13 JUNE

The Trump-Kim summit

Just nine months after President Donald Trump threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea and labelled Kim Jong-un 'little rocket man', the two leaders have met at a summit in Singapore.

Donald Trump has hailed the one-day meeting a success, touting a statement signed by the two leaders as evidence of "historic" progress. The statement included a pledge to work together more closely and reaffirmed the vague pledge of support for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula reached between South Korean president Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un.

More tangible outcomes of the summit were the reciprocal invitations for both leaders to visit the other's country (which Kim Jong-un has reportedly accepted), and the US decision to cancel 'war games' with South Korea. Trump labelled the joint military exercises with South Korea "provocative" and "tremendously expensive", but was unclear on whether this extended to regular training exercises. The cancellation came as a surprise to his South Korean allies. The president hinted further that he may draw back US troops from the Korean peninsula altogether. USSC research fellow Brendan Thomas-Noone penned an article for The Australian about what such a withdrawal could entail.

NEWS WRAP

Traditional friends reeling

Leaders of the G7 nations were left reeling when President Trump departed their annual meeting a day early. The talks were overshadowed by a tariff row between Europe, Canada and the United States and Trump's refusal to sign a joint-communique with other leaders. Trump has railed against Canada's declared intention to respond in kind to US steel tariffs imposed on national security grounds. US director of trade and industrial policy Peter Navarro accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of stabbing Trump in the back and said "there is a special place in hell" for leaders like him. USSC research fellow Jared Mondschein told ABC Radio that the tension was further evidence of the adverse effects of Trump's opposition to the international order underpinned by the World Trade Organization. LISTEN HERE
Australia's domestic interest in space has peaked at the same time as the United States calls for the support of allies in the sector. Alliance 21 fellow Anthony Wicht outlined areas where Australia can leverage its alliance with the United States for success in the space sector in a report published last week. He spoke to Sky News about his conclusions. WATCH HERE
Donald Trump's chief economic advisor suffered a mild heart attack on Tuesday morning. The president broke the news with a tweet sent en-route from his hotel in Singapore to the summit with North Korea. By all reports Kudlow is recovering well. But the news of his ill health immediately lowered the value of the US dollar showing the weight of his presence in the Trump team. In new analysis, USSC research fellow Jared Mondschein examines who Larry Kudlow is and what he brings to the role of chief economic advisor. READ MORE HERE
Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro has taken aim at Donald Trump again, using the Tony Awards to direct an expletive-laden tirade at the president. His words were bleeped in the United States, but the Australian telecast aired uncensored. The president responded to the Hollywood star's attack in a series of tweets, labelling him a "very low IQ individual," and accusing him of being "punch drunk". READ MORE HERE
Fox News may not be the true heir to Roger Aile's vision for conservative local news programming in the United States. The former Fox News chairman and CEO's plan to inject a conservative element in local news may be best suited to Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the largest owner of local television stations in America. If its expansion plans go ahead, Sinclair will have the ability to reach and influence far more Americans than Fox News could ever hope to. USSC honorary associate Nicole Hemmer wrote about the implications of this for NBC News. READ MORE HERE

Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace.

President Donald Trump
Speaking of North Korea after the summit in Singapore
12 June 2018

ANALYSIS

Australia's US nuclear choice

Rebecca Hinkhouse
USSC research intern

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy believed that 25 countries would have nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Today, only nine do. Many credit the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which opened for signature 50 years ago this July. The treaty, which entered into force with 43 signatories in 1970, has now been signed by 191 countries, including the United States and Australia.

The NPT enshrines three central principles aimed at eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide: states with nuclear arms should disarm; the future development of nuclear weapons should be prevented; and the peaceful use of nuclear technology should be allowed and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There is little doubt that the NPT was crucial to preventing the massive wave of proliferation that seemed imminent in the 1960s. The future of the agreement, however, is unclear.

The strengths that have allowed the NPT to reach the 50-year mark provide hope for the future of the agreement. One such strength is transparency concerning the nuclear capabilities of member countries, which is facilitated by the IAEA through regular inspections. These inspections also allow states to use nuclear technology for peaceful means, particularly to generate energy, without being perceived as a security threat by other nations, which also sweetens the deal for signatories.

