Trump - Statesmanship or War Crimes?

North Korea on the minds of everybody at the opening of the UN this year. Kim Jong-un testing the one still longer ranging missile after the other and topping his provocations by testing also a hydrogen bomb showing as a 6.3 tremble on the Richter scale drew tensions to a new diplomatic height and level of the scare on the Korean peninsula and in Japan. It was a collected, however, much worried Secretary-General saying this in his opening speech to the member-states:

I appeal to the Council to maintain its unity. Only that unity can lead to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and -- as the resolution recognizes -- create an opportunity for diplomatic engagement to resolve the crisis.

When tensions rise, so does the chance of miscalculation. Fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings.

The solution must be political. This is a time for statesmanship.

We must not sleepwalk our way into war.

Guterres', Address to the General Assembly, September 19, 2017

Then Trump took the floor and said:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do. (Bold emphasis added here)

White House readout, Trump's address at the UN, General Assembly, September 19, 2017

To Defeat or to Totally Destroy

In the Danish language, a remarkable silence released in a sound with no word is often described as an angel walking the room. Few, if any, present at the UN recalled of any sovereign leader having used a UN fora to vow to 'totally destroy' another sovereign. The United Nations Office to Prevent Genocide says that 'Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). In the Genocide Convention the crime is defined as follows:

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Like in other penal code, 'intent' is that which makes the difference between a possible mistake or mishap and a full-fledged crime. The UN office makes note of the difficulties proving of the 'mental element' mostly denied and explained away. However, in the case of Trump, one must say that he openly testifies as to his 'intent' once he feels forced to defend itself [US] or its allies. There is reason to believe that Trump will not await a nuclear attack to wear out his patience. To suggest pre-emptive annihilation of a people numbering 25 million inevitably killing also millions of its neighbour-kin, Trump's ally, appears to strongly suggest 'intent' of genocide on the part of Trump. To defeat an aggressor endangering international peace and security (UN charter chapter VII) is 'intent' entirely different from wanting to 'totally destroy.'

'The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raph?el Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,' says the UN Office to Prevent Genocide. The situational logic spurring Lemkin was the Nazi policies that had horrified the world but also other historic instances of attempts at destroying whole groups of people.

The last person to strongly support Trump in his act of decapitating unity against extinction of a whole people ought to be Israel's PM, Benjamin Netanyahu. Surprisingly, the PM living in a rough neighbourhood with sovereigns happy to see Israel eradicated from the political map did exactly that.

Trump Decapitates Guterres Unity

Trump talks behind the walls of the institution that codified international law forbidding 'intent to destroy in whole or in part' and still Trump goes on to say that to 'totally destroy' is 'what the United Nations is all about; that what the United Nations is for'. No wonder that a chilling silence followed by a too deep breath no one could hold back came on the heels of Trump's remarkable utterance decapitating an international consensus by states, mindful of World War II and firmly set to rein in aggression untamed. The UN is all about containing unwarranted aggression by proportionate measures of defence. To talk about 'total destruction' is the Nazi language of Adolf Hitler vowing the 'final solution' to Jews and other despised outcasts.

In his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly, Trump disrupted the international unity of 147 States that has 'codified [total destruction] as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). Trump casts a spell on the unity urged by the Secretary-General Guterres. Doing so Trump aligns his 'intent' with what Russia has done for the dictator Bashar Al-Assad turning Aleppo in Syria into a desert of rubbles and with that which Saudi Arabia is working on daily in Yemen all of them lining up for accusations of war crimes by the UN and the International Criminal Court.

Statesmanship, Not Fiery Trump

Trump is likely to experience once again that to rattle around with uncontrolled rhetoric catches up. It so happened in the case of Trump signing executive orders prohibiting certain immigration, the so-called Muslim Ban. The American judiciary held Trump accountable for his inflammatory campaign vows and banned the executive order for racist intent against Muslims. See my post, 'Trump - Leak and Lie'. As this post is coming along Trump's third attempt at banning immigration from mainly Muslim countries now added North Korea, Chad, and Venezuela for the looks is turned down by another federal judge ruling the executive order to still suffer from the maladies of Trump's racist rallying during the campaign running for president.

On August 8, 2017, the ongoing already heated exchange of insults between Trump and Kim Jong-un was taken to new heights when Trump extemporized from his N.Y. Bedminster Golf Club:

North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.

The expression 'fire and fury like the world has never seen' is digested and Trump is accused of scaremongering; however, worldwide diplomacy and analysts nevertheless go boggling their minds as to the intent of the statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be the prominent examples of American 'fire and fury' disclosed 72 years ago with nukes. What could the U.S. do in 2017 without using nukes to materialise 'something the world has never seen'? Blame is on Trump for using such explosive language addressing an easily inflamed Kim Jong-un widely cited for threatening on his part of a 'sea of fire'. The consternation only encourages Trump to double-down on his provocative outburst suggesting 'maybe it was not strong enough'.

Come September 19, 2017, and we are lectured by Trump that 'fire and fury' mean 'total destruction'. We are left to wonder about the means only and what to trigger the unspeakable.

The Secretary-General of the UN Antonio Guterres addresses in his opening speech the Korean crisis and warns that 'fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings'. Rather Guterres calls for 'statesmanship'. Come September 19, 2017, we learn that the prominent representative of the international community of states hardly finds Trump's governing a case of statesmanship but a case of 'fiery talk' putting at risk international peace and security.

Al Jazeera wraps-up the UN prelude to a situational logic that can easily ignite crisis:

Statesmanship -What is it Like?

In 2002 former President George Bush launched the ominous concept of an evil axis composed by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in his first state-of-the-union speech. Original thinking is not Trump's strong suit and neither his administration's. However, to seek inspiration in a speech notorious for having attempted to ramp up a coalition to invade Iraq on entirely false premises is to mirror governing on the part of not only George Bush but also UK's Tony Blair, Denmark's Anders Fog Rasmussen and other heads of state in the coalition those who did not pass the Iraq-test of statesmanship. To go on, turn the ominous concept into sort of an analogy named 'the scourge of the Planet' is only adding to the widely spread opinion that truth as a strong suit is entirely absent from Trump's wardrobe, so to speak. In the case of Bush, Iraq eroded into a failed state and a melting pot for radical Islamic terrorism and whatever opening in the dialogue with North Korea the Clinton administration had achieved, it was derailed - this is what both Obama and Trump inherited. In 2002, North Korea interpreted George Bush's unfolding of his concept of the 'axis of evil' as 'little short of a declaration of war' - see my post, Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate? Why revitalize such flagrant a fuser in an analogy writ large? North Korea's FM reminds the Assembly of the not so distant history:

The U.S. claims that the DPRK's possession of H-bomb and ICBM constitutes a "global threat" even at the UN arena. But such claim is a big lie which is just tantamount to the notorious "big lie" faked up by the U.S. in 2003 about the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction in order to invade that country.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a responsible nuclear weapon state.

Ri Yong-ho, Address UN General Assembly, September 23, 2017

DPRK's argument on the right on the part of any sovereign to be a nuclear power will be further unfolded below. In this context, the FM made a further point that weakens the trustworthiness of Trump's sized-up mission of the 'scourge of the Planet' and its fatal omissions such as the fact that Israel for years has been 'recognised', and certainly not sanctioned, as an unofficial nuclear power:

My delegation takes this opportunity to extend strong support to and solidarity with the Cuban government and people who are fighting to defend national sovereignty and realize international justice against the high-handedness, arbitrariness and unilateral embargo of the U.S.

We also express strong support to and solidarity with the government and people of Venezuela who are fighting to defend the national sovereignty and the cause of socialism.

The unjust and contemptible acts such as turning a blind eye to the heinous acts of Israel while condemning in every manner only the Syrian government fighting to protect its national sovereignty and security should not be tolerated any longer.

Ri Yong-ho, Address UN General Assembly, September 23, 2017

Trump's divisive foreign policies and his very transparent biases are not in the interest of international peace and security; there is no point in the president of the United States to gratuitously supply arguments for rough or merely authoritarian states to gang up against injustices in the international society that should rather show the way forward in fairness and freedom. Such behaviour is a solid argument for international terrorism and we have seen how the blame game of Bush is still running wild in Iraq and Syria. A piece of advice could be for Trump to be more careful choosing his heroes and favourite speeches of his predecessors.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results so it goes in the witticism maybe mistakenly ascribed to Einstein. No matter how famous the piece of wisdom is, it proved true in Trump's case. Bush's sinister blame game writ large for the purpose of Trump's theatrical deterrence stunts did not fare better than his predecessor's. North Korea reacts to Trump's label as a scourge of the planet entitled to 'total destruction', calling Trump's address 'reckless and violent words':

None other than Trump himself is on a suicide mission.

In case innocent lives of the U.S. are lost because of this suicide attack. Trump will be held totally responsible. The respected supreme leader Comrade Kim Jong Un stated : as a man representing the DPRX and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the DPRK.

Ri Yong-ho, Address UN General Assembly, September 23, 2017

Trump rushes back into the limelight, to threaten both the FM and the Rocket Man on their lives - 'they won't be around much longer!' To threaten the life of a diplomat conveying his country's political message is unprecedented and it flashes Trump as an ignorant. Diplomacy normally holds immunity; had the FM not echoed the Little Rocket Man, and he did quote him, Trump might have had a case amounting to a terrorist threat against a head of state - however slim:

Trump's Twitter feed comes with a heavy load of situational logic namely a possible 'operation decapitation' - see below.

The Korean FM refers to the 'supreme leader' but in his UN address, Trump referred to the 'supreme leader' (the title resembling the honourable title of the Ayatollahs of Iran a country killing for insults as do North Korea and Saudi Arabia) of North Korea as the 'Rocket Man' unlike Obama designating simply the 'leader of the country'. The UN has hosted much harsh talking in its 72 years of existence but rarely without the minimum diplomatic professionalism that would limit the personal insults. The diplomatic self-censoring is the counterpart of an international society struggling to codify 'civilized' warfare to protect at least civilians and to be a bulwark against war crimes. Parlance is not unlimited, just like warfare is to defeat aggression proportionally. The practical function of the diplomatic code of conduct is a lot more than elitist arrogance; it can be a matter of survival and the logic is that if a statesman and his diplomacy cannot restrain their verbal outbursts how can we trust that country to ever follow the rules of war? Trump has proved ignorant about much elementary knowledge; so it is hard to tell if Trump is aware of the social status of the 'sons of the sun' in North Korea. The regime is authoritarian akin to political theocracy holding the kin of the Kims sacred. To call Kim Jong-un a 'wack-job in Korea' and the not only 'Rocket Man' but the 'little' one is sheer blasphemy in North Korea. FM Ri Yong-ho said in his UNGA speech as follows:

Due to his lacking basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity of my country by referring it to a rocket.

By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire US mainland inevitable all the more...

Ri Yong-ho, Address UN General Assembly, September 23, 2017

To call Kim Jong-un the 'little Rocket Man' is to refer the supreme dignity of North Korea to a rocket; there is identity between the country and the kin of the leader. FM Ri Yong-ho's rational argument in his speech on the right of every sovereign to become a nuclear power obviously weakens if self-defence to a 'responsible' North Korean can be ignited on the grounds of a verbal insult by Trump 'referring the supreme dignity of the country to a rocket' and by September 23, 2017, even a small one.

Judged by Trump's own standards, it is no minor issue to mock by diminishing size of physical appearance. For many years Trump has openly been much affronted being reminded of his short fingers and all its physiological but more importantly its psychological implications. He has been so annoyed that he would even bring it up in his rally speeches in a deplorable attempt at assuring the world that he is no shorty leaving a jaw-dropping audience to wonder if anybody would care to know. Psychologically it seems that he is and that he attacks with the weapons he fears the most himself. So Kim Jong-un is a 'little Rocket Man'. There has been much denigration in the international mocking of Kim Jong-un and the performance of his regime has not been accommodating in that respect. He is widely referred to as the 'fat boy' and U.S. Senator John McCain has talked in TV-shows about 'this crazy fat kid that’s running North Korea'. An opinion piece by Barbara Ellen in the Guardian of April 2, 2017, is presented under the heading 'Kim may be crazy, so don’t call him fat'. A DPRK statement prompted by the remark suggests Ellen has a point that the supreme leader is no more supreme than when it comes to mocking the entire regime is deployed to defend his lifestyle giving him away:

... North Korean statement was released saying that, among other comments made against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by prominent US politicians, McCain’s “crazy fat kid” jibe was “a provocation little short of war”.

Barbara Ellen, The Guardian, April 2, 2017

According to Barbara Ellen, it has not been helpful that 'one of the most popular web searches in China is “Kim Fatty the Third”'. An all-time favourite on YouTube is a video clip on 'Tiny Trump', which is not about a physical shortcoming but an inability to choose ergonomically well-suited office desks. Barbara Ellen highlights that a nuclear war on the cause of mocking diminished or sized-up physical attributes is a poor situation for mankind. The opposing point of view clearly is that of free speech - see my writings on the democratic function of the 'fifth estate' the art of art political in my post 'Trump, Leak and Lie', my post, Trump, Diplomatic Disaster 1, and my post, 'Trump Diplomatic Disaster 2'. I think that most of us were brought up learning never to mock the looks of fellow human beings that they can do nothing to change if they are born that way. A not so bad rule of thumb; there is plenty of room for thumbing the nose at things that both Trump and Kim Jong-un choose to do and are responsible for. One thing is to catapult lockerroom talk into the White House and the General Assembly of the UN.

September 25, 2017, North Korea again stages their largely unknown FM Ri Yong-ho for a brief statement departing from the UN building and he is leaving no impression of not being with his senses or mental good health, but to find Trump overstepping the limits of even a nuclearized battle of rhetorics:

However, last weekend Trump claimed that our leadership won’t be around much longer, and hence at last he declared war on us. Given the fact that this came from someone who holds the seat of the US presidency, this is clearly a declaration of war.”

All the member states participating in the United Nations General Assembly and the whole world should clearly remember that it was the US who first declared war on our country.

In the light of the declaration of war by Trump all options will be on the table of the Supreme Leadership of the DPRK.

Trump's UNGA address is not 'little short of a declaration of war'; it is 'clearly a declaration of war'. It is not every day that an American president manages to open the UN year causing a declaration of war and he is not into rocket science but only behavioural rocket conduct. Is this a case of Guterres' 'fiery talk [that] can lead to fatal misunderstandings? Unless Trump really wants to provoke Kim Jong-un to overreact, and South Korea and Japan consent to that, the game is highly risky. FM Ri Yong-ho is not overreacting but appears to refer to the situational logic of an 'operation decapitation' which according to Jan Goldman's 'Words of Intelligence: An Intelligence Professional's Lexicon for Domestic and Foreign Threats' precisely in nuclear warfare is a pre-emptive measure to render a nuclear power leaderless to stop or at least delay a strike long enough to be able to deploy other military measures:

For the American president to go lost in some loose parlance of heads of states 'to not be around much longer' is to initiate the logic of war and a U.S. president ought to be professionally mindful that he speaks to an audience of diplomats familiar with precisely such situational framework. The 'operation decapitation' called 'Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation system' lined out by South Korea is secret in its details but not clandestine. Its existence has been communicated to the public on several occasions, however, by October 10, this year it may have been old knowledge in its details too to the Pyongyang regime for at least a year. Yonhap News Agency released information of a case of hacking dating back a year:

SEOUL, Oct. 10 (Yonhap) -- North Korean hackers are believed to have stolen a large amount of classified military documents, including the latest South Korea-U.S. wartime operational plan, last year, a ruling party lawmaker said Tuesday.

Citing information from unnamed defense officials, Democratic Party Rep. Lee Cheol-hee said that the hackers broke into the Defense Integrated Data Center in September last year to steal the secret files, such as Operational Plans 5015 and 3100.

OPLAN 5015 is the latest Seoul-Washington scheme to handle an all-out war with Pyongyang, which reportedly contains detailed procedures to "decapitate" the North Korean leadership.

Yonhap News Agency, October 10, 2017

Pyongyang may be ahead of Trump far enough to know that a clandestine operation to assassinate Kim Jong-un and other key persons is somewhat at a halt now that it's been intercepted. However, all that a situation of war takes is Pyongyang to believe that 'not much longer' means that Trump is confident to have made up for the hacking and that he is ready 'now'. Trump's Twitter feed on August 11, 2017, is suggestive:

Korea Jongang Daily reported as early as March 14, 2017, that US Navy Seals, known for taking out Osama bin Laden, were to participate in the yearly drill:

The U.S. Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group, better known as the SEAL Team 6, will arrive in South Korea soon for joint military drills and take part in an exercise simulating the removal of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, according to the Ministry of National Defense Monday.

Also set to touch down in South Korea is Delta Force, a special mission unit of the U.S. Army whose main tasks include hostage rescue and counterterrorism, said the Defense Ministry. Together with SEAL Team 6, they will practice removing Kim Jong-un and destruction of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.

“It will send a very strong message to North Korea, which is constantly carrying out military provocations,” a ministry official said.

Topped with Trump's UN speech the 'message' could easily turn out too strong. The deterring announcements and the drills have not prevented Pyongyang from escalating the ladder of military intimidations as is unfolded below. A first step in the direction of war is North Korea vowing to feel entitled to down American flights nearing their country even in international airspace and as a step of escalation, they have gone north of the 38th parallel line approaching the demilitarised zone between the two Koreas. In 1968, the Pueblo crisis would shake the cold war balance of power when the navy spy ship was seized by North Korea killing a crew member and holding hostage another 83 crewmembers for 11 months subjecting them to torture. It happened in 1969 that a US surveillance plane was shot down killing 31 on board, and in 1994 a pilot died when an army helicopter was crashed only then Johnson, Nixon respectively Clinton were presidents, not Trump. Nuclear retaliation was 'on the table' in 1968 and 1969, however, the presidents settled for diplomacy. At least to my knowledge, either of the three former presidents were trapped in a regime of personal insults clearly getting under their skin but in the present situation we need to count in that besides rational reasons adding to the ladder of escalation so do series of jibes and attempts at slighting the adversary. It is poisonous that both Trump and Kim Jong-un are highly sensitive to the game of the political vanity fair.

Trump's spokeswoman Sarah Sanders immediately denied the idea of the U.S. declaring war as absurd. Trouble is that she needs to convince Pyongyang not the American press:

The linguistic masterplan of elevating the evil of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela as to the level of the planet, perhaps venture to make even with Macron who set out to 'Make the Planet Great Again', hence, dwarfed Trump's political project in chief namely that of 'Making America Great Again'. Didn't Trump think that it could get any bigger - until Macron beefed up ambitions? - see my post, 'Trump - A Home Run at the UNGA 2017?' However, Venezuela is a case of approaching civil war not a planetary crisis and Iran in 2017 is a theocratic autocracy but far from the state of affair of Khomeini and the country has stepped onto a path leading to improved international relations in many ways. In Obama's speech at the UN in 2013, he said this about the kind of Iran coming about as the result of moderate forces in the country:

We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.

Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the supreme leader has issued a fatwah against the development of nuclear weapons. And President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.

So these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful.

It is no minor gesture of good intentions for the supreme leader of a theocracy to issue a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons the chief issue of concern to the international community. It was an intention worth pursuing in 2013 and it was landed by Iran and the 5+1 in the nuclear deal JCPOA; the moderate President Rouhani taking a leading role in negotiations. Trump completely neglects that the Iranian people just renewed Rouhani's mandate, a national sign of intent that deserves support to continue in the right direction. Moreover, there is no violation of the JCPOA as falsely accused by Trump. As this post is coming about Trump has announced to 'decertify' the Iran deal prompting Congress to take a stand on the deal and future possible American sanctions. Trump's behaviour as always is highly divisive at a critical time in history when he wants international support for sanctions against North Korea if possible tough enough to collapse the country. To the 4 +1 parties to the Iran deal, it is hard to understand why Trump would want to open a second nuclear uncertainty with Iran, hence, tampering with the deal in place that works meaning that Iran does not work to develop nukes. The 4 + 1 parties much prefer this space in time leaving room to deal with North Korea. UK, Germany, and France have released a statement to stand by the deal an so has EU's Federica Mogherini in strong words. Iran plays its part in the Middle East balancing Saudi Arabia in Iraq and Syria, and they have trumped the Saudis. Many things can be said about the Iranian influence propping up authoritarianism and patent violations of human rights [see my post, 'Saudi Geopolitics - Iraq's Militia State, Calling Clergy', post, 'Iraq, Whose Geopolitics Saudi or Iran?', and post, Saudi Arabia - Lost in Alliance (3 of 3 part four of four)] but it is not yet a planetary crisis, and Iran is not the sole culprit. We should have to count in Russia. Trump calls in his UN speech for Iran to 'respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors'; Trump is not quite up to speed with reality; he should be mindful that both Iran and Russia are present in Iraq respectively Syria on invitation by the two sovereign governments. It is a difficult outset for blames of terrorism and Trump is notoriously wrong to fault Iran for not combating ISIS, in Iranian terminology the takfir warriors (Muslims holding other Muslims infidels) of a Salafi/Wahhabist origin - see my post, 'Saudi Geopolitics - Iraq's Takfiri Groups, Wahhabist Superior Doctrines'. Trump says to during his visit to Saudi Arabia in May to be 'greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations. We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamist extremism that inspires them.' For these Sunni countries to help to combat the takfir warriors fueled by their own Sunni Salafi ideology seem to be the least they can do. Iran is the homeland of Shiite Muslims. This is not to say that there are no cases of Iranian state-financed terrorism but Trump speaks way out of proportion. Lastly, in the case of Yemen, one may say that Saudi Arabia is present by invitation but that is by the exiled government safely hosted in Saudi Arabia while the Saudis are daily committing war crimes against the Yemeni people causing 17 million people to be by now in need of crisis supplies and 7 million to have fallen off the brink of famine already; moreover as many as a million may soon have attracted cholera. Trump says in his UN speech that the U.S. 'continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief in... Yemen'. Judged by Trump's own standards claiming to be guided by 'outcome, not ideology' one must say that the leading in Yemen does not appear as a win situation, rather it is a shame to us all. It is widely acknowledged that the influence and presence of Iran are absolutely minor compared with the Saudi Arabian scourge to the country and certainly not as propagated by Trump in his speech the prime 'fuel [of] Yemen's civil war', which is as much a foreign Saudi intervention as is it civil fighting.

To at least avoid miscalculations and derailed interpretations truth as a strong suit is helpful to statesmanship.

Trump is more likely to find support judging North Korea; but while proper Iranian intent paved the way for the Iran deal Trump's intent will face difficulties paving the way of a united stand on North Korea. He will find no support of his pre-emptive 'total destruction'. His spokeswoman Sarah Huckerby Sanders faces the wondering international press to sanitize Trump's speech and she takes to her Twitter account. She cites former President Obama. However, Sarah Sanders' quote is a misrepresentation of what former president Barack Obama did in fact say:

"Our first priority is to protect the American people and our allies, the Republic of Korea, Japan, that are vulnerable to the provocative actions that North Korea is engaging in," Mr. Obama said.

He said North Korea is "erratic enough" and the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, is "irresponsible enough that we don't want them getting close."

"But it's not something that lends itself to an easy solution," Mr. Obama said. "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals. But aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, Republic of Korea."

Former President Barack Obama, CBS, April 26, 2016

Obama exercises statesmanship acknowledging what is 'erratic enough' without succumbing to the standards of World War II warfare. There is a difference in stating that military-wise the U.S. dwarfs North Korea, in itself a deterring fact, and that of deterring to use such overwhelming power in violation of the convention to prevent genocide; moreover to be inconsiderate of the costs on part of U.S.'s vital ally South Korea not to forget China likely to face an influx of refugees in case Trump's scenario ever were to play out. Obama does not shy away from finding Kim Jong-un 'provocative', 'erratic', and 'irresponsible' but he refrains from inflammatory phrases such as 'Rocket Man' to name the 'son of the sun' and leader of a sovereign nation or to label a national security policy 'a suicide mission' he is eager to midwife in an act of 'total destruction'. It is not that Kim Jong-un did not provoke Obama. In 2013 Reuters publishes on March 30, 2013, a full war declaration statement from DPRK in which it warns the U.S. and South Korea about its intention to put an end to the 'history of the long-standing showdown with the U.S.' and 'the strong will of the army and people of the DPRK to annihilate the enemies' - see my post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?' By April 2013, Trump feeds his Twitter account calling Kim Jong-un a '28-year-old wack job in North Korea'. Trump is thumbing his nose, Obama shows of statesmanship without giving up free speech.

The Intent of Sheer Insults?

Guterres is not enacting the role of the speaker in national parliaments calling for order when politicians get carried away. Guterres takes to the floor to warn not to enkindle fiery talk into a region already drowning in aggressive verbiage for the mere reason that the decomposition of words in international politics can easily set on fire. The record of insults, Trump addressing Kim Jong-un as a 'maniac', 'madman', 'looking for trouble', and a '28-year-old wack job', and Kim on his part, only lately however, returning the 'maniac' label adding the tag of 'mentally deranged U.S. dotard' going on to characterise Trump's administration 'at the elementary student level' and a 'childish roughneck' to mention but a few, illustrates the shift in tone since Trump took office - see my post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?' Guterres call for statesmanship is timely, to say the least, even without adding that Trump openly has vowed that he, using economic enforcement, 'would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly'. Trump thumbed his nose at the call by adding a vow to 'totally destroy' the whole country only moments later at the UN.

Pentagon has pledged to want to bring Kim Jong-un to his senses, not to his knees. However, Trump leaves the impression of wanting to bring Kim Jong-un to blow his top a mental state of affair normally not associated with someone in balanced contact with his senses. What is then the 'intent'?

Sovereignty and Patriotism From the Point of View of North Korea

My post, 'Trump - A Home Run at the UNGA 2017?' is a take on Trump's emphasised concepts in his maiden speech this year namely 'sovereignty' and 'patriotism'. And a brief digression on the situational logic from the point of view of North Korea is here to follow. On the issue of patriotism Trump says:

Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain. Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, and our minds in our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

We cannot wait for someone else, for faraway countries or far-off bureaucrats -- we can't do it. We must solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures, or we will be vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat.

The North Korean sovereignty is an issue to Trump. Trump's administration claims to not be wanting regime change or the fall of Kim Jong-un. Obama assured Iran in exactly similar words in his UNGA speech in 2013. But unlike Trump, he did not adjoin the statement with endless series of insults and nose-thumbing nor bombasting the immediateness of an 'operation decapitation'. In that case, the Iran deal had never come about. Kim Jong-un has opted out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and he develops nukes and long distance missiles. As do accepted members of the exclusive nuclear club, the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel - for self-defence only of course. By adopting the behaviour of the club, Kim Jong-un will say to be engaged to 'solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures' since 'no one can do it for us'. In Trump's own prediction any other approach will leave North Korea 'vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat'. Kim Jong-un and his people will consent to that out of fear that the Americans might attack their country as it happened in the Korean war in which 2.5 million lost their lives out of which 1.2 million were soldiers. The Korean war is described as a study in 'intent'. Americans struggled to maintain a principle of discrimination in their bombing and an effort to avoid civilian casualties. However, the dynamic of warfare anyway resulted in something by many sources described as the complete destruction of major North Korean cities deemed of military importance despite the civilian suffering caused. Some sources claim that 80% of all noteworthy buildings were turned into rubbles. The concept 'collateral damage' hatched out of that war. The Korean War was 'intended' not to be conducted on World War II standards. It did not work that way and the 1949 Geneva Convention proved very insufficient to protect non-combatants in non-occupied territories. However, the experience at least paved the way for revisions of the Conventions in the years to follow. The Korean War was no less of a horror scenario than was World War II and there was an overhanging danger of nuclear weapons to be used to put an end to the battling. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a vivid war testimony at the time. In his address this year at the UNGA FM Ri Yong-ho said this:

It is the U.S. that threatened to use nuclear weapon against the DPRK during the Korean War in 1950s and first introduced nuclear weapons into the Korean peninsula after the war.

Ri Yong-ho, Address UN General Assembly, September 23, 2017

The collective memory is kept very much alive in North Korea to explain, or rather explain away, all the suffering on part of citizens in order for their great nation to prevail in the grave contest with the yanks necessitating nukes. The intellectual aftermath of the Korean war discussing the intent in attempted civilized warfare bears little reassurance to the Kim-dynasty. FM Ri Yong-ho offers a brief lecture of the facts that it was the U.S. to bring nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula during the cold war and that it is the U.S. that has ramped up drills and military exercises during the past 60 years. In the opinion of the regime, those facts make good the rational must on the part of North Korea to carry out self-defence:

Our national nuclear force is, to all intents and purposes, a war deterrent for putting an end to nuclear threat of the U.S. and for preventing its military invasion; and our ultimate goal is to establish the balance of power with the U.S.

In Trump parlance in his address this is a confirming answer to his quest for patriotism, 'the true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots?' North Koreans are indeed patriots and 'do [they] love [their] nation enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures?' Absolutely.

North Korea has managed to scare its enemies be that out of bad conscience promising revenge or their proximity to the ongoing tests of missiles and nuclear bombs. Those defending North Korea's right to self-defence, such as China, are scared too because the Kim-dynasty has not convinced everybody to be limiting itself to defence measures, hence, his kin upsets the international power of balance. The Kim-dynasty and in particular Kim Jong-un who made nuclear dignity part of the country's constitution engage in deterrence not only by piling weapons like everybody else but also by engagement in rhetorical games of deterrence -see my post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?' The North Korean issue is about the psychology of a sovereign's right to self-defence and how to qualify for the right to perform deterring actions. To the North Koreans, the account of deterrence begins with the Korean war in 1950 through 1953, and in Trump's own words they will say to be 'rooted in their histor[y] and invested in their destin[y]'. In Trump's own words they will hold to be a 'home to patriots, to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countr[y]'. It inflames North Korean patriotism to learn about the American/South Korean 'operation beheading' aiming at annihilating Kim Jong-un's rule, and in Pyongyang's words on August 9, 2017, the regime is prepared to lean on, 'the first maxim of soldiers to devotedly defend the headquarters of the revolution'.

The Ladder of Escalation

My post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?' unfolds Trump acting deterrence attempting to influence North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un during the month of April and beginning May this year. The analysis coins the question if Trump acting deterrence already on Day 99 in his presidency is checkmate.

On May 13, 2017, one more blast is registered. On May 21, 2017, Trump's day 1 on an official visit to Saudi Arabia, a Pukguksong-2 is successfully tested said by North Korea to be a capable nuclear carrier. The G-7 Summit on Sicily in Taormina includes the North Korean crisis in its communiqué on May 27, 2017:

We reiterate our commitment on non-proliferation and disarmament. North Korea, a top priority in the international agenda, increasingly poses new levels of threat of a grave nature to international peace and stability and the non-proliferation regime through its repeated and ongoing breaches of international law. North Korea must immediately and fully comply with all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) and abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. Condemning in the strongest terms North Korea's nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches, we stand ready to strengthen measures aimed at achieving these objectives and strongly call on the international community to redouble its efforts to ensure the sustained, comprehensive and thorough implementation of relevant UNSCRs. We urge North Korea to address humanitarian and human rights concerns, including the immediate resolution of the abductions issue.

The French Press Agency Rappeler cites Trump for vowing after an hour-long crisis meeting with Japan's PM Shinzo Abe, 'that the problem posed by the dictator "will be solved".' The stand on North Korea is united.

But by May 29, 2017, on his return to the U.S. Trump needs to tweet that China is still so disrespected by Kim Jung-un meaning that China has not been able, or willing, to rein in North Korea and prevent the next missile test:

The logic of the situation is that Trump has, in Trump parlance, showboated tough talking deterrence calculating on the Chinese to bail him out meaning to lift off America's shoulders the self-inflicted pressure to slide from failed deterrence to military action.

By June 20, 2017, Trump feeds a tweet regretting the absent bailout, 'while I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!'

On June 30, 2017, Trump reiterates that the Obama's 'strategic patience' has failed and that patience is over.

Come July 3, 2017, (Korean time July 4) Kim Jong-Un fires an intercontinental ballistic missile causing Trump to tweet 'does this guy have anything better to do with his life?' Kim Jong-un is not so very worried about Trump's mood of impatience and Trump sounds like an actor of deterrence taking a blow of despair since his act has no effect of intimidation. Trump surrenders to hope that 'perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!' July 5, he laments 'so much for China' because trade with North Korea is on the rise.

July 28, 2017, is the day of yet another intercontinental ballistic missile and Trump more forcefully redirects his deterrence towards China; they are to mind their economic relations:

Earlier this year on April 11, 2017, Trump worked on his image trying to prove himself presidential. A self-confident two months gone White House leader still trusting the powers of his theatrical verbal deterrence tweeted that 'North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help that will be great. If not we will solve the problem without them!' Less than 3 months later Trump is less comfortable going it alone and needs resort to economic pressure on China.

August 5, 2017, a unanimous Security Council decides on tough sanctions forbidding North Korea to export coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore, seafood as well as sending guest workers abroad who are forced to send back home to the regime a major part of their salaries. It looks like a win, however, the Chinese still not willing to restrict oil imports from China to not destabilise the country. Trump had a resolution albeit less forcefull than hoped for. Perhaps emboldened by the diplomatic result Trump then extemporizes on August 8, 2017, vowing 'fire and fury the world has never seen'; the outburst is unexpected and with no explanatory escalating event. Rather one should expect the win situation, to allow for Trump to calm and let the sanctions regime work. Trump's improvisation is a diplomatic setback to the Chinese repeatedly urging Pyongyang to restrain the ongoing rhetoric battle; Pyongyang is already infuriated over sanctions and Kim Jong-un is psychologically terrified by the possibility of an 'operation decapitation' strongly suggested by the American fighter jets aggressively getting still nearer Pyongyang. In a statement on August 8, 2017, the Korean News Agency KCNA releases a statement lamenting the intensified drills by the U.S. and South Korea and 'the U.S. strategic bombers, which get on the nerves of the DPRK and threaten nerve and blackmail it through their frequent visits to the sky above south Korea'.

Such military maneuvers of the U.S. may provoke a dangerous conflict under the present extremely acute situation prevailing on the Korean peninsula.

Korean News Agency KCNA on behalf of DPRK, August 8, 2017

The regime is strangely forgetful of its own beefed-up testing of long-distance missiles rather it pronounces to be 'taking special note' that the U.S. is 'driving the regional situation to an extreme pitch by bringing various kinds of nuclear strategic hardware before the very eyes of the DPRK.' The agitated tone leaves the impression of a regime well impressed with the American deterrence 'before their very eyes'. They choose to return the threat bringing before the very eyes of U.S. territory an 'enveloping fire':

Typically, the nuclear strategic bombers from Guam frequent the sky above south Korea to openly stage actual war drills and muscle-flexing in a bid to strike the strategic bases of the DPRK. This grave situation requires the KPA to closely watch Guam, the outpost and beachhead for invading the DPRK, and necessarily take practical actions of significance to neutralize it.

(...) The KPA Strategic Force is now carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12 in order to contain the U.S. major military bases on Guam including the Anderson Air Force Base...

Pyongyang stresses that their strategic weapons are 'manufactured at the cost of blood and sweat, risking everything, are not a bargaining thing'. They strike to hit hard at a cornerstone of Trump's campaign vowes slighting him for not having prevented the North Korean strategic advances on his watch:

Will only the U.S. have option called “preventive war” as is claimed by it?

It is a daydream for the U.S. to think that its mainland is an invulnerable Heavenly kingdom.

August 9, 2017, Pyongyang's KCNA News Agency issues another somewhat worked up charge protesting the 'heinous sanctions resolutions' and lamenting the American 'war hysteria', the 'Pentagon war mongers' and that 'The U.S. has gone hysteric, being quite unaware of the army and people of the DPRK.' They strongly object to the 'necessity of the "beheading operation"' and 'preemptive strike at the north'. Pyongyang warns that they themselves have a 'world's best special operation force' meaning a North Korean 'operation decapitation' and states the real deterrence as follows:

It is ridiculous to talk about preemptive strike at the nuclear and rocket bases of the DPRK.

The Korean-style earlier preemptive attack will burn up all the objects in the areas under the control of the first and third held armies of the puppet forces including Seoul the moment the U.S. reckless attempt at preemptive attack is spotted, and will lead to the all-out attack for neutralizing the launch bases of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces in the Pacific operational theatre together with the simultaneous strike at the depth of the whole of the southern half.

August 11, 2017, Trump feeds his Twitter account with the infamous warning (see above) that military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded. But he hopes for Kim Jong-un to find another path. Another almost whole week with no blasts and no envelope fire encircling the Guam Island with 160,000 soldiers stationed and Kim Jong-un issues a more conciliatory statement largely pep-talking his strategic forces the Peoples Party and key personnel, however, also saying 'that the U.S. imperialists caught the noose around their necks due to their reckless military confrontation racket', but 'adding that he would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees'. Trump is generous noting that 'Kim Jong Un of North Korea made a very wise and well reasoned decision. The alternative would have been both catastrophic and unacceptable!' Trump is still hungry for a win at his rally in Phoenix Arizona on August 23 and he cannot resist the temptation to boast about his much-criticised extemporisation on August 8 ratcheting up the already tense conflict with Kim Jong-un with 'fire and fury':

And you see what's going on in North Korea. All of a sudden, I don't know -- who knows. But I can tell you, what I said, that's not strong enough. Some people said it's too strong, it's not strong enough.

But Kim Jong Un, I respect the fact that I believe he is starting to respect us. I respect that fact very much. Respect that fact.

And maybe -- probably not -- but maybe something positive can come about. They won't tell you that, but maybe something positive can come about.

Trump rally in Phoenix Arizona, August 23, 2017, full transcript by Time

By August 23, 2017, Trump led his attendees to believe that he had scared Kim Jong-un to 'respect' the U.S. and that he himself in turn 'respect that [as a] fact'. Trump thinks to have achieved a win. Pyongyang hardly ever had illusions about the American military machine; what Trump has attempted to shape is their perception of the American president's willingness i.e. his 'intent' to make use of his military might. Trump defends his psychological theory that theatrical acts of deterrence can install respect in an enemy by fear and he jumps to the causal conclusion that such 'respect' has led Kim Jong-un to put a halt to his nuclear and missile programme. Trump forestalls the situation that 'they' meaning the 'fake media' 'won't tell you' about this 'positive [that] can come about' as a result of Trump's aggressive rhetorics.

Trump is right the media never make it to praise anything positive about Trump's uncontrolled temper because Trump only produces a very serious setback. Trump is far too early to render his own theatrical deterrence spectacle victorious like in the case of the Qatar-embargo when he tweeted on his own immense impact speaking to the Arab audience in Riyadh to drive out their terrorists without knowing that Qatar is host to 10,000 American troops flying out of the Qatari air base to combat terrorism in Syria and Iraq - see my post, 'Trump - A Home Run at the UNGA 2017?' Only three days after Trump's rally on August 26 two scot missiles are fired into the Sea of Japan and another three days later on August 29, 2017, Kim Jong-un takes his deterrence performance before the very eyes of Japan having a Hawasong-12 fly over Japan to the north of the country the Oshima peninsula of Hokkaido and Cape Erimo. He gives Trump's allies yet another taste of his own nearness to their territories and how psychological warfare impacts the nerves on September 15, 2017, repeating the flight of a Hawasong-12 over Japanese territory causing Japanese citizens to train taking shelter.

Trump chafes at 25 years of 'talking' to no avail. His own tough-talking obviously worked no wonders either for the mere reason that Trump's theory of deterrence psychology is a pixie-book version expecting a fearing enemy to automatically back off. And if the enemy is taking his time Trump will make his talking only stronger. But all psychological theory 'knows' that fear can lead to surrender, however, it can also stoke the resistance and release an outright confrontation especially if the deterred has reason to believe that a win is possible. Kim Jong-un thinks that nuclear capability is good enough reason to rather pace his military programme.

Kim Jong-un appears to be on par with Trump and he takes to his military buttons. No talk, only walk. September 3, 2017, H-bomb blasts shaking not only Japan and South Korea but also China and somewhat Russia with a detectable tremble the magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale. In few days Pyongyang suggests to be capable of reaching not only the Guam Island next, and probably with nuclear artillery, but even the U.S. mainland casting a spell on the 'daydream of the U.S. to think that its mainland is an invulnerable Heavenly kingdom' and Kim Jong-un is stating his case of being able to 'burn up all the objects in the areas under the control of the first and third held armies of the puppet forces [denigrating term for South Korea's military] including Seoul'.

The Myth of Deterrence Theory?

Is this ladder of escalation a checkmate? As early as August 9, 2017, Jeffrey Lewis writing in Foreign Policy declared a new world order advising us to get on terms with North Korea as a new nuclear power, 'The Game Is Over, and North Korea Has Won', Lewis says. Lewis reached his conclusion even before Kim Jong-un flew over Japan twice and then tested his 6th nuclear bomb. Possibly so. What Trump vowed to never happen on his watch has perhaps come through nevertheless.

Is it an option to accept North Korea as a nuclear power? In an op-ed in New York Times is on August 10, 2017, Susan Rise's take on the situation:

History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

In an interview with ABCNews on August 13, 2017, the question is conveyed to H. R. McMaster:

No, she’s not right. And I think the reason she’s not right is that the classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea? A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction? A regime that imprisons and murders anyone who seems to oppose that regime, including members of his own family, using sarin nerve gase (sic) -- gas in a public airport?

The notion of severe oppression is true of both former Soviet Union and China and deterrence theory seems to have worked nevertheless, so says also Susan Rise. Kim Jong-un's domestic brutality does not explain why deterrence theory appears to not apply to him. The identity between the 'sons of the sun' and the country does. And that argument is to be unfolded in the following - in particular, see under the heading The Planet-wide Defamation.

Trump has acted as if a reaction to deterrence is a natural law inevitably resulting in an adversary to give up an offence in the North Korean case to accept denuclearization. Deterrence theory does not, however, come with such causality of a physical repeatable effect. Deterrence activity is a psychological game based on assumptions about performance and judged on the behaviour of Pyongyang during the month of August and early September Kim Jong-un is not bending to the pressure he is the more defiant firmly believing that proving of his nuclear capacity will immunize him from American aggression. It is a highly rational assessment on Kim's part and it complies well with deterrence theory. Trump has steadily ratcheted up his campaign of bellicose insults and military demonstrations of power. All he has achieved so far is Kim Jong-un to step up the speed of his military program. As a man watching the grains of sand go lost between his fingers Trump blasts South Korea for appeasement. However, appeasement has not disturbed Trumps theatrical deterrence drama allowing absolutely no room for that. He then tries to focus the embarrassment of the situation on China despite the fact that China relentlessly has advocated calming the rhetorics and the military drill provocations. China has in fact recommended the U.S. and South Korea to give up drills and demonstrations of military power in return for Kim Jong-un putting a halt on his activities. Trump refusing even to listen. The Chinese way has not been tried. To threaten to stop all trade with any country doing business with North Korea is a particular threat to China counting 90% of North Korea's trade.

By September 17, 2017, Trump is kind of triumphant in a Twitter feed addressing his close ally, 'I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing.' It reads like a man keeping President Moon in suspense of his mastering speech to take place only two days later. But that would be largely in the eyes of the beholder. The last thing to expect from Trump is to admit his own failure but the international society may, after all, have left an impression with him of not having been that much of a master. He is flanked by Israel and Saudi Arabia but he might have hoped for unity to match the one the French President Macron has managed. The White House publishes a 'Praise for President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the UN General Assembly' on September 20, 2017, that only prompts the question 'why' advertise the unmistakable rebuke by absence. The list is meagre, to say the least; in 9 comments (besides Tweets) only one is head of state namely Israel's Netanyahu, one is Jewish-born member of Trump's own cabinet Steven Mnuchin, one is the executive director Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a fourth is a progressive Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach known for family counselling and for his book 'Kosher Lust' beside his rebuke in 2015 of Susan Rice accusing her in the New York Times and Washington Post of having a blind spot to genocide. In an animated open letter to Susan Rise, blame is for turning a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda, and Boteach defends his offence saying that 'genocide, unfortunately, is the defining characteristic of my people' so we must read that Boteach understands such ultimate crime. He also says addressing the Iranian alleged intention to erase the Jewish state that 'a Jewish leader’s first job is to prevent the possibility of another Jewish genocide, and that is what Netanyahu is doing.' Boteach ends his open letter as follows:

God has given you significant influence. I ask you to please use that power to protect the Jewish people, Arab children in Syria, Muslim students in Pakistan, Christians in Darfur, women in Nigeria, and the people of the Central African Republic. Criticizing Netanyahu’s right to address Congress, or allowing Iran a robust nuclear program amid their protestations of peace, falls short of that goal.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Open Letter to Susan Rise, Washington Post, March 15, 2015

How could the lecturing honourable rabbi fall short of noticing Trump, empowered to speak to the world from the UN General Assembly, to misuse his significant influence (Boteach will perhaps say Trump's God-given influence) to advocate the annihilation of 25 million Koreans, at least a third being underaged, as a punishment for the wrongdoing of Kim Jong-un who is an oppressor known to brainwash his people? Boteach's endorsement of Trump's speech is as shady as is Netanyahu's. Trump talks in his maiden speech about an America, [that] do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch. What shines out as to blinding in Trump's list of 'praise' for his UN vows is the striking Jewish bias almost a Jewish rescue mission for a president blind to the world opinion that genocide protection is no Jewish prerogative. Such protection belongs to humanity. Is Iran effectively the price paid for the praise of a speech to prevent a psychological meltdown of the president like the one on display when the size of his inauguration crows disappointed him deeply? Trump's family-induced bias to the Middle East theatre makes him part of the problem of the region rather than its solution. It is a chilling thought if Jewish interests advocating an American opposition to Iran alleged to aspire to go nuclear, despite their fatwa never to and their signature on the Iran deal preventing it, endorse Trump's measure against nuclear aspirants namely to 'totally destroy' them. Is Iran next in Trump's mission to annihilate the 'scourges of the planet'? Notably, apart from global absence cabinet members not praising Trump's maiden speech are Rex Tillerson, John Kelly, and H. R. McMaster.

Trump beefs up his show on the international arena announcing in a press conference together with South Korea's President Moon and Japan's Shinzo Abe on September 21, 2017, an executive order adding more financial sanctions against North Korea administered by his Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the State Department; it is a punch to China and perhaps not so wise since China can rein in his own freedom to decide on a pre-emptive strike. He appears viciously obsessed with sending Kim Jong-un in harm's way; his acting is more like a vendetta than a statesman's carefully choreographed scheme of deterrence. His vow to 'totally destroy' proved so much out of place that Trump saved himself the legacy of the first American president to have declared war in a maiden speech at the UN's General Assembly. And for the first time in history for a North Korean leader, according to South Korea's unification ministry, Kim Jong-un answered to Trump's speech in a direct address to the world:

... he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors.

The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the U.N. arena the unethical will to “totally destroy” a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.

His remarks remind me of such words as “political layman” and “political heretic” which were in vogue in reference to Trump during his presidential election campaign.

Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the D.P.R.K. [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.

Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.

I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.

Full script, Kim Jong-un statement, New York Times, September 22, 2017

Cho Sang-hun, the New York Times, says on September 22, 2017, that the statement was on the front page of state newspapers and on national television.

It is not unwarranted for Kim Jong-un to say about Trump's speech that he has never heard anything like it from Trump's predecessors. It is not unreasonable to find Trump riding rough shot over his country at the UN's General Assembly unprecedented. He goes on to call Trump a political layman or even a heretic and the UN performance did flash both diplomatic and political incompetence. Trump threw his tough-talking gauntlet and much to the surprise of the American administration, it appears, North Korea took it up rather than bending to denuclearization. Even if Trump's spokeswomen immediately retreated to claim some sort of an absurdity speaking of a declaration of war, it so happened. Like in a nuclear chain-reaction Kim Jong-un responded to Trump's 'fire and fury like the world has never seen before' pledging to make him 'face beyond his expectation' saying he 'will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.' Trump stands a chance of getting to stand by his ironclad commitments to his allies notwithstanding that they never asked for Trump's primitive ramping up tensions. Trump answers the only way he knows:

The tweet tries to brush over Kim Jong-un slighting him as a madman to be further tested obviously by the superior tester. However, the world is no longer sure if Trump or Kim Jong-un is the most unstable or deranged. Many will say that while Kim Jong-un and his regime is rational, however brutal, the same may not be said about Trump. He does not appear to be knowing where he is heading not taking into account that his intimidating behaviour has not yet worked. North Korea's FM Ri Yong-ho says about sanctions in his UNGA speech on September 23, 2017, that it is 'a forlorn hope to consider any chance that the DPRK would be shaken an inch'.

Trump's reaction to the FM Ri Yong-ho speaking at the UN in a tweet on September 23, 2017, saying that the FM and Kim Jong-un will not be around much longer, one of which holds diplomatic immunity conveying a message from his country, certainly bear witness to Kim Jong-un finding Trump a 'political layman' or 'political heretic'. By September 25, 2017, the FM Ri Yong-ho only confirms that North Korea perceives itself in a state of declared war.

According to Susan Rise, the fact that the U.S. cannot, i.e. has not been able to, deter North Korea from achieving nuclear capability does not rule out that deterrence will work to deter Kim Jong-un from using them against the U.S. - 'the challenge is to ensure that it [North Korea] would never try' - op-ed in New York Times on August 10, 2017:

By most assessments, Mr. Kim is vicious and impetuous, but not irrational. Thus, while we quietly continue to refine our military options, we can rely on traditional deterrence by making crystal clear that any use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies would result in annihilation of North Korea. Defense Secretary James Mattis struck this tone on Wednesday. The same red line must apply to any proof that North Korea has transferred nuclear weapons to another state or nonstate actor.

Susan Rice does not rule out the necessity of war in case of a North Korean attack but she quotes H. R. McMaster to point to that which is perhaps the worst challenge to a diplomatic solution namely statesmanship in deterrence:

The national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, said last week that if North Korea “had nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States, it’s intolerable from the president’s perspective.” Surely, we must take every reasonable step to reduce and eliminate this threat.

Op-ed in New York Times on August 10, 2017

A nuclear North Korea is intolerable to Trump and one must say as is denuclearization intolerable to Kim Jong-un. Trump's bellicose and self-overrating rhetorics of his past is catching up like in the case of the Muslim ban. 'It will not happen' Trump said in January 2017, uninvited prior to his inauguration; it appears to have happened and to roll back time with 'fire and fury like the world has never seen before' is perhaps not possible besides the fact that either South Korea or Japan would want it. Susan Rice has this take on Trump's unscripted surprise statement:

Either Mr. Trump is issuing an empty threat of nuclear war, which will further erode American credibility and deterrence, or he actually intends war next time Mr. Kim behaves provocatively. The first scenario is folly, but a United States decision to start a pre-emptive war on the Korean Peninsula, in the absence of an imminent threat, would be lunacy.

Op-ed in New York Times on August 10, 2017

We are left to wonder if Trump's extemporisation is folly or lunacy. The lunacy option is scary in this estimate from Obama's administration:

“Preventive war” would result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualties. Metropolitan Seoul’s 26 million people are only 35 miles from the border, within easy range of the North’s missiles and artillery. About 23,000 United States troops, plus their families, live between Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone; in total, at least 200,000 Americans reside in South Korea.

Japan, and almost 40,000 United States military personnel there, would also be in the cross hairs. The risk to American territory cannot be discounted, nor the prospect of China being drawn into a direct conflict with the United States. Then there would be the devastating impact of war on the global economy.

Op-ed in New York Times on August 10, 2017

Trump is not up to speed with deterrence theory. Trump's theatrical acting of deterrence develops in a direction of enforced changed focus. Deterrence is a very general term that can, of course, apply to almost any situation in which the mightier wants to deter the less powerful to comply with some demand. There is, though, no guaranty that the psychology of the theory might not falsify; it is far from always the case that a single psychological assumption based on certain reality facts can rule out all other psychological assumptions and attaining aspects. Theory of economics will testify to that. The issue is no longer to deter to denuclearize but to deter to not wage nuclear war. Deterrence theory may apply to Kim Jong-un with respect to the latter.

The Planet-wide Defamation

Kim Jong-un is concerned about the magnitude of the defamation spelt on him by Trump. In his September 22, 2017, statement he makes note that he had expected Trump to temper his Twitter culture on the 'spur of the moment that he had to speak on the world's biggest diplomatic official stage'.

The worse wild card in the spiralling tensions with North Korea is perhaps that Trump is a psychological neophyte and a novice of political history; even if he were to understand basic human reactions and their situational logic it would do him little good for the mere reason that Trump is not in control of himself. To literally trump Obama, Trump had to disrupt the doctrine of 'strategic patience' that would have been the way forward to let a tightening sanctions regime and an international unity work. There could be no more patience; what other presidents have failed in decades Trump is eager to accomplish immediately. So he adds to the sanctions regime another regime of the extreme insults and planet-wide defamation of a political cult figure leaving Kim Jong-un no choice but to put his regime cultism on the line risking his own lifeline the lofty legacy of the Kim-dynasty that of being the unbeaten protector of the North Korean people with the constitutionalized self-understanding as an invincible and indomitable nuclear state - see my post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?':

His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his will have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.

Trump has handed Kim Jong-un a winner position on the issue of not minding to 'starve or kill his people'. All the national suffering including the horrible years of famine and other oppression is now turned into a rational issue of national survival at stake. Kim Jong-un passes the buck of facing 'testing like never before' cast upon them by the evil Yankee giant wanting to erase their just social system so wisely laid out by their founding fathers the 'sons of the sun'. The third Kim, a son of the sun, who is now convinced not frightened and will not stop but lead his people through the testing of the vowed 'total destruction' if necessary 'to the last':

Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the D.P.R.K. [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.

(...) As a man representing the D.P.R.K. and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the D.P.R.K.

Trump's planet-wide defamation of Kim Jong-un has made it literally impossible for his deterrence scheme to ever work counting on Pyongyang to step down and denuclearize. Kim Jong-un cannot stay a leading son of the sun and ask his people to give up their nuclear program that came about at the cost of blood and sweat, risking everything.

For Trump to tweet that 'they only understand one thing' is more telling of Trump than is it of Pyongyang, however, Trump's planet-wide defamation may well prove a self-fulfilling prophecy set in motion. It is Trump's gambling with not only the North Korean people but the lives of his vital allies South Korea and Japan perhaps even Chinese and Russian citizens in the first instance not to forget the planet-wide effect of radioactive fallout in case this military confrontation goes nuclear.

The Chinese Factor vs. the Factor of Compulsion?

To be forced to replace Obama's 'strategic patience' with an enforced 'stalemate patience', resulting from nothing like strategic statesmanship but only an ignorant gambling Trump, will not be to his own liking. Trump is eager to teach the North Koreans the only lesson they understand. Precisely 'stalemate patience' seems to describe Trump's present position. Trump needs to count in the Chinese and the 'Sino - DPRK Friendship Treaty' of July 12, 2006 - see my post, 'Trump - Day 99 Korea, Deterrence Checkmate?'

On August 10, 2017, following Trump's improvised 'fire and fury like the world has never seen' the Chinese state-owned media Global Times published an official statement resuming the latest development of the ladder of escalation the 'reckless game' concluding that,

'North Korea aims to propel the US to negotiate with it, while the US wants to put North Korea in check. Neither can achieve it's goal so they compete to escalate tensions, but neither wants to take the initiative to launch a war.

(...) Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to step down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand.

China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula China will prevent them from doing so.

If Trump's unilateral ratcheting up sanctions punishing Chinese economic interaction with North Korea is a sabre-rattling, China making clear its stance is an outright blow to Trump's deterrence. American power is far from almighty. There can be no pre-emptive strike, no 'fire and fury like the world have never seen' to be decided by Trump without Trump having to count in that China 'will prevent [him] from doing so'. This is to hand Kim Jong-un a win as far as the 'operation decapitation' is concerned that ought to ease his evolving paranoia. The Chinese statement ought also to have chilled Trump and at least to have prevented his planet-wide defamation of Kim Jong-un at the UN's General Assembly. The Los Angeles Times reports on September 22, 2017, those top aides including H. R. McMaster at the White House that warned Trump to not attack Kim Jong-un personally in a prestigious forum like the UN's General Assembly. In a draft of the speech, the day before vetted by aides neither the phrase 'Little Rocket Man' 'on a suicide mission' nor the vow to 'totally destroy' appeared.

But Trump, who relishes belittling his rivals and enemies with crude nicknames, felt compelled to make a dramatic splash in the global forum.

The Los Angeles Times, September 22, 2017

One is tempted to say that either Trump speculates to have North Korea unleash a confrontation to bypass the Chinese sobering stand in order for the US, in turn, to unleash a pre-emptive strike well ahead of North Korea effectively being nuclear or Trump is not only compelled but psychologically governed by dark compulsion. That appears to make Trump and Kim two of a kind:

A detailed CIA psychological profile of Kim, who is in his early 30s and took power in late 2011, assesses that Kim has a massive ego and reacts harshly and sometimes lethally to insults and perceived slights.

The Los Angeles Times, September 22, 2017

If Pyongyang is not to break the 'stalemate patience' handing Trump the excuse to attack pre-emptively, Trump's amateur deterrence spectacle will prove Trump a loser, it will flash his deterrence acts 'folly' in the wording of Susan Rise. We should make no mistake, Pyongyang has understood this dynamic, however, diplomats and other leading personnel may not be able to rein in Kim Jong-un's temper risking their lives doing so.

China can still be right as can be saying that 'Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to step down'. Neither are Trump's advisors.

Trump - a Gambler Deceiving Both Sovereigns and Staff?

A balanced, collected FM Ri Yong-ho refers in his UN speech to 'the gambler who grew old using threats, frauds and all other schemes to acquire a patch of land' and the wings will carry. Trump is well known for his gambling nature and he is chastised as a con artist in his own country. Come October 2017, Tillerson is travelling the East for talks with China and an interview runs wild according to Foreign Policy's Jeffrey Lewis. Trivial remarks by Tillerson about the hypothetical possibility of 'talking' with Pyongyang through three channels (known to be the Swedish representation in Pyongyang, the North Korean representation at the UN in New York and nongovernmental experts following Lewis) are misrepresented by The New York Times and leaves the impression in the international press that there are in fact ongoing talks or negotiations, which is not the case. What Tillerson obviously wants to accomplish is to convey the message after the heated week at the UN in New York that there is no 'dark situation' or 'blackout' with North Korea and what he says is this:

We have lines of communications to Pyongyang. We’re not in a dark situation, a blackout. We have a couple, three channels open to Pyongyang. We can talk to them. We do talk to them.

US Department of State, readout, September 30, 2017

There are channels for talking, however no ongoing negotiations. Mindful of Guterres warning that fiery talk can lead to 'fatal misunderstandings' wherefore a call for statesmanship is urgently needed not to sleepwalk our way into war, it is chilling to learn that Trump exactly sleepwalks amongst his own staff. Discovering from the press that Tillerson ostensibly breaks with his policy that the time is not for talking Trump blows his top and corrects Tillerson on Twitter rather than get on the phone to his Secretary of State to find out that it is in Trump's parlance all about 'fake news' that he could then tweet about much more to his liking. But Trump feeds a rebuke of Tillerson to his Twitter account:

The 33-year-old Rocket Man has not been in charge for 25 years and his move to make it a constitutional binding to be a nuclear power is a radical change in North Korean leadership, however, exactitude never was Trump's strong suit. Trump stays true to his August 30 vow, 'talking is not the answer'. Unlike his predecessors, he will not fail, he will do 'what has to be done' and that, evidently, is not talking. In his sleepwalk, China reining in 'what has to be done' is plausibly not part of his dream. Trump sleepwalks to unprecedented undercutting his Secretary of State and the very mandate of the UN. This year the American president managed to convey to the general public that he does not honour obligations taken on by previous administrations such as the Iran deal, the Paris Climate Accord, and trade treaties and that he does not stand by his Secretaries this time Tillerson not so long ago Jeff Sessions.

FM Ri Yong-ho is a scholar, a keen writer, well read in American political history and president's biographies, and he served as ambassador to England for five years. Mr Yong-ho is probably no bad judgement on the ongoing feud with Trump but he economises his contact with the press. Reuters posted this video clip on YouTube trying to have his comment on Trump slamming Kim Jong-un as the Rocket Man. Ri repeats Kim Jong-un's analogy in his address to his people and the world on September 22, 2017, of Trump being a frightened dog barking the lauder as things get spooky and then he adds a personal comment of profound understanding of the situational logic:

If he (Trump) was thinking about surprising us with the sound of a dog barking then he is clearly dreaming.

I feel sorry for his aides.

Ri Yong-ho's emphatic understanding is likely to stem from personal experience with Kim Jong-un.

A Quinnipiac University poll on October 12, 2017, concludes according to a Malloy 'that Voters don't have confidence in President Donald Trump to handle North Korea, but they're hoping other members of the Trump team will step up'. The votes cast are as follows:

American voters say 57 - 40 percent that they do not have confidence in Trump to handle the situation with North Korea. 

But voters say 65 - 28 percent they do have confidence in "top national security and diplomatic officials" to handle the situation with North Korea. 

The U.S. should negotiate with North Korea, 65 percent of voters say, while 30 percent say negotiations are a waste of time. 

Voters oppose 62 - 26 percent a preemptive strike on North Korea. 

Americans do not appear to have the stomach for nuclear war i.e. to engage in 'the only thing [North Korea] understands' in the judgement of Trump; the judgement voters turn down.

The Quinnipiac University poll on October 12, 2017, had also this finding, 'the U.S. will be able to resolve the North Korean situation diplomatically, 54 percent of voters say, while 29 percent say it will need to use military force.'

Perhaps their best hope is Chinese judgement.

Where Do We Go From Here?

FM Ri Yong-ho spoke outside the U.N. Plaza Hotel in New York on September 22, 2017, and while neglecting Trump as a barking dog, obviously barking up the wrong three namely a not intimidated North Korea, he suggests a chilling next move on part of North Korea. The Guam envelope of fire is still on the table and a hydrogen bomb testing over the Pacific too:

I think that it could be an H-bomb test of an unprecedented level perhaps over the Pacific.

Trump had high aspirations for his UN maiden speech lifting himself to planetary hights to gain unity against 'the scourge of the Planet' counting on North Korea to be blamed. He indeed managed to push the international level of alert to count in planetary risks because of his own distance to statesmanship and diplomatic tact.

Nuclear war is a war crime against humanity.