagine any previous US president acceding to, and Kim does not seem intimidated.
Monday was Kim’s first foreign foray as leader, arriving in Beijing in an armored train for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
Xi would have given Kim a very clear idea of what China is prepared to accept from the summit, but Kim’s isolation is over and he might play Washington against Beijing.
Perhaps Trump did play into Kim’s hands by accepting talks without first discussing the North Korean and Chinese red lines.
Perhaps he was over ambitious when he tried to get London, Paris and Berlin to rewrite an Iran deal they seem only prepared to tweak or update.
Yet, since these initiatives began, he has made some personnel changes at home that could show his negotiating partners that he means business.
Trump has sacked his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed the Iran deal and favored cautious diplomacy with North Korea. He plans to replace Tillerson with hardline CIA chief Mike Pompeo and his national security adviser H.R. McMaster with notorious hawk John Bolton.
Bolton is an advocate of regime change in Iran, and as recently as last month, he warned that negotiations would only give Kim more time to build missiles.
“The dynamics have changed,” Schanzer said, adding that European leaders should now take more seriously the idea that Trump is ready to tear up the Iran deal.
“The president has been playing hardball, and he hasn’t lost doing so yet. He hasn’t won, but he certainly hasn’t lost,” he said.
If Trump fails to win concessions on Iran, he can dump the deal and reimpose sanctions on Tehran’s regime and any European bank that continues to deal with it, but if North Korean talks break down, does that make a devastating war more likely?
“There’s a greater chance of a breakthrough under Trump, but there’s also a greater chance that this whole thing explodes and that we end up in military confrontation,” said Ian Bremmer, president of consultants the Eurasia Group.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS