The Art of Inartfulness

With the impending summit between Trump and Kim in the works, I wanted to take a moment to consider the possibility that Trump may have a hand in bringing about a North Korean perestroika and perhaps even a glasnost which any reading of the 2014 Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the country will demonstrate could only be considered a good thing.  Kim's pursuit of nuclear weaponry may have been a strategy for peace and reconciliation all along-- to give himself a powerful chit in negotiations with the South and West-- in which case it weakens the argument that Trump's erratic and ignorant dabbling in international arms strategy has played anything but a supporting role in arriving at our present state.  But to give Kim and his advisors some credit for intelligence, if this was their strategy, might they not have seen Trump's incompetence as a perfect opportunity to plunge forward with the development of a nuclear arsenal? It’s difficult to imagine that he would have kept the same pace with competent Hillary Clinton leading the free world in a concerted effort of statecraft against him.  That’s the kind of game the dear rogue leader could not have won. But neither is it the kind of game where anything happens.

This may set a world record for quaintness (especially given the recent rocks in the road), but I'd like to state on the record that in this instance, if talks succeed in thawing relations between North South and West, it could be the case that progress could not have been made without the incompetence of Trump and his team-- that Trump's blundering was an essential ingredient that was missing from all other recent attempts by US presidents to get an upper hand with North Korea. To take chess moves out of the equation, could it be that in Trump’s bumbling alienating autocratic asshattery Kim saw a little something of himself? Perhaps no two world leaders were ever more perfectly matched.  Analysis aside, there doesn't really need to be an explanation for the success of a different approach in conquering a previously impossible situation other than that it is not how it was approached before.

Is this a precedent that bodes well for further applications of the Dumbass Stratagem to other traditionally intractable problems in international relations? The agreement that was forged with Iran by the previous administration is a classic example of the type of statecraft we're used to.  It is one of the major achievements of the Obama administration and had produced measurable results and stability.  Iran is not North Korea for many reasons but the existence of a treaty had to have been one of the most major of them.  Was it all just so much spitting in the wind?  With Trump unilaterally pulling out of the agreement we’ll soon have a chance to find out.   I’m doubtful lightning will strike twice but my confidence in failure has been shaken.

On the other hand, take a look at what's happening in the Gaza Strip for a reminder of the usual consequences of stumbling through foreign policy — or anything for that matter— without a clue.