,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Trump is getting a lot of grief for this message - and yes, the PRC is an evil that no one except its brutal masters has any reason to celebrate - but it's consistent with his practice of being courteous to tyrannical leaders while following tough policies against their regimes.
Its effectiveness has yet to be seen, since all of Trump's major diplomatic plays are still works in progress, but he clearly sees flattering the megalomaniac leaders of these regimes as a way to break down their resistance to negotiations.
These authoritarian states all have official doctrines that hold the leader up as an elevated supreme being, at a minimum the smartest and/or shrewdest person in their country (China, Russia), or even a borderline demigod (North Korea.)
Treating the leaders with friendship and courtesy while pursuing tough policies against the regime *might* be a way of effectively using their own ideology against them, or at least short-circuiting it with confusing inputs. Keeping tyrants off-balance is not a bad idea.
Also, it can be very important to assure tyrannical leaders that our goal is not regime change (even when it actually is.) This is a huge factor with North Korea, and it's important to defuse China's efforts to portray the Hong Kong protests as a U.S. effort to sabotage the PRC.
As loathsome as these regimes are, it's important to remember that they view the richly-deserved human rights criticism thrown at them as an existential threat, not merely embarrassment. Kim Jong-un is not wrong to think much of the world would like to throw him in prison.
If you're serious about negotiating with these paranoid regimes, you have to reassure them that negotiations won't end with them in jail or swinging from lampposts. Providing such reassurance is not easy, especially since they've seen other tyrants fall in recent years.
In particular, all of today's tyrants have carefully studied the fall of the Soviet Union, and they are determined not to repeat its mistakes. Note how they all acted quickly and aggressively to make the Internet an instrument of control instead of a destabilizing force.
When you're dealing with that kind of profound but rational paranoia, you have to find ways of signaling to the leaders that you're not looking to overthrow them, even if - especially if! - that really IS your ideal long-term endgame.
It is also necessary to adjust your strategy for regimes that are solidly in control vs. those that are shaky. Some of these regimes might lose control or be overthrown in the near future; others are less vulnerable, more hideously capable of controlling their populations.
Trump's strategy is to send reassuring signals to authoritarian leaders personally (and sometimes signal displeasure personally, as with "Little Rocket Man") so they think they can profit by building a rapport with him. It's hard to swallow at times but it's a coherent strategy.
You're just not going to get much of a deal from a paranoid, egotistical tyrant by telling him you think he's one of history's greatest monsters, he belongs in a cell or an unmarked grave, and you'll do whatever it takes to ensure he gets what's coming to him.
If you don't really want to make a deal with such creatures, then fine, but be ready to oppose them as relentless enemies. We can't really do that with China because they're plugged deeply into the U.S. and world economic systems, thanks to decisions by Trump's predecessors.
Honestly, I don't think I could swallow enough bile to congratulate sinister Communist China on the anniversary of its founding, and I'm glad I don't have to, but I can accept that somebody has to do that dirty job if we're to wisely play the cards we have been dealt. /end
