S1: We know that Donald Trump has made a habit out
S1: of rewarding dictators and throwing off the shackles of long
S1: standing relationships with allies. But even for him, the last
S1: few days have been explosive. I'm Samantha Zellinger Maurice, and
S1: you're listening to The Morning Edition from The Age and
S1: The Sydney Morning Herald. Today, international and political editor Peter
S1: Hartcher on Donald Trump's latest appeasement of North Korean dictator
S1: Kim Jong UN and the threats he's issued to Oman.
S1: It's August the 20th. Peter, welcome back to the podcast.
S2: Pleasure to be here, Samantha.
S1: Okay. Well, I guess we're going to have to start
S1: with the latest threats first. Why has Donald Trump threatened
S1: to bomb Oman?
S2: Well, there are particular technical, specific reasons, but if I
S2: can offer an amateur psychological explanation of Trump and the
S2: situation he's in, I'd say it's because he's like a
S2: trapped beast who is cornered. He can't get out of
S2: this trap that he's made for himself by Fecklessly entering
S2: this war without a workable strategy or a functional exit plan.
S2: And he hates it. And when he's trapped, he thrashes
S2: around and lashes out. And that's exactly what he's done
S2: in this case.
S3: With ships stuck in the Strait of Hormuz and talks
S3: dead in the water. President Trump Monday took aim not
S3: at Iran, but longtime U.S. ally Oman, which shares the
S3: strait and has been negotiating control of the waterway with
S3: the regime.
S4: This morning, the president tells Fox News, and I'm quoting
S4: the president right now, listen to this. If Oman gets
S4: in the way, we'll bomb the shit out of them.
S4: Those are the president's words.
S2: So he's blaming Oman, which is not an aggressor or
S2: an opponent. In fact, since 1980, the US military has
S2: been using military bases, Omani military bases. They've been an
S2: ally of the US in recent weeks and months. They've
S2: been important as a mediator in between the US. On
S2: the one hand, US Israel on the one hand and
S2: Iran on the other. So it's a strange choice of
S2: target to say, um, or at least in conventional logic
S2: and functional statecraft, to say that my ally and my
S2: vital interlocutor and intermediary here, I'm going to blow the
S2: shit out of you. It's it's not conventional. Um, shall we,
S2: shall we say.
S1: To say the least? I mean, certainly other analysts have
S1: called it shocking.
S2: Well, it's it's just, it's just counterproductive. It's as, it's
S2: as simple as that. You're already having trouble with your enemy,
S2: your chosen enemy, Iran. Why would you also want to
S2: alienate your communication channel with that enemy? It's bafflingly bad,
S2: but it's no worse than many of Trump's other strategic
S2: and diplomatic fumbles and disasters. And it's also consistent with
S2: the pattern we've seen from him from the very beginning,
S2: which is that he is always keen to do favors
S2: for America's traditional enemies, dictators and autocrats. But he's always
S2: anxious at any opportunity to attack America's allies and friends,
S2: which of course, degrades America's greatest single advantage in in
S2: in the world, in geopolitics. America's greatest single advantage isn't
S2: the size of its budget or the size of its
S2: population or its geography. It's the fact that it has
S2: an unparalleled set of some 40 allies, including almost all
S2: the wealthy democracies on earth, and Trump just continues to
S2: damage that, degrade that priceless US asset, and willfully hand
S2: power over to America's enemies. It is unrelenting. It is counterproductive.
S2: And it's just baffling.
S1: And it's seemingly continuous, too, because let's move on to
S1: Asia because in the last few days alone, we've seen
S1: some of Trump's moves there, which just exemplify what you've
S1: just been talking about. Because not only has the US
S1: pulled its last aircraft carrier out of Asia, but Donald
S1: Trump also ordered the Pentagon to scale back on joint
S1: military exercises with South Korea also a vital American ally.
S1: So I guess, can you walk us through the significance
S1: of both of these decisions, Peter.
S2: Well, let's take the aircraft carrier redeployment first. In 1996,
S2: there was a crisis where it appeared that China was
S2: about to take military action, perhaps a full scale invasion
S2: of Taiwan. The US responded in 96 by sending two
S2: aircraft carrier battle groups to stand off the Taiwan Strait
S2: as a deterrent and a warning to Beijing. Now, if
S2: there were a similar crisis tomorrow, and of course, that's
S2: an unresolved bit of business. According to the People's Republic
S2: of China, and XI Jinping in particular has said it's
S2: the burden of his generation. In other words, his tenure
S2: as leader to take control of Taiwan. If there were
S2: a similar crisis tomorrow. The US has no available aircraft
S2: carrier strike groups because they've just been sent to back
S2: up his failing war in the Middle East. The power
S2: that does have two available aircraft carriers to send to
S2: the Taiwan Straits today is China. China has built and
S2: now operates three aircraft carriers. Two of them operated together
S2: for the first time just a couple of months ago.
