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
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Justin Anderson
Don’t Count the Left Out Just Yet
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings