Skip to main content

Art of the Spiel: Will Trump Negotiate a Good Deal with North Korea?

For all we know, this may actually happen.
The only reason why Kim is willing to hold this unprecedented meeting with Trump is that he believes he can pull a fast one on him (and he has good reason to think so).

However, what I'd really want to know is why he thinks that this is enough. Because getting Trump to go along with you seems to be fairly easy so long as you push the right buttons (e.g. tell him he has big manly hands or that he's doing a real bang-up job at the Oval Office). But then how is he going to get Congress to go along with it? Especially with the midterm elections threatening Republicans' control of the House and the Senate, since there is no way Democrats are going to go along with anything Trump suggests.

The answer is bullying.

Here's what I mean by that and I'll explain it by describing how I think things are going to go down:

First, Trump and Kim are going to meet in Trump's typical unorthodox (i.e. disorganized) fashion and they're going to reach some kind of settlement to halt North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. Now, Trump is likely to insist on permanent on-site verification, while Kim is probably going to try and weasel his way out of it by offering to cease rocket testings and nuclear weapons research immediately and indefinitely, while also promising assurances of proper implementation of denuclearization protocols. The way Kim will seal the deal is by allowing the US government to conduct periodic inspections. Trump will likely agree to those concessions if only to bolster his ego by claiming he reached "the best deal ever" with North Korea.

Following that, both Republicans and Democrats are going to come out strongly against it, rightly criticizing it as a sham deal that could be easily manipulated by the North Korean government. Trump, on the other hand, is going to blame and shame the opposition while trying to pass whatever deal he's reached on his own, citing the same justifications he used for raising tariffs on steel and aluminum imports -- national security. Perhaps he won't cite the same Act (i.e. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962), but he will use some similar method of bypassing the conventional institutions.

What happens afterward is anyone's guess. But one thing's for sure -- North Korea has already invested too much into its nuclear-arms program to simply abandon it now. The real question is whether or not Trump and his lackeys will fall for whatever crap Kim will try to peddle and how Congress will react.

If Trump's "my way or the highway" presidency up until now and Congress' staggering ineptitude are anything to go by, Kim Jong-un might just get what he wants. Let's hope Kelly and Mattis can rein the President in before he tries to pull another one of his antics.

Update (July 6th, 2018): A bit late for an update, but it looks like I was more or less accurate on how it would go down but less so when it came to Congress' reaction (although some in the press did take Trump to task on this front). Now we play the long game and see where this may take us. Maybe it will all be for the better? Maybe pigs will fly? Who knows? We've got the technology for it, I think...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The hypocrisy of 2nd Amendment champions

The tide is turning in America. Long-churning sentiments about guns and gun violence have finally erupted and people no longer accept the tired-old narrative of "let's not politicize this issue". No, let's actually do that for a change. Democracy is a political system. Any issue that concerns democratic citizens is a political issue by default and this includes guns and gun control. People can grieve and respect the victims and the survivors while also calling out for change. These are not mutually exclusive. But whenever a call for change is heard, there's always another call from across the street calling for stagnancy. In this case, it's coming from the 2nd Amendment die-hards. Let me be clear here, I'm not talking about the people who simply want to have a firearm or two for legitimate self-defense. The people I'm referring to are the ones who amass a stockade's worth of armaments as if they're expecting the Queen's f...

When atheists grovel at the doorstep of religion

There's been a growing sentiment among some of my fellow atheists, spurred by one Jordan Peterson, around the idea of finding new meaning in religion without all that pesky dogma and superstition. But why would anyone do that? Now, let me first clear my throat by saying that I sympathize with all my fellow primates who are in search of purpose in their lives. What destinations we reach, if we reach any at all, are entirely up to us, as individuals, treading along beaten and unbeaten paths. We're a flawed species and so the way we approach everything will be flawed as well. However, there comes a time when you have to ask yourself if you haven't lost your way in your quest for meaning. I recently watched a thought-provoking video by YouTuber Mouthy Buddha (embedded above). In it, he talks about the failure of atheism to fill the vacuum of values and meaning left by the abandonment of religion. He suggests that one may be misguided in relinquishing the supposedly w...