S2: So this is a brand new capability that the Chinese
S2: Communist Party now has as an asset, which it can deploy.
S2: And it's an asset which the US has always had.
S2: But today, as of this week, has no longer. And
S2: it's an illustration of how bad strategy in one part
S2: of Trump's world produces knock on consequences that weaken the
S2: US in other parts of the world. And it's consistent
S2: with what's been happening since the beginning of this Iran war,
S2: where the US has drawn down assets from the Indo-Pacific, which,
S2: according to all US doctrine and strategy in recent decades
S2: has been identified as the US's primary sphere, where it
S2: needs to dominate instead. Trump has not only deployed as
S2: we now see aircraft carriers because with the Lincoln, it's
S2: become such a debacle and they need to relieve it
S2: and they need to send relief.
S5: To the Centcom commander, Admiral Bradley Cooper, visiting the USS
S5: Abraham Lincoln in the region following reports of food shortages
S5: and concerns over the mental health of sailors on the ship.
S6: With morale. With exhaustion. I mean, this is an incredibly
S6: long deployment, 268 days. But even more serious than that,
S6: they have not been in port all year, more than
S6: 200 days. And that really does put a strain on
S6: those sailors and Marines. I think that's why, Admiral.
S2: So again, you know, one bad piece of management begets
S2: the next fumble. But they've also drawn down vital assets
S2: from Japan Pan and South Korea, US allies, where they've
S2: taken air defense systems out of those countries to send
S2: them to protect US assets in the Gulf against Iran.
S2: And of course, they've run down their stocks of munitions,
S2: and notably Patriot interceptor missiles. And they've taken some from
S2: the Indo Pacific and taken them to Central Command to
S2: feed their war against Iran, which is running. You'll remember
S2: Trump advertise it as a 2 to 4 week war. Well,
S2: it's now five months and counting. So it's yet another
S2: cost that the US pays. But also US allies pay
S2: around the world for Trump's bad strategy and chaotic management.
S2: The second part that you asked about Samantha is the
S2: South Korean part. Again, this is a case study in
S2: Trump harming a US ally to the advantage of a
S2: US enemy, where he's said, on the cusp of the
S2: annual joint exercises between the US and South Korea, its
S2: close U.S. ally since 1950. That he's going to curtail
S2: the size of the exercises as a favor to Kim
S2: Jong un, the North Korean dictator. At the same time,
S2: we learned today that Trump has been seeking meetings with
S2: Kim Jong UN, and for some reason, Trump seems to
S2: think that he's a friend or ally, that Kim Jong
S2: UN is a special pal. We know that in Trump's
S2: first term as president, he described an exchange of love
S2: letters with Kim Jong un. They've said they love each
S2: other in these letters, but in reality, the love has
S2: flowed only one way. At no point has Kim Jong
S2: UN given the US a single concession, not one concession
S2: to Trump and on the contrary, since the first summit
S2: with Trump, North Korea has only redoubled its efforts, built
S2: its nuclear stockpile, improved and strengthened its ballistic and intercontinental
S2: ballistic missile stockpile, and is in a stronger and more
S2: aggressive position than it's been in decades. And Kim Jong
S2: un has specifically renounced the country's long standing aim to
S2: reunite with South Korea, and has said that it's going
S2: to be its confrontation, its war. So how he how
S2: Trump can possibly think this man is an ally is
S2: simply baffling. South Korea, on the other hand, a genuine
S2: ally is now weakened. US commitment to South Korea is
S2: now in doubt. And the message goes out from that
S2: decision to all other US allies that their positions are weakened,
S2: that the US is unreliable. This is again a continuation
S2: of his undercutting of allies in NATO. So this is
S2: no longer just the undermining of NATO and the peculiar
S2: Maga aggression towards Europe as some sort of civilizational faux.
S2: But now also the US allies in the theater, which
S2: it's identified as not only the centrepiece and the larger
S2: single piece of the global economy, but also the greatest
S2: theater of contest for US influence in the world. Over
S2: the course of this century, in what Joe Biden used
S2: to call the contest for the 21st century. Well, if
S2: it's a contest. XI Jinping is winning that one, and
S2: Donald Trump is losing.
