Trump at the UN -- a mixed result

Did President Trump embarrass us at the U.N.?    Yes.   Not so much with childish tweets (at least not yet;  that may yet come) but with his arrogant, America First bombast.   With his bare-knuckled tone and saber-rattling content, he portrayed a grim world with only hostility and ineffective diplomacy.  It was just short of a call to arms.

Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallstrom  told the BBC that "It was the wrong speech, at the wrong time, to the wrong audience."   U.S. response was mixed.   Mitt Romney tweeted that it "gave a strong and needed challenge" to confront global problems.   But Democratic Senator Ed Markey of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee denounced Trump's speech:   "He engages in escalatory language that only induces further paranoia in Kim."
Trump began his criticism of the U.N. itself on Monday in discussions about reorganizing the bureaucracy, but with a less combative stance, offering to help fix the problems.   He also had numerous private talks with other world leaders.

Then came this major address to the General Assembly on Tuesday.  Denouncing North Korea and Iran, being very critical of China, Venezuela, and Cuba --- and, of course, not a negative word about Russia.  HuffPost headlined its article about the speech:  "Loose Cannon Lectures the World."

His most shocking statement was about North Korea.   "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."

Loud, startled murmurs filled the hall, as Trump went on to refer to Kim directly:  "Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime."  A junior member of the North Korean delegation was seated in the front row.  As of this writing, North Korea has not responded.

Trump was reading carefully from his prepared script, which took no note of U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres' appeal, minutes before, for "statesmanship" and not war.

Trump did also call for unity of nations to isolate the Kim government until it ceases its "hostile" behavior.  But that nod toward a non-military solution was lost in the startling language of "totally destroy."

Trump apparently thinks tough talk will intimidate Kim.  I am not the only one who thinks it's exactly the opposite.   Kim's deep-seated obsession with becoming a nuclear power has to do with power and pride, of course;   but even more with survival.   Kim seems to actually believe that the U.S. wants to destroy his regime (not without good reason).   So Trump's bluster only increases Kim's determination,

Trump moved on to Iran, calling it "an economically depleted rogue state" that exports violence.  He took aim at their nuclear ambitions and regional meddling.  He said the 2015 nuclear deal was "an embarrassment" and hinted that he may not recertify the agreement when the next report is due.   He has certainly in the past talked about pulling out of the deal, but he did not make that explicit here.

As reported by Reuters' Steve Holland and Jeff Mason, the speech also sought to define the America First vision for the U.S. foreign policy.   It includes, as summarized by Holland and Mason, "downgrading global bureaucracies, basing alliances on shared interests, and steering Washington away from nation-building exercises abroad."

Trump also told the 193 nation body that "the United States does not seek to impose its will on other nations and will respect other countries' sovereignty. . . .  I will defend America's interests above all else," Trump said. "But in fulfilling our obligations to other nations we also realize it's in everyone's interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous and secure."

Well, that's a little bit reassuring . . . maybe.   The embarrassing thing is -- it needed to be said.  If only we could hope he meant it.  The United States does not have a good track record for respecting other nations' sovereignty.

Turning to Venezuela, he called the collapsing of democratic institutions and their economy "completely unacceptable" and said "the United States cannot stand by and watch."  He did not specify what actions, if any, he was considering.   Will he respect Venezuela's sovereignty?   Is there a way to help, where the government itself is the problem -- if the government does not request our help?   Think about Turkey, as well.

Venezuela objected to Trump's threats, saying it would resist any U.S. actions, "even military invasion."     Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said of Trump:  "He came to the house of peace and promoted war and the destruction of certain countries." 

Besides his shocking tone and language, Trump's statement about his foreign policy and his plans and threats toward other countries do not add up to a coherent vision.   I am horrified at what is happening in Venezuela, in the Middle East, in some African countries, in North Korea, in Myanmar.   And what we did by invading Iraq.

But what is the answer to when it is appropriate to decide to interfere in another country's sovereignty?   How do you balance that against coming to the aid of oppressed people?    I don't have the answers.    Donald Trump showed us that he does not either.

Ralph