31.05.2016 Author: Konstantin Asmolov
Would the US Change its Policy
in Case of Trump’s Victory?
Column: Politics
Region: Columns
Country: Politics
As the mass media report, Donald Tramp, a candidate running for the
president of the United States, expressed his willingness to discuss the
nuclear issue with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In his interview with
Reuters he particularly stated that he would be willing to talk to the North
Korean leader and had no problems with that, although he did not propose a
detailed plan on the resumption of a dialog with Pyongyang.
Mr. Trump’s statement induced
a somewhat inadequate reaction, especially among laymen not familiar with the
specifics of the US-North Korean relations and makes them believe that there
will be a change of policy. Honestly, it is not clear why some circles do not
understand that Trump is a pure water populist and treat him as a “progressive
politician,” who, once in office, would pursue a reasonable policy, including
in respect of Russia. It is not set in stone yet that he will take office
either. As he does not appeal to everyone, many would rather vote for “anybody
than Trump.” This attitude of some part of the US population downplays the
slogan Trump is campaigning under “anyone, but not an old school politico.”
Therefore, this article will focus more on the possibility or impossibility of
drastic changes in case a representative of the Republican Party will be
elected president.
First, it should be noted, that in addition to the statement concerning a
dialog with Kim Jong-un Trump made many other statements, which sometimes prove
to be contradictory. For example, he called Kim Jong-un “a maniac.” Having
adopted a tough position toward Pyongyang, he called nuclear weapons “the most
serious threat to peace.” He also emphasized that Kim Jong-un must be stopped.
On one occasion he said that China should take measures to resolve the nuclear
problem on the Korean Peninsula; otherwise, Beijing would see a decline in its
trading relations with the US. Mr. Trump also said that South Korea and Japan should
pay for the American troops stationed in these countries; otherwise, the troops
could be withdrawn. At some point, though, he speculated that North Korea could
be restrained if South Korea and Japan acquire nuclear weapons.
As it is well known,
pre-election pledges are usually soon forgotten. In case with Mr. Trump, it
could be especially true since he is planning to focus on internal American
problems. Mr. Trump could use foreign policy, and especially the Korean issue,
as a bargaining chip in the political dealings. It could also be treated as a
low priority issue to be dealt with. Ultimately, attitude toward the “Korean
issue” would, most probably, be determined not by Mr. Trump, who would be busy solving
more critical issues, but by the people in charge of the US-North Korean
policy.
Besides, the world knows
several examples when rather significant changes in the US policy toward North
Korea occurred within the tenure of one president. At the beginning of the
1990s, the Clinton administration was seriously considering a large-scale war
against North Korea. The only thing that stopped it back then was that the
number of projected casualties was so large that it would have shocked the
American society. At the end of Bill Clinton’s term, Madeleine Albright visited
Pyongyang. At the same time, Jo Myong-rok, the second man in the North Korean
leadership of that time, visited Washington. The countries were already
negotiating a visit of the US leader to Pyongyang. Madeleine Albright described
these preparations in her memoirs. President George Bush-junior started his
term with a very tough anti-North Korean rhetoric. At the end of his term,
though, the six-party talks were very dynamic, and the parties were very close
to the resolution of this complex issue.
In general, political amateurs
often derive their notion of the limits of power of the US president by
employing false associations with the leaders of other countries. Despite the
US foreign policy is a “presidential” foreign policy (same as in Russia and
South Korea), the similarity is only in the name.
Firstly, unlike other
countries with a strong presidential rule, president of the US is the head of
the executive branch; secondly, the president’s power is limited by the
Congress (the balance of powers model), for which reason the US president has
to engage in lengthy negotiations with senators on many foreign policy issues;
thirdly, think tanks and research centers play an important role in the decision-making
process and political lobbying, as often research center analysts intertwine
with the authorities participating in the foreign policy decision-making
process.
What’s more, the president has
to pursue his policy within the limits of the established ideological and
political “corridor” in order not to lose the support of his party and the
public. The times of charismatic leaders able to stand up to the general trend
are long gone (for the above reasons).
Thus, there are no grounds for being too hopeful. All the scenarios of
development of the global situation should be taken into account. It should
also be kept in mind that American analysts hold very different opinions on the
Korean issue, on the one hand, while nobody regards Pyongyang as an equal partner,
nor is willing to engage in a serious dialog with North Korea, on the other hand. Besides, US public opinion is influenced by the
law invented by an American reporter Isaac Stone Fish (any information (even
the most fantastic one) about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will
find its audience and be accepted as truth). Americans consider North Korea as
a personification of Mordor, and would always oppose the very idea of
negotiating with a country belonging to the axis of evil.
Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D,
Chief Research Fellow of the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of Far
Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online
magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.