It's three a.m. in Washington DC and the President of
the United States suddenly appears in the White House Situation Room. He's
ranting about North Korea and 'Option B' and 'teaching those motherfuckers a
lesson.'
Trailing after him is his military aide, clutching the
briefcase that contains the black book and the nuclear code. The nuclear
football. ('Option B', by the way, envisages a nuclear attack against both
North Korea and China.)
According to a military official who's present: 'The
rules say that if the President wants to order a military strike, then he can
do it. Just like that. Doesn't need to consult anyone.'
It's all right. You can breathe out. It's a scene from
a novel: 'To Kill The President', by Sam Bourne, also known as the award-winning
Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland. It was published this week (Harper Collins,
£7.99), with astonishingly good timing, just as Donald Trump (the real one,
this time) threatened North Korea with 'severe things' following what appears
to have been Pyongyang's successful test of an inter-continental ballistic
missile.
This is the same Donald Trump who boasted (on Twitter,
of course) just weeks before his inauguration last January: 'North
Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't
happen!'
Well, Mr President, it
has happened -- or at least North Korea has now built a missile that appears to
be capable of reaching Alaska or even Hawaii. (Why would it want to attack
Hawaii? First, because the US maintains a substantial military presence there,
and second, because it's a lot closer than the US mainland. Remember Pearl Harbor.)
But North Korea has not
-- as far as we know -- developed a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried
on an ICBM, nor one that is able to withstand re-entry into the earth's
atmosphere. So the threat, while real, remains potential rather than actual.
Let us agree that the
world would be a much better place if no one had any nuclear weapons at all. Let
us also agree that we might sleep easier in our beds if Mr Trump had not
reportedly asked a foreign policy expert last summer: 'If we have them [nuclear
weapons], why can't we use them?'
If I were the North
Korean leader Kim Jung-un, my question to Mr Trump would be this: 'How come
it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons (although of course it still denies
that it does have them); how come it's OK for the UK, France, Russia, China, India
and Pakistan to have them; oh, and how come you, as leader of the only country
in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, get to decide who else can
have them?'
Hypocrisy rules. All
that North Korea wants is what we Brits like to call an 'independent nuclear
deterrent.' (When countries that we don't approve of have the same thing, it's
called 'weapons of mass destruction'.) In other words, it wants to be sure it
can defend itself against possible attack -- and it wants to terrify its
neighbours.
Mission accomplished,
you might say, even before Pyongyang has shown that it does have both a nuclear
weapons capability and the ability to use it. Its neighbours -- especially
South Korea and Japan -- are duly terrified, and, understandably enough, they're
extremely keen for the US to protect them.
So what might the
unpredictable, impatient, under-informed and irascible Mr Trump do? If he bombs
North Korea's missile sites, he risks hundreds of thousands of deaths as soon
as Pyongyang retaliates against South Korea. (Nearly half the South Korean
population lives within fifty miles of the border between the two
countries.)
He already seems to have
had second thoughts about relying on China to turn the screws -- surprise,
surprise, President Xi Jinping turns out not to be prepared to act as the US
president's poodle. (Trump tweet: 'Trade
between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for
China working with us - but we had to give it a try!')
And as for
internationally agreed sanctions, well, Mr Trump hasn't exactly gone out of his
way to build strategic alliances, has he?
The US news network CNN
has very helpfully compiled a handy list of all the issues on which Mr Trump
has put himself at odds with the US's G20 partners.
Climate change? The US
is in a minority of one.
Trade? From Canada and
Mexico to China, Japan and the EU, the US is on the wrong side of the free
trade fence. (Eg the just-signed free trade deal between Japan and the EU.)
Muslim travel ban? Even
Theresa May has called it 'divisive and wrong'.
And even if the UN agrees
to authorise a tightening of sanctions on Pyongyang (for example, by targeting
Chinese banks that do business in North Korea), the precedents do not suggest
that they would make a ha'penny-worth of difference. As Simon Jenkins pointed
out in The Guardian: 'Cuba, Serbia,
Iraq, Libya, Iran, Myanmar and Korea: history tells us that sanctions merely
give longevity to entrenched regimes.'
Which leaves diplomacy.
Admittedly, it's been tried before, with only limited success. Years of talks
involving the US, China, Russia, Japan, and North and South Korea halted
Pyongyang's nuclear programme temporarily, but broke down when North Korea
pulled out in 2009.
So it might be a good
idea if North Korea's neighbours started by recognising that North Korea will
not give up its nuclear weapons programme. As I wrote last April, the Kim
dynasty are convinced that without it, they're as good as dead. After all,
Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya both gave up their nuclear
programmes, and look what happened to them.
The best hope now is
that China, Russia, and Japan will put their heads together and devise a new
proposal to put to President Kim. And the best chance they have of getting
anywhere is by making sure that President Trump is kept well away from anywhere
where he could do real harm.
It's come to this: one ill-considered 6.30a.m. tweet from
the Trump bed chamber could tip the Korean peninsula into open war.
Appallingly, we are now reduced to relying on Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to
find a way back from the brink.
Hi Robin,
ReplyDeletea little bit over the top, as usual, and please moderate the language even though you are referencing another author's quote, one could really blank that out I'm sure.
I feel that you are getting quite worked up about this man; give the man a break and allow him to get on with things; his speeches are quite realistic and well crafted and delivered and he on the side of freedom and liberty surely. When one thinks of the mocking criticism of the man and if that were in any way applied to the previous president there would be an uproar. So please try and be a bit more circumspect in your analysis and comments.
Regards
G R Joseph
I do hope it is over the top, with the previous president it would be ridiculous to have such a thought.
ReplyDeleteHowever times have changed - the US president has destroyed diplomatic niceties - there is no effective State Department, tweets first and asks questions later, has extreme right wing advisers who want freedom and liberty to be defined by the advisers.
Analysis and comments can only be based on the evidence available, and there is lots to support Robin's view, so no Fake News here.
People may be mocking - and incredulous too.
Tony Shield
Apart from huffing (no disrespect Robin) and puffing I can't see what Trump can do. A Mexican stand-off, to coin a phrase. Your point re Saddam and Gaddafi very well made.
ReplyDelete