Kim Jong-un does not present an existential threat, and in the end it will be up to China to cut him down to size, writes Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
D onald Trump’s United Nations performance on Tuesday was dangerous. It was dangerous not for the testosterone tub-thumping and infantile imagery. It was dangerous for being based on a lie. Trump said: “If forced to defend ourselves and our allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”
Choice is the privilege of power – and moderation is its obligation. Trump understands neither. The two objects of his vitriol, Iran and North Korea, apart from being wholly unalike, are seeking to defend themselves with the same weapons as are deployed by America and its allies. No outside force is likely to stop them, nor is it clear by what right it might do so. We may not like nuclear proliferation, but we can hardly lecture others on the subject.
Meanwhile the idea that North Korea, for all its posturing, poses an existential threat to America is paranoid absurdity. Were its ruler to go mad and direct a nuclear missile at Guam or Hawaii or Oregon, it would cause a terrible mess, and a crisis in Chinese-American relations. Few would argue against retaliation. But the greatest danger is that it would suck America into another Asian land war and probably a defeat. As in the case of America’s war in Vietnam, that again would be a choice, but not a necessity.
On coming to office, Trump hinted at a policy of radical non-intervention abroad, under the plausible rubric of “America first”. He declared himself sceptical of the Iraq and Afghan wars, fed up with Nato, averse to the Saudi alliance and eager for a rapprochement with Russia. Even in terms of past American isolationism, this was dramatic stuff. We waited eagerly to see how it might work in practice.
The answer is clear – not at all. Even faster than George W Bush, Trump has slithered into the militarism, bullying and bombast that is the seduction of high office. His daily tweets amount to little more than “my adjective is bigger than yours”. He thrills to the call of the pipe and the drum. He whams bombs into Syria, and sends more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to “win” in the only way he knows how, by belligerence. His greatest weakness is constantly to imply he has no choice.
Britain should have nothing to do with this lie. We are at the 20th anniversary of Tony Blair’s 1997 recasting of Anglo-American relations.
