A few thoughts on the summit as I look back over @monkeycageblog coverage of North Korea for a roundup post. Political scientists often seem like downers, but we are trained to look for hidden, structural forces. The result is often a strong bias toward the status quo. 1/n
It’s not that we don’t think leaders matter (I wrote a book that says they do; but just see yesterday’s news) or that face-to-face diplomacy can’t achieve results (much recent scholarship on this, as post by @Prof_MHolmes & @YarhiMilo shows). 2/n washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
But breakthroughs don’t come out of nowhere. It takes work and preparation even when summits matter. This is why we are more likely to point to incremental steps or the legwork (like, um, lining up allies before meeting adversaries) behind the final product or communique. 3/n
Instead of asking, “What will happen at the summit and will it be a game changer?” your average IR scholar is more likely to flip the question around and ask, “What would it take to change the status quo? What forces stand in the way of change?” 4/n
For the summit, a big factor is simply the reality of the DPRK’s nuclear forces: the technical breakthrough and also what nukes mean for the regime’s insurance against outside interference. This is why so many nuclear scholars have been so skeptical they’ll give them up. 5/n
But on the positive side, it’s also why scholars like @mark_s_bell & @BridgetCoggins have said it’s absolutely worth talking to North Korea – but as the start of something, in small steps, on smaller issues. 6/n (Here's Mark Bell's piece): washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
And here's @BridgetCoggins' piece: washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
So we aren’t trying to be downers, but we also know that this summit didn’t happen overnight, and real “game changers” that last are very, very rare. Just see @ahkydd on why even a happy Singapore outcome in the short term might not last. 7/n washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
It’s also why @mchorowitz (who also wrote a book on why leaders matter) and I still think the odds of war are pretty low even if the summit fails, per our earlier @monkeycageblog piece. A lot of structural factors in the way of war. 8/n washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
Whatever happens, it will take time to really understand the outcome, and the results are not likely to be dramatic in either direction (war or peace). Doesn’t mean they couldn’t be. But that explains where many political scientists are coming from. 9/9
A coda: the nuclear community has done incredible work & many of my own thoughts on the summit have been shaped by reading them. Among many others: @NarangVipin @nktpnd @mark_s_bell @Joshua_Pollack @CherylRofer @ArmsControlWonk @mhanham @Nick_L_Miller @Malfrid_BH @MiraRappHooper
And a final thought: this thread was inspired by a discussion we had at this week's @BtGProjectDC panel on which I was fortunate to serve. Thanks again to @ProfJordanTama @JimGoldgeier @BWJ777 for having me.