S1: After the break.
S2: If there were any justification for doing a favor for
S2: Kim Jong UN, it would be because there was some
S2: meaningful concession coming the other way, from Pyongyang to Washington
S2: or to Seoul. There's no evidence of that whatsoever.
S7: Can you help us, I guess.
S1: Make sense of why Trump in particular, would be wanting
S1: to pull back on these joint exercises with South Korea now?
S1: I mean, do you think is he wanting to possibly
S1: renegotiate or restart negotiations with Kim Jong un to try
S1: to get him to dismantle his nuclear program, which, like
S1: you said, the last time he tried this, if anything,
S1: it backfired enormously because he, like you say, Kim Jong
S1: un redoubled his efforts. I believe he's got something like
S1: 60 nukes and missiles that can hit the United States.
S1: Or is it perhaps something else? I mean, is Trump
S1: trying to perhaps just punish South Korea for declining to
S1: join Trump in his war against Iran?
S2: Well, that's a justification that Trump has used, that the
S2: South Koreans refuse to help him with his war in Iran.
S2: But no U.S. ally has agreed to help him with
S2: his war in Iran first because he consulted none of them. Second,
S2: because he launched the war together with Israel as a. Well,
S2: I was going to say unilaterally, but I suppose if
S2: it's with Israel, it's bilateral against the interests and wills
S2: of other US allies. So you can't, you know, fail
S2: to consult them, act against their interests by cutting the
S2: global oil supply and creating an inflation problem for the
S2: planet where there was none before. And then demand that
S2: your allies help you in a strategy which is plainly failing,
S2: and then get angry at them and decline to help them,
S2: and then, in fact, harm their interests after you've treated
S2: them so offhandedly and so badly. So that's his justification.
S2: I don't think it makes any sense, but he has
S2: used that as his justification. So but the question you
S2: ask is why is he is what's what's the real
S2: reason that he's taking this otherwise baffling step? And so, yes,
S2: he is asking Kim Jong un to meet. Presumably he
S2: thinks he can get concessions from Kim Jong un that
S2: he's never been able to get before, despite their three
S2: in-person meetings. And let's take a step back, Samantha. Um,
S2: which of these dictators and traditional US allies has done
S2: Trump any favors? Which of them has cut a serious
S2: concession for the US, for Trump, as Vladimir Putin paid
S2: the least heed to Donald Trump's demands and pleadings and
S2: pressuring us to come to some sort of agreement or
S2: peace deal with Ukraine. No. Has XI Jinping cut Trump
S2: any real or significant concession? He's cut him some token
S2: Concessions on trade, which we know from their previous agreements.
S2: China likely XI Jinping likely will not deliver on. And
S2: Trump is hoping to get some more concessions from him
S2: at their meeting coming up on September 24th. But but no,
S2: XI Jinping in any meaningful sense has not given the
S2: US any concessions and in fact, told the US he
S2: would be cutting off China's flow of rare earth and
S2: critical minerals to the US, which brought Trump to heel.
S2: And Trump had to withdraw his threats of tariffs on China.
S2: So again, no favors to the US there. Has Kim
S2: Jong un done a single favor for Donald Trump or
S2: the US? No, he's done quite the opposite. These are
S2: the people that Donald Trump says he admires and likes,
S2: the people he said he enjoys doing business with. Every
S2: one of them defies him. I mean, sure, in person,
S2: they flatter him, they smile. They tell him what a
S2: great guy he is and continue to work against his
S2: interests and continue to erode US power and influence around
S2: the world. And Trump continues as if he thinks this
S2: is a brilliant strategy, while launching yet more acts of
S2: aggression against his allies, whether that's strategic, diplomatic and military
S2: harm to their interests or it's economic through either the
S2: higher oil price and inflation, or his preoccupation with putting
S2: tariffs on everybody, including countries with whom he has no
S2: trade disputes, and countries which are his notional allies.
S1: It does sound like this is, I guess, from an
S1: onlooker's perspective, an irrational decision of Trump. I mean, I've
S1: heard it described as one writer in The Atlantic said
S1: America and the rest of the world are now witnessing
S1: a public exhibition of narcissistic rage. You know, he's just
S1: sort of kicking out, I guess, at his humiliation over Iran,
S1: which of course, he thought was going to bring him glory.
