EAI Commentary: A Review of President Trump's State of the Union Address: The Evolution of American Primacy and the Possibility of a "Bloody Nose" Operation

[Editor's Note]

President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on January 30. While he had previously caused controversy with various tweets, the consensus was that he appeared presidential on this occasion. Domestically, President Trump emphasized harmony and unity, but maintained a hardline stance on foreign policy, national security, and trade. Notably, he designated North Korea as a "direct threat" and expressed a strong will to respond with a strategy of "maximum pressure." Some interpreted this as an increased possibility of a preemptive strike. In response, Professor Kim Jae-cheon of Sogang University emphasizes that a preemptive strike is likely to be a pressure tactic for "maximum pressure," and that South Korea should be more concerned about the possibility of negotiations based on the dismantling of intercontinental ballistic missiles rather than the U.S. military option against North Korea.

The Evolution of American Primacy? 

Let's forget the Trump of the past for a moment. Let's also set aside his divisive rhetoric and his "anything goes" barrage of tweets. Although his characteristic smirk was occasionally grating, I would like to assess Trump's first State of the Union address as quite good. Above all, the content of the speech was excellent, and the delivery was well-executed. The emotional appeal of introducing ordinary citizens was typically a Democratic president's forte. Trump, however, elicited a standing ovation by introducing ordinary heroes such as a police couple who adopted the daughter of a