Why North Korea's Kim Jong Un Can't Get A Nuclear Deal

President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un’s summit in Vietnam on February 28 broke up without agreement.  Trump walked away empty-handed, but so did Kim Jong Un, who had hoped to leverage his nuclear threat for economic and political concessions because he judged Trump to be malleable and desperate for a deal.  To get Trump's attention, Kim has now launched a volley of short-range missile tests.

 Why is Kim been unable to leverage his nuclear threat to get what he wants?  In the larger sense, why have North Korea, Russia, and Iran, all failed to negotiate away sanctions based on their nuclear capability?

The answer is that geopolitical reality is staring them in the face.  Without an insuperable nuclear capability, without a broad-based functioning economy, without an inclusive social contract, without a community of cooperating independent states, North Korea, Russia and Iran cannot, with only a nuclear threat, aspire to lead in a new world order or even achieve parity with other nations in a new global system.  They are--nearly--failed states.

The whole point of negotiations then becomes not the larger purpose of national destiny, but the smaller, parochial purpose of preserving the current autocratic leaders’ rule.  It is the autocracy that is at stake, not the nation.

Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin and the conservative coterie in Iran centered on the Guardian and the Expediency and Discernment Councils start with a fundamental disadvantage.  At the unthinkable level of nuclear war, they know they cannot eliminate a devastating US response if they act on their nuclear threat.  Bravado--such as Putin’s comment that in the event of a nuclear war, “why would we want a world without Russia?”--is impotent autocratic hyperbole.  Their nations might possibly survive a nuclear exchange, but they will not.

At the same time, their economies after years of mismanagement and sanctions are weak and so marginal to the global economy that they are not significant enough to force concessions.  The loss to the global economy due to the disruption of their national economies would be a cause of strategic concern, but it would not bring down any systemically important economies.

Economic weakness is compounded by political irrelevance.  Each is a marginal player in the global system.  North Korea, Russia, and Iran are not effective members of any larger community of nations; except with the likes of a few failed states, such as Syria and Venezuela.  They cannot leverage alliances to gain concessions.  Even coordination among the three is feeble because of markedly different circumstances even if they have the same narrow interest in keeping their nuclear arsenals for self-preservation.

Even if sanctions were lifted, their economies would still perform poorly due to continued economic mismanagement, and there would be no one for their people to blame but their autocratic rulers.  Without sanctions as a scapegoat, the autocrats do not have anyone to blame for their people's poor economic prospects.  Lack of basic civil liberties and increased social oppression are at odds with their citizens’ aspirations and threaten national cohesion.  Retaining their nuclear capabilities does not eliminate the threat to their power from domestic economic and social failure.

Only Russia poses a significant threat to the West--or to life on earth—for which it might achieve diplomatic concessions, but its participation in global institutions, which once projected Soviet power, appears an anachronism of the Cold War because of Russia’s habitual violation of international laws and norms of conduct.  Its demonstrable lack of good faith--whether by invasion of neighboring countries, denying culpability for the downing of Malaysian Flight MH17, poisoning of political opponents in Russia and abroad, or even failure to accept the outcome of international arbitration for Ukrainian commercial losses due to Russia’s seizure of Crimea--has destroyed international goodwill toward Russia.

The threat of nuclear conflict is real because the means are there, but it is not what animates Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Iran’s coterie of conservatives.  What the autocrats want more than anything is to guarantee their hold on power.  For whatever convoluted reason of personal prestige or incompetence, President Trump was right to walk away.  Without political transformation in North Korea, Russia, and Iran, the autocrats cannot denuclearize without losing political control, which is what they value more than national interest.

Ground Zero With Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin

Kim Jung Un, North Korea’s totalitarian leader, and Vladimir Putin, Russia’s evolving totalitarian leader, may be more alike than is commonly thought.

Kim claimed this week that North Korea had detonated its first hydrogen bomb.  If true, it would be a huge increase in Korea’s war making capability.  Although North Korea does seem to have detonated something, its claim of a hydrogen bomb appears to be greatly exaggerated in order to grab international attention.

Putin also likes attention and boasts often of Russia’s nuclear and military capability.  Like North Korea, Russia recently claimed impressive but doubtful nuclear and military advances, including a tactical nuclear torpedo, fleets of next generation battle tanks, and a super-sized aircraft carrier.

Kim and Putin are similar in other ways, as well.  They both rule over increasingly oppressive regimes and increasingly desperate economies that would be of little importance if not for their military power.  Both suppress opposition and appear to use murder as a tool of state.  Both exercise almost absolute control over information and national media in their countries. Both maintain a posture of belligerence toward the West, and toward the United States in particular, while constantly seeking recognition from the US as equals to establish their legitimacy and importance on the global stage.  Despite appallingly badly managed economies, they both maintain high levels of military spending.  Each rattles his saber when he feels he is not getting enough attention.

Kim is one of Putin’s few remaining BFFs on the planet.  Putin has visited North Korea and cozied up to Kim while promoting cooperation and sales of Russian military hardware.   Russia even trumpeted Kim’s intention to attend Russia’s victory day celebrations in May last year—only to be embarrassed when Kim became a no-show.

There are differences to be sure.  Putin has experience with international cooperation, and many Russians have traveled outside Russia and are aware that living standards are higher elsewhere in the world.   Kim inherited a hermetic nation with nearly no outside contact and for most North Koreans the larger world is an almost mythic place populated by demons.  However, given the abstruse natures of their regimes, it is impossible to know whether the differences or the similarities are more important.

Most alarming is that Kim and Putin have each threatened to use their nuclear weapons to advance their political agendas if and when it suits them.  Their like-mindedness would be comic if not for it’s also being terribly real and dangerous.  Their words and deeds to date suggest they are capable of miscalculation verging on recklessness.  No national leader can afford to ignore the possibility of erratic or irrational behavior by one or both of them.  There is a chance one or both is mad.  But the greater likelihood is that--in their dark, medieval world where the only crime is to disagree with the boss--Kim and Putin are perilously close to destructive self-delusion.