Perhaps the greatest strength of the agreement is not formally outlined in the Treaty. The NPT has successfully helped further a taboo surrounding the use of nuclear weapons in conflict and an international norm of non-proliferation. This norm is currently being put to the test by a series of countries who have proliferated outside of the NPT.

With Trump abandoning the Iran deal – which limited Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for reduced sanctions – European leaders are becoming more outspoken on issues of non-proliferation. As France, Germany, and the United Kingdom attempt to save the deal, there is potential for Australia to take on a larger role in the future of non-proliferation. Australian leaders will have to decide whether to prioritise their normative commitments to diplomacy and international cooperation alongside the European Union by taking steps to salvage the Iran deal, or to put their security interests first and conform to US policy in Iran, even if they disagree with it.

Australia has already stood in solidarity with the European Union by condemning America’s exit from the Iran deal. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull expressed his “regret” following the US decision and stated, “We encourage all parties to continue to comply with the deal, and we certainly are trying to support that.” Although his statement falls short of committing Australia to preserving the deal, it reflects public disagreement with the Trump administration, a rare incidence in Australia’s foreign policy. This break indicates Australia’s continued dedication to international cooperation and diplomacy in ensuring nuclear non-proliferation.

After the US exit from the Iran deal, European Council President Donald Tusk stated that “the real geopolitical problem is when you have – not an unpredictable opponent or enemy – the problem is if your closest friend is unpredictable.” While it is unrealistic that Australia will form an alliance with Europe that rivals its relationship with the United States, perhaps it is time for the Australian government to broaden its involvement in the international community by taking a leading role in maintaining norms of non-proliferation.

Going too far in opposing US nuclear policy would potentially risk weakening Australia’s strategic relationship with the United States, while bringing into focus another nuclear challenge for Canberra. Without nuclear weapons of its own, Australia ostensibly depends on the strength of America’s nuclear arsenal for its national security. Yet unlike American security alliances with NATO and other allies, the US-Australian security treaty does not explicitly require the United States to use nuclear weapons to defend Australia. As such, it may be more difficult for Australia to diverge too far from American foreign policy when, unlike France and the United Kingdom, it does not have its own nuclear weapons for self-defence. Ultimately, if Australia were to go too far in countering US nuclear policy, its position under the United States’ nuclear umbrella could be revoked.

This debate foreshadows a potentially more severe clash between Australian and American nuclear interests in the future. A number of Australian Labor Party MPs have pledged to go even further than merely supporting non-proliferation by committing to signing a comprehensive ban of nuclear weapons if the Labor party is voted into power. Regardless of the outcome, Australia faces a choice: strengthen the US alliance by creating greater alignment between the US and Australian security regimes or further distinguish Australia’s proliferation policy from that of the United States by joining the coalition of European powers condemning America’s unilateral actions. Given the growing support for the Australian Labor Party in the polls, it may be simply a matter of time before the electorate makes that choice for the government.

DIARY

The week ahead

Wednesday, 13 June: President Trump arrives back in the United States from Singapore.
Friday, 15 June: FIFA World Cup begins.
Monday, 18 June: Australian parliament sitting week commences.
Tuesday, 19 June: District of Columbia primaries; Arkansas primaries runoff.
Wednesday, 20 June: ‘Make America Great Again’ rally in Duluth, Minnesota.

EVENT

Populism, authoritarianism and gender in Trump’s America

The outcome of the 2016 presidential election raises numerous important questions that have implications for the upcoming 2018 congressional and 2020 presidential elections. Are American voters more populist and more authoritarian than in the past? Why were (mostly) young American men marching with flaming torches to protest the removal of a confederate statue in Virginia? What is happening with Democratic and Republican women in 2018, and why did many women vote for Donald Trump and controversial candidates like Alabama's Roy Moore? Is there really an increase in anti-immigration sentiment in the United States and other wealthy democracies, or is something else happening?

Join two of the United States leading political psychologists, Stanley Feldman and Leonie Huddy in a discussion hosted by US Studies Centre CEO Simon Jackman, to talk about the role of populism, authoritarianism and gender in American politics, and the politics of democracies in Europe and Australia.

This event is jointly presented with The Electoral Integrity Project.

DATE & TIME
26 June 2018
6pm–8pm

LOCATION
Law Lounge, New Law Building, Eastern Avenue, The University of Sydney

COST
$10

BOOK NOW