Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump: Why Should We Believe Either of Them?

Photograph Source edwardhblake | CC BY 2.0

In times of rapid change, what was true yesterday is not necessarily true today. For example, the leader of North Korea has threatened to wipe out Seoul and reduce it to rubble while the government of South Korea has confirmed it has a plan to assassinate President Kim Jong-un. Nonetheless, on April 26, 2018, amid lingering handshakes and embraces, the leaders of North and South Korea promised to establish “lasting peace” by formally ending the Korean War of 1950-53 which divided the peninsula 65 years ago.

Never to be outdone in a war of words, President Trump has constantly ridiculed Kim Jong-un, calling him “a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people,” and the Little Rocket Man. (The latter insult was repeated at the Von Braun Centre for Science & Innovationin Alabama, which was named after the German aerospace engineer who was leader of the team that developed the devastating V-2 ballistic missiles for the Nazis during World War II.) Trump also threatened North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

In the most recent turnabout, appropriate to the modus vivendi of his administration, President Trump said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been “very honorable” so far in the build-up to an announced summit between the two leaders. “Things have changed very radically from a few months ago,” Trump said at a press conference with Chancellor Merkel in responding to a question about the status of North Korean/US relations.

Wipe out Seoul or promise lasting peace? Assassinate or shake hands and hug? Madman or honorable? “Fire and fury” or summit diplomacy?  There have indeed been marked changes since belligerent threats dominated the headlines during North Korea’s 23 missile tests in 2017.

This radical change in words as well as the meeting of the two Korean heads of state and the diplomatic planning for the Kim Jong-un/Trump summit show how quickly situations can evolve. Remember how questions were being asked about a possible nuclear war with similarities drawn to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I imagine that we are all pleased that tensions seem to be lessened and that what has been an unstable Korean situation for 65 years appears to be near some form of resolution. But a different set of questions arises from the optimism of the moment. Are we consistent with what we say and do? Do we keep to our promises? What is the relation between then and now?

The Roman concept rendered in Latin as Pacta sunt servandais the basis of civil and international law. It translates to “agreements must be kept.” As such, it represents the understanding that when someone agrees to something, that person will adhere to that agreement in good faith. The only exception to keeping an agreement is if there has been a compelling change of circumstances, a “force majeure.” This change of circumstances could be something such as a war or, understood in legal terms, as an “act of God,” such as a hurricane, flood or earthquake.

Saying something is not the same as signing a contract. Diplomats are famously supposed to lie for their countries. But public pronouncements by political leaders are more than just personal asides or diplomatic negotiation positioning. Given the impulsiveness of Donald Trump and the general acceleration of time, we are no longer surprised by changes. In a CNN world of continuing “Breaking News,” change has become our only constant. Part of our fascination with today’s news is its inconsistency. We are never sure what is going to happen from day to day; there are no discernible patterns.

But there is a cost to living in a world of constant change. The concept of good faith has been lost. Any notion of what was said or promised before becomes invalid if each situation becomes contingent on the moment. What was once a “force majeure” is now any change of circumstance. What was once considered “an act of God” has become whatever either party feels at the moment. The level of acceptable change has been reduced to the subjective; the bar for keeping one’s word has been significantly lowered.

One can no longer say to someone: “You said the exact opposite yesterday,” because the easy answer will be, “Yeah, but that was yesterday.” For political leaders. long-term policy decisions become ad hoc improvisations; tactics and strategy become intertwined.

We are all breathing a sigh of relief at the possibility of peace on the Korean peninsula. There were enough threats of a dangerous confrontation. At the same time we are thankful for the positive news, however, we should not forget that Pacta sunt servandais not only the basis of civil and international law, it is also the basis of civilized behavior. If we cannot count on people to act in good faith, what can we count on?

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos