By now the international community has got used to PresidentDonald Trump’s unconventional diplomacy and yet he never ceases to surprise;his meeting on June 30 with the North Korean supremo Kim Jong Un in thedemilitarised zone between the two Koreas is illustrative. How this, the thirdmeeting between them, came about is noteworthy even in an age when top globalleaders are constantly in direct touch with one another. It is best describedin Trump’s remarks to the media after he had crossed the demarcation linebetween the two Koreas making him the first US President to do so.
Trump said, “We were in Japan for the G20. We came over (comment: after the G20 summit Trump was on a brief official visit to South Korea) and I said, “Hey I’m over here. I want to call up Chairman Kim. And we got to meet. And stepping across that line was a great honor”. Earlier, while still in Japan, Trump had tweeted, “If Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)! Kim and Trump did far more than say hello. They decided to re-start talks, for the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, which have remained frozen after the failure of their second summit at Hanoi in February this year.
While Trump has not abandoned all aspects of conventionaldiplomacy he has refused to be constrained by it. His first two meetings withKim, in Singapore in June 2018 and in Hanoi, were planned in advance and theirlogistics and modalities were worked out between US and North Korean diplomatsin advance. On the other hand, this DMZ one, at least prima facie, was almostspontaneous. More importantly, instead of letting his diplomats announce eventhis hurried meeting Trump took ownership for arranging it. He projected itentirely as his own initiative from start to finish.
It is here that Trump differs from almost all hisinternational counterparts, some of whom also do not fully adhere to standarddiplomatic conventions. The only other leader, this writer can recall, who hasacted with similar ‘spontaneity’, on one occasion, is Prime Minister NarendraModi who ‘dropped in’ to see the then Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif,on his way back to Delhi from Kabul on Christmas Day 2015. Modi too had himselfannounced that visit through his own tweet.
In the past leaders never announced inter-state bilateral ormultilateral meetings themselves. The task of scheduling and announcingmeetings was the work of diplomats. Naturally while doing so the convenience ofthe leaders concerned was taken. Diplomats also worked out the modalities ofmeetings on the basis of security considerations and the preferences of theirleaders. What transpired at these meetings was made known by authorisedspokespeople whose statements were carefully drafted. Generally, even in thecase of unsuccessful meetings care was taken to preserve a path forward forbilateral ties. Now leaders tweet their decisions.
Leaders also wanted to be consistent and predictable; hence,their comments were carefully thought through. It is here that Trump has provedto be different. He is not worried about the impact of his words and decisionson the diplomatic and inter-state processes. He also has no reluctance torepeatedly change his stance or contradict himself. Thus, soon after he becamePresident he hurled personal insults at Kim Jong Un and threatened him with”fire and fury”. Now the two share a ‘beautiful’ relationship. At the Singaporemeeting some progress on the substantial process seemed in sight. At Hanoi,Trump curtailed the meeting signalling failure and now after the DMZ meetingUS-North Korean negotiators are to meet again.
Is Trump changing the diplomatic game in fundamental ways oris he only an aberration? The fact is that while Trump may a maverickcommunications technology is impacting on the conduct of diplomacy and themanagement of inter-state ties in dramatic ways. In the age of 24/7 news cycleand an increasingly pervasive social media the emphasis of leaders and theirofficials is to get their ‘story’ out instantaneously. Hence, almost allleaders have their presence on social media platforms. This was unthinkableeven at the turn of the century. It is unlikely though any leader will emulateTrump and tweet at odd hours baffling his officials and diplomats!
It can be validly argued that the test of any form ofdiplomatic practice and the conduct of leaders is the efficacy with whichcontentious international issues are addressed. If a contradictory, abrasive,unpredictable and unconventional Trump succeeds in resolving issues when hispredecessors failed then standard diplomatic practices would need to beexamined. That is not currently needed for Trump has not made headway on anymajor global issue.
The problem is that as the world becomes more and more complexand issues confronting the human species require international co-operation theTrump approach becomes dangerous in many respects. This is especially so whendifficult decisions taken by a predecessor(s) are just thrown away as in thecase of the Iran nuclear deal, climate change accords or US immigration lawsthat impact peoples the world over.
These are of course substantive issues beyond the confinesof procedural diplomacy. But here too Trump has displayed a disdain to adhereto convention. While all this may appeal to his support base in the US it hasmade the management of international relations difficult. Obviously Trump doesnot care as he pursues his version of America First policies.