Why Congress is cautiously optimistic on Trump's talks with North Korea

President Trump hasn't given Congress a lot to feel confident about lately, especially when it comes to dealmaking. Republicans are vehemently opposed to the tariffs he just announced on steel and aluminum imports, and Democrats blame Trump's inability to make a decision on a recent “dreamer” deal falling apart.

But on one of Trump’s most consequential and risky dealmaking endeavors yet, direct talks with the nuclear-armed pariah state of North Korea, Congress seems to be cautiously optimistic that Trump can handle it.

Democrats who have long favored diplomacy over military solutions with North Korea even applauded the fact talks were happening, though they warned Trump to be very careful.

1/ The world breathes a cautious sigh of relief as Trump commits to direct talks with North Korea. I recently urged Trump to take this step, and am thrilled he's heeding the advice of experts such as former DOD sec'y Bill Perry, and the South Korean govt.

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) March 9, 2018

More hawkish Republicans — like Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — are extremely wary of such talks, urging Trump to keep the stick of sanctions heavy as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un certainly will try to negotiate those down. But these Republicans didn't criticize Trump outright.

“As the administration begins to work through the important details of such a meeting, we must continue to apply maximum pressure to the regime in Pyongyang. Skepticism and caution are critical as these discussions continue,” Corker said in a carefully worded statement. 

So why is a Congress that has been so willing to speak up against the president recently generally giving him the benefit of the doubt on such an extreme shift of policy toward North Korea? There are probably a few potential dynamics at play here.

There's a consensus that diplomacy > a military attack

North Korea is a nuclear-armed nation led by a seemingly erratic dictator who is aggressive in showing off his country's ballistic missiles, which could theoretically reach Alaska with a nuclear warhead. In other words, North Korea doesn't seem like the kind of country that might fold quickly under a U.S. attack.

From the perspective of many in Congress, Trump hasn't seemed to grasp the dangers of war with North Korea. He famously threatened “fire and fury” on North Korea, while recently bashing his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, for even considering talks.

I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2017

So even though Republicans like Corker don't necessarily support sitting down with a dictator — for fear it would reward and elevate Kim Jong Un — perhaps the president's sudden decision to talk, as unpalatable as that is for some lawmakers, is better than what had looked like an unpredictable march toward potential war.

There's actually not a huge partisan split about North Korea

Since North Korea escalated its missile capability over the past few years, there's been a “surprising” amount of political agreement in Washington about how to deter the rogue country without setting it off, says Victor Cha, a North Korea expert who served in the George W. Bush administration and is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Congress has put forward a number of different sanctions bills against North Korea that have been quite effective,” Cha told The Fix in July after North Korea successfully tested its intercontinental ballistic missile.

But it's worth noting the bipartisanship on North Korea has only extended to sanctions. Congress has never really had to seriously consider a sitting U.S. president meeting with North Korea's dictator, because it's never happened in this current conflict. That could explain why there are a handful of lawmakers who are already leaning against these talks.

#NorthKoreaTalks would actually be harmful unless it is clear beforehand to them & world that 3 items are non-negotiable. We will not abandon #SouthKorea we will never accept #NorthKorea as legitimate nuke weapon power & missiles that can strike U.S. will not go unchallenged

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 9, 2018

This is not the time to undercut the president

One of the reasons Congress tends to be in agreement on the broad strokes of North Korea policy is because Americans tend to agree on the broad strokes of foreign policy. (Trade policy is one big exception, as Trump is finding out.)

There's a tradition behind that. It's generally not Congress's place to undercut the president on foreign policy, because world leaders need to know that when they make a deal with the president, they're making a deal with all of the United States.

One recent high-profile exception to this came during President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal negotiation, when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and 46 other senators sent a letter to Iranian leaders warning them not to sign the deal. That was so controversial it even raised questions of whether Cotton broke a centuries-old law that prohibits Americans from unilaterally conducting foreign policy.

[ What is the Logan Act? ]

“I think in this case, Congress would only undercut the president if they thought of him as weak or somehow giving away the farm,” said Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert with CSIS.

They acknowledge his “mad man” style may be working

(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Some of Trump's highest marks from Congress have come on his boldest moves on foreign policy. When he launched a sudden and direct attack on the Syrian government in April, his toughest Republican critics in Congress cheered the strike as decisive.

Now, Trump is getting credit from foreign policy experts for taking a hard-line approach to North Korea that other presidents weren't willing to do (like more or less threatening to bomb them) and doubling down on sanctions. Trump's bellicosity may well HAVE brought North Korea to the table, writes The Post's Karen DeYoung.

Cha says Trump also may deserve more credit than he's given on North Korea. Despite the fiery tweets, indications are Trump took Obama's warning seriously that North Korea would be one of his most intractable foreign policy problems. “My understanding is Trump's actually taking on quite a bit of knowledge on this issue,” Cha said. “He's gotten very smart on it very quickly, just because he's had to.”

Congress doesn't have much say in the matter

Trump at his first address to Congress in 2017. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

There's no law that says Congress has the right to approve or disapprove of major international negotiations, except treaties. Congress is only involved in regularly approving Obama's Iran nuclear deal, because Congress forcefully inserted itself into the approval process.

And that means Congress doesn't have a whole lot to do here, unless Trump comes up with a treaty that the Senate must ratify.

“The president, when it comes down to actual talks, can manage them virtually any way he wants,” Cordesman said. “If it's just the president meeting as he does with other heads of state without any clear sort of decision or formal outcome, that's not part of congressional authority.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Read Again https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/09/why-congress-is-cautiously-optimistic-on-trumps-talks-with-north-korea/

Bagikan Berita Ini