“WE HAVE GOT TO DO WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO”
October 9, 2017
On September 22, North Korean
Party Chair and President Kim Jong-un called President Trump “a dotard,”
someone in dotage, in today’s usage, senile, his latest retort to a president
who most has since called him “Rocket Man.”
Usually, he speaks for the Party, for the people, speaking of what “we”
say. This time, Mr. Kim made a point of
speaking in the first person, for himself alone.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Tillerson has persisted in expressed willingness
to talk (as perhaps via the Chinese), backed presumably by the Defense
Secretary, to arrange a new truce on the Korean Peninsula, with the tacit
backing of President Trump.
Two days ago, Trump tweeted
“only one thing will work.” Just now, to
reporters, he has simply said, “We have got to do what said we would do,” and
when asked to clarify, simply repeated the phrase, and walked away.
It comes across like a covert
game of diplomacy, where it has been agreed, and I’m thinking affirmed by a
code Tillerson has arranged for the US president to confirm “secretly” that Tillerson
has his full trust and authority to negotiate a stand-down, and arrange
dependable, covert diplomatic communications (if indeed that hasn’t already
been arranged via China or Russia, for example). And Tennessee US Senator, the Foreign
Relations Committee chair, who is due to retire from office, tweeted of the
president, “It’s a shame the White House has become an
adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning
[meaning those he trusted to Trump has put in charge of State, Defense and
National Security]”
I’m reminded
of the “good cop/bad cop” police interrogation method. In this case, the US president’s insistence
on saying and repeating one phrase, period, to say nothing of covert
diplomacy—that the US president has just assured the North Korean leadership that
Tillerson—backed and supported by the Secretary of Defense—has the power and
authority to arrange a nuclear stand-down.
I hope this turns out to be a mutual accommodation, relief from threat
on all sides. It appears to be another
indication of the limitations of assuming that the US president has a great
deal of individual power to get done whatever he (or someday she) chooses, on a
whim. I’m also thinking that
governmentally naïve US president may have been drawn into the intrigue and
power of sending secret signals that his secretary of state represents him in
coming to terms he is prepared to agree to, no matter his tweets. Today I hear reports that sources from other
national governments are also prepared to trust what Trump’s agents say and do
more than what the president says…unless perhaps it comes in code. In the social and political sciences as in
real life, we do play games. I hope this
one works out. Love and peace, hal