Trump’s possible logic on North Korea

More than any other foreign security issue, President Trump is engaged in solving the North Korean nuclear threat. One possible reason: to prevent nonnuclear nations like Japan from going nuclear. The moral logic of nonproliferation demands a US role.

Reuters
With Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley at his side (L), President Donald Trump hosts a lunch with ambassadors of countries on the UN Security Council at the White House April 24.

One reason individuals support their police is so they don’t have to own a gun. Police are the preferred night watchmen of safety. Yet if some neighbors start to buy guns, the police look less reliable. And more people then buy guns. That same logic may be at play in Northeast Asia.

As North Korea moves to own more nuclear weapons and missiles, will Japan and South Korea seek nuclear weapons rather than rely on the United States – as the preferred cop on the beat – with its deterrence threat of nuclear retaliation?

For decades, many allies of the US have trusted its nuclear “umbrella” enough not to develop their own atomic arsenal. This has helped curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, helping to keep the world safe from a devastating type of warfare. But the North Korea crisis could change this key aspect of the global order. If a major country like Japan, despite its deep and constitutional commitment to pacifism, ever feels the need to go nuclear, what will stop other countries from doing the same?

It is in this moral context that the world must watch what President Trump, along with China, is doing about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

Despite Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about “America first” and his mixed signals about honoring defense commitments to allies, he so far seems engaged in finding ways to restrain North Korea. He attended a White House briefing of all 100 US senators on North Korea in an unusual summit on Wednesday, April 26. And he met with United Nations Security Council members on Monday.

“Whether we want to talk about it or not, North Korea is a big-world problem, and it’s a problem we have to finally solve,” he said. That is not the rhetoric of someone who believes in retrenchment from America’s unique role in nuclear deterrence.

Among all Americans, Trump has the strongest backing from his core supporters in dealing with this issue. According to a 2016 survey by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 68 percent of those supporters see a “critical threat” in the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers. That percentage is higher than for Republicans in general and Democrats. And their strong support is in contrast to their lukewarm support – only 51 percent – for the US to take an active role in world affairs.

Trump’s real strategy toward North Korea remains uncertain. He has suggested negotiations, putting pressure on China, and beefing up missile defenses in the region. And his aides say a military strike on the North’s nuclear facilities is one option. “I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea,” he says. “You know why? Because they shouldn’t know.”

At the least, however, he is engaged, holding fast to a logic that nuclear proliferation is not a moral course for the world.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.