S1: But I guess let's just ask you about this appeasement
S1: of Kim Jong un. How dangerous perhaps it could be,
S1: because it does seem a bit nuts that, for lack
S1: of a more nuanced word, that that Trump is pulling
S1: back from these joint exercises with South Korea because it
S1: looks as though North Korea is more threatening than ever. Right?
S1: It used to be a global pariah. Now it's got
S1: allies in Russia and China, not to mention the fact
S1: that the North Korean military has become more battlefield ready
S1: as a result of the troops that it's lent to
S1: Russia to use in Ukraine. Apparently, they've become adept at
S1: drone warfare and other sort of modern types of warfare.
S1: So isn't this the exact wrong time, I guess, to
S1: be appeasing North Korea or to be giving North Korea
S1: more power? Not to mention the fact that there are
S1: numerous thousands of American soldiers stationed in Korea, right? I mean,
S1: some of them quite close to the DMZ.
S2: Yeah. There are some 30,000 U.S. soldiers who've been there
S2: to help protect South Korea. And remember, the Korean War
S2: has never ended. They have an armistice in place. They
S2: don't have any peace deal. The war technically is still active.
S2: The US has had that presence there to deter North
S2: Korean aggression ever since the end of the Korean War
S2: in 1953. And it's the colloquial way of looking at it.
S2: It's a tripwire to bring the US guaranteed. If the
S2: North Koreans cross the line and trigger the wire, it's
S2: guaranteed to bring the US into the conflict, to protect
S2: its ally, to protect a democratic country where liberty is
S2: valued and a standout in the success of a free
S2: market economy in the last three quarters of a century.
S2: In stark contrast, of course, to North Korea, one of
S2: the most repressive and impoverished dictatorships on the planet. So, yes.
S2: Is there is there if there were any justification for
S2: doing a favor for Kim Jong UN, it would be
S2: because there was some meaningful concession coming the other way
S2: from Pyongyang to Washington or to Seoul. There's no evidence
S2: of that whatsoever. Kim Jong un and his father and grandfather,
S2: the previous leaders, have always wanted the US to ease
S2: back the South Koreans to back off their exercises. Trump
S2: is now doing them that favor without any concession in return.
S2: But Samantha, you've also touched on another reason that this
S2: is such a bad move and such a counterproductive tactic
S2: for the US and its traditional allies, because he's cutting
S2: a favor to another traditional US enemy. And that is
S2: within this is another favor to Russia, to his mate
S2: Vladimir Putin, because if there's military pressure, if the threat
S2: of a us-south Korean resistance against North Korean depredations is lessened,
S2: it takes pressure off North Korea so that Kim Jong
S2: UN is free to supply more troops to his friend
S2: and ally, Vladimir Putin, to fight the war against Ukraine.
S2: We know from Vladimir Zelensky's address to the nation a
S2: couple of weeks ago, that Ukrainian intelligence found that the
S2: Russians had asked North Korea to supply another 30,000 troops
S2: to help them with their war against Ukraine, which is
S2: enough to feed the Russian meat grinder on the battlefield
S2: for only one month. But it's it's one month more
S2: than Putin would otherwise have. So taking pressure off North
S2: Korea allows Kim Jong un to satisfy that demand more
S2: easily without feeling any threat at home. So once again, again,
S2: a consistent pattern. Over the years, Trump is helping his.
S2: His good friend and mate. A mate who ignores all
S2: of his requests, pressures and demands, completely thumbs his nose
S2: at him and continues to humiliate him. He's doing him
S2: a great favor by. With this action of sending, of
S2: pulling back on the US exercises with South Korea.
S1: It's very difficult to make sense of Peter, but we're
S1: so glad that you've helped us this morning.
S2: In a sane and rational universe. There is no way
S2: to make sense of this, Samantha. All we can do
S2: is is is gasp and gasp and observe.
S1: Yeah. That's right. Thanks, Peter, as always for your time.
S2: Pleasure, Samantha.
S1: In other news today, aviation professionals say that a lack
S1: of available gates at Sydney Airport is forcing planes to
S1: idle on the taxiway after landing as they wait for
S1: a free bay. Burning unnecessary amounts of fuel and holding
S1: up passengers from disembarking. Multinational data business costar has told
S1: its Australian staff to work from the office full time,
S1: following the likes of NAB, Amazon and Dell, and the
S1: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has raided Wisetech global, founded
S1: by Richard White, in another blow to the logistics software company,
S1: sending its shares plummeting. You can read more at the
S1: age.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Kai Wang.
S1: Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are
S1: overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like
S1: our show, follow The Morning Edition and leave a review
S1: for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.