Never underestimate staying power of despots
SINCE Winston Churchill first used the phrase, it has been mandatory at the first meeting of any British prime minister and American president to invoke their countries’ “special relationship”. Rarely, however, has there been as much suspense waiting to hear that phrase as when a British leader working to extract her country from Europe met on Friday with a president whose foreign policy is still a fog.
Prime Minister Theresa May had a lot to gain, or to lose, from her trip to Washington. Faced with negotiations over Britain’s planned exit from the European Union, she needed to demonstrate to Continental Europeans and to British voters that she had a powerful alternative source of support and trade across the Atlantic. The problem was that President Trump had been saying a lot of things unacceptable to the British – about torture, NATO, Vladimir Putin and even the uselessness of the EU, a sentiment Britain officially does not share.
Trump, for his part, needed for his first meeting with a foreign leader to be at least somewhat presidential after a chaotic first week, with a deepening crisis in relations with Mexico and questions swirling about his attitude towards Russia. Hanging over the meeting were reports that the Trump administration is preparing to lift sanctions against Russia. Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counsellor, said: “All of that is under consideration,” on Fox and Friends on Friday.
May, in a speech in Philadelphia on Thursday, cautioned that the US and UK needed to reassure Russia’s neighbours. “We should not jeopardise the freedoms that president Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.”
The leaders of the two major EU countries – Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President François Hollande of France – met on Friday in Berlin, where Merkel also cited the need to safeguard democratic freedoms at a time when Europe faces great challenges.
Given the scrutiny Trump’s tumultuous first week attracted, and the passionate debate in England over Brexit, the meeting was certain to be minutely dissected. On balance, May seemed to collect the special recognition she came for, and Trump at least appeared subdued. The real test for their relationship, however, may be how Trump handles America’s relations with Putin.
ONE of the few correct themes of my public writing is that incompetent autocrats tend to stay in power far longer than pundits predict that they will stay in power. I have written that Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro would continue to rule their countries despite their abjectly awful economic policies. Back in 2011 I wrote that “Kim Jong Un will hold power for longer than any Western analyst expects him to hold power,” and the North Korean leader continues to be large and in charge.
The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that Kim’s days are numbered in North Korea. Well, at least, that’s what the headline North Korean Defector Says Kim Jong-un Can’t Last implies:
“‘I am sure that more defections of my colleagues will take place since North Korea is already on the slippery slope,’ said Mr. Thae [Yong-ho], who predicted a ‘popular uprising’ against the leadership . . .
“Mr. Thae said he initially had high hopes for the younger Mr. Kim, who was educated abroad and ‘knew the world.’
“‘I had a kind of illusion that he may bring some policy changes and modernise North Korea,’ he said. But after it became clear that Mr. Kim wasn’t going to chart a different path from his father and grandfather, ‘I was greatly disappointed not only me, but most of my colleagues shared the same thought.’”
As a former DPRK diplomat, Thae has no doubt forgotten more about North Korea than I will ever learn. So maybe he’s right. The problem is everyone in the world outside of Kim Jong-un’s inner circle wants him to be right, and this can lead to wishful thinking.
Kim Jong-un possesses qualities akin to other leaders with authoritarian impulses that make observers likely to downplay his staying power. Kim was born into wealth and privilege and venerated his father. In his early years, he did not seem either interested or destined for power so much as continued partying. He eventually settled down and married an attractive woman who has made fewer and fewer public appearances over time.
The trouble with buffoonish autocratic personalities is that there is a natural psychological bias to focus on the clownish parts of what the Dear Leader is doing and not enough on the consolidation of political power.
Consider Kim Jong-un’s time in office. He surprised everyone and succeeded Kim Jongil to rule North Korea back in late 2011. He has spent much of his time as a ruler appearing in bizarre photo op after bizarre photo op. As the head of state, he has repeatedly appeared before massive adoring crowds, prompting a lot of news coverage devoted to the size of such rallies. ( The coverage suggests that Kim cares a great deal about this. After all, in authoritarian societies, media coverage of crowd size is an effective tactic to convince the populace of the leader’s popularity.) Propaganda outlets continually praise his brilliance and acumen to the point of absurdity. And while some observers argue that such behaviours are brash and uncouth, he has not been afraid to brutally dispatch any and all rivals within his political party. He has also dramatically increased security on his borders. On a variety of dimensions, his country has flouted international norms repeatedly and issued all kinds of unbalanced threats. Nonetheless, there are outside observers prepared to offer counterintuitive takes on his leadership. The result is a revisionist head of a nuclear- armed state who has antagonised many within and without his country, but nonetheless remains in power.
What about the future? We know from research into nonviolent protests and elections that such leaders are still vulnerable to domestic pressure. Such efforts, however, require disciplined and strategic leaders who are able to look past buffoonery and focus on the policies that hurt large swaths of the local populace.
Given the apparent lack of civil society within North Korea, and the understandably low levels of trust that exist within its citizenry, I would not get my hopes up about Kim losing power anytime soon. That is regrettable for both those who live inside North Korea’s borders and those who must figure out how to cope with such a bizarre and mercurial leader.