So Trump and Kim Walk Into a Bar...

So Trump and Kim Walk Into a Bar...

A direct meeting between Kim Jong-un and President Donald J. Trump would be the greatest moment in the history of international political television (am I kidding if I say I expect Trump to attempt a pay-per-view deal for it?). But it also presents a decent chance of avoiding catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula. No matter what you think of President Trump’s foreign policy, you have to grant that.


If the two men do get together, which remains an open question, here are a few questions to think about.

How do you define denuclearization?

The US position, as of now, is that North Korea must “denuclearize.” If that means “scrap all nuclear weapons” that’s a non-starter. The Kim dynasty has spent decades developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime change, and Pyongyang is now on the cusp of the motherlode — a nuclear-armed ICBM that can hit the United States. To trade all of that away isn’t going to happen.

Now, things get more interesting if the US decides to soften its definition of “denuclearize,” allowing North Korea to keep existing weapons, but forcing them to freeze additional nuclear and ballistic missile tests. There’s a deal Kim might accept for two reasons: it would confirm North Korea’s status as an official nuclear power, giving him room to wriggle out of sanctions, and Kim would still have a gun to point at US allies Japan and South Korea as a deterrent.

But this would understandably infuriate Tokyo and Seoul. If Trump smells a Great Deal here, will that matter?

Can these two trust each other?

If you’re Kim Jong-un, you’ll arrive at the meeting with at least three visual aids: a photograph of Muammar Qaddafi, a watercolor portrait of Saddam Hussein in a spiderhole, and a copy of the Budapest Memorandum, in which the US, UK, and Russia promised to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity after it gave up nuclear weapons in 1994. You’ll point to all three as evidence that giving up nuclear weapons, not having them, or signing away your post-nuclear security to an external guarantor are all bad ideas. In case Trump gets frisky, you have a supercut of him repeatedly trashing the perfectly well-functioning Iran Nuclear accord.

Trump, for his part, will bring to the table a copy of the 1994 agreement under which North Korea committed to ending its nuclear program in exchange for normalized relations with the US. He’ll point out that North Korea never honored that pledge, or subsequent ones, and why should he expect it to now?

What happens if the meeting achieves nothing?

Let’s be clear — starting negotiations with a meeting between Kim and Trump is a hell of a gamble for both sides. Front loading the head-of-state level meeting like this is, in diplomatic terms, putting dessert first. Normally lower-level staffers and diplomats negotiate agreements for months or years before the principals show up for a final photo-op. If Kim and Trump get along badly or agree to nothing right at the start, the immediate impression will be that diplomacy, at the highest level, has failed. And if diplomacy runs its course before it even, well, runs its course, are we back to the prospect of a “very rough thing”?

This time last year, world health experts were speculating about why Africa appeared to have escaped the worst of the global pandemic. Younger populations? Natural immunity created by exposure to past viruses? Something else?

They can stop wondering. Africa is now in the grip of a COVID emergency.

More Show less

Listen: Stanford historian Niall Ferguson joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast to talk about the geopolitics of disaster. Throughout human history we seem to be unable to adequately prepare for catastrophes (natural or human-caused) before they strike. Why is that? And as we emerge from the greatest calamity of our lifetimes in the COVID-19 pandemic and look to the plethora of crises that climate change has and will cause, what can we do to lessen the blow?

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred two Republican members from serving on the Jan. 6 commission. What's going on?

Well, the Jan. 6 commission was designed to be a bipartisan commission, taking input from members from Democrats and Republicans. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had the opportunity to make recommendations but the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could always veto those recommendations. In this case, she did, saying no to two members, Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, both of whom are strongly aligned with President Trump and who voted against certifying the election results in 2020. The Republicans for the most part see the Jan. 6 commission as an opportunity to score political points against them, and the Democrats say this is going to be a fair, non-biased, and nonpartisan investigation into what happened on Jan. 6, starting with a hearing next week with some of the police officers who were involved in the battle with the protesters inside the Capitol.

More Show less

In his New York Times op-ed, David Brooks says the US is facing an identity crisis — protecting liberal and progressive values at home while doing little to stop autocrats elsewhere. But has the US really abandoned its values abroad just because it's withdrawing from Afghanistan? Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group analyst Charles Dunst take out the Red Pen to argue that the US can advance democracy without being the world's sheriff.

More Show less

When the Tokyo Olympics begin on Friday, Japan watchers will be following more than just the performance of Japan's star athletes, including tennis star Naomi Osaka. They will also be tracking the political fortunes of Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who is taking a big gamble by staging the event — amid a raging pandemic — in the face of strong and longstanding opposition from the Japanese public. What are the stakes for Suga, particularly with elections on the horizon? Eurasia Group senior analyst Ali Wyne explains.

More Show less

YouTube pulls Bolsonaro's rants: Google-owned YouTube pulled down a series of videos on the channel of Brazil's populist President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing him of spreading misinformation about the pandemic. YouTube removed more than a dozen clips for touting quack cures for coronavirus or claiming, in defiance of scientific experts, that masks don't reduce COVID transmissions. Last year, Twitter and Facebook also removed some content from Bolsonaro's feeds for similar reasons. But critics say that YouTube's move is too little too late, because Bolsonaro has been spreading misinformation about COVID since the pandemic began. Many Brazilians hold him personally responsible for the country's abysmal pandemic response, which has led to almost 550,000 deaths, the second worst toll in the world. Will YouTube's move change Bolsonaro's message? His weekly address to the nation, where he converses not only with government ministers but also various conspiracy theorists and loons, is broadcast on YouTube. Surely he doesn't want to risk losing that — or does he?

More Show less

Boycotts! Bans! Protests! Drugs! Think you've got gold medal knowledge about politics at the Olympics? Test what you know with this special Tokyo Olympics Quiz. And to stay current on all the latest political stories at the Games and around the world, subscribe here to Signal, our daily newsletter. Now, without further ado, the first question is...

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Watch episodes now

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Watch episodes now

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal