Dear Trump: International Relations is F****** Complicated!
Or: Why Trump’s ‘fire and fury’ comment is counterproductive
“Do you think Korea will fall into war?”
A friend asked me a few months ago, just a brief before the U.S. President Donald Trump ‘funnily’ stated that the U.S. would respond to North Korea’s nuclear warhead development with ‘fire and fury’. These two words will indeed be among the most memorable words for the Trump administration aside from the infamous ‘covfefe’.
Apart from this phrase alone (and Trump’s dismissive hand gesture) surprised many, which would include the policy advisers of the Trump administration. Didn’t what Trump say that dangerous? Should the U.S. be genuinely worry that a nuclear war may indeed happen? Did the North Koreans have its own target: Guam, which has been a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean, and has its own military base?
In brief, I can only concluded one thing: Donald Trump does not understand, and does not want to understand, how complex international relations is.
The more I think about this thing, I realize that International Relations as a field of study will never die. Instead, the study should be re-galvanized, discovering new challenges as relations between countries enter a new chapter which is unprecedented in history. Trump and Kim are ‘playing with fire’, and the whole world is holding its breath for what will come next.
Students of international relations will learn from one of the theories that once countries enter the nuclear era, there will be increasing reluctance of utilizing the nuclear weapons should a war happen, if at all. At least until today, that remains the norm: Those who possess nuclear weapons do not fight each other. Conflicts mostly happen between countries relying on conventional weapons, or proper to say, that only one of the sides possesses nuclear weapons, such as the U.S. when it participated in conflicts.
Even so, allow me to borrow a phrase from the world of finance: “Past performance does not indicate future trend.” What has happened in the past will never determine what may happen in the future. Be it 10 times the case in the past, there is simply no guarantee by any forms or means that there will be the same case for the eleventh time.
Here Trump should have been more careful: Those who learned international relations would have properly warned him. Remember that, for instance, a country’s foreign policy should have been created rationally based on its national interest. This national interest than can be cascaded into the country’s grand strategy and all its derivatives.
It is easy to guess that the U.S.’ national interest is to ensure its survival as a nation-state. Without survival, there is no use for the U.S. to pursue its other interests, since by then there will be no more U.S.
How can then the U.S. ensure its survival as a nation-state? Check its grand strategy. Among many, it will want to ensure its domestic security from enemies ‘both foreign and domestic’ (to borrow a phrase from the U.S. presidential oath). What is interesting, some experts including Art and Mearsheimer are convinced that the U.S. must also assure that other regions in the world are secured as well, and another aspiring power in other regions must be prevented.
Consider Asia. Why this is the case? There is a strong correlation with other American interests as well. For instance, the U.S. will want to ensure unrestricted flow of international trade, since its exported goods will need markets (buyers), and it will need to import goods that it can’t produce on its own. Without secured international traffic, and considering as well that a significant majority of international trade flow will cross around Asia, of course the U.S. will want to seriously secure the region. It will be disastrous should the U.S. fail to ensure these two things: Its own domestic security, and the security of other regions crucial for its national interest.
Is baiting for full-scale war a wise move from Trump? At a glance, of course not! What will happen if there is an attack on U.S. home soil, while many experts were assured that North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are capable of reaching the continuous U.S.? It will be significantly unwise should Kim actually do it, no?
It also important to see the semantics. International relations in itself is a world filled with twisting semantics, and the tiniest of difference may be fatal. I teach diplomatic simulation for university students, and I always emphasize the importance of choosing the correct, the right, the appropriate words. People will understand what they want to understand, and sometimes, choosing the wrong word can lead to a disastrous effect.
Also by saying the “fire and fury” phrase, it was far from diplomatic! No wonder that Secretary of State Tillerson took an extra step to state that diplomacy would still be the preferred way. Poor Foggy Bottom! Their numbers were trimmed in serious pace now, and to add to the confusion, its own ‘chief diplomat’ made the wrong, arrogant gesture, and used words that might instigate other country’s anger?
Indeed, some things must not be forgotten as well. Assume that Trump and Kim are truly rational individuals, at least how we understand rational, it is, then a conflict should never happen. Trump should know that a war, especially that involves nuclear weapons, will be much too expensive (in monetary value, resource, of potential victims), and the impact will be too disastrous (that is, if Trump hasn’t baited by his own ego or emotions, or lured by his machismo). Even Kim is of course rational: He would have known that fighting the U.S. is like fighting a losing war, a lost cause. One nuclear attack toward Pyongyang would have destroyed the entire state, and that would include the entire Kim dynasty.
Until now, I still hold to my conviction, albeit nervously, that there will be no war. The actors should really hold unto their rationality, and keep upholding their respective national interest that is not destructive toward the others. I would answer the question by saying that conflict will not be the correct way out.
Even so, I should suggest that Trump learn more about international relations, which in itself a very complex animal. I studied for 4 years for my undergraduate International Relations title, and regardless of the degree, I couldn’t understand the entire international phenomena. Nevertheless, I am as convinced that any undergraduate international relations student would agree that ultimately what Trump did show an excruciating neglect on the factual complexity of how the world works. At least, a majority of the world will share the view that diplomacy should be the only way, to avoid an extraordinary war that may spill to other effects as well.
We only have this one earth, for crying out loud!
Dear Mr. President: I would say, on behalf of many others, kindly study more about international relations, and how your country will place itself in this complex world system. You are not on your own, and you cannot assume that you are ‘immune’ from the international relations mechanism that has been keeping the world to work for hundreds of year. Your own rationality, Sir, is the border between war and peace.
Hopefully you will ultimately understand, that leading the country is not a child’s play. It is an art, and to think is really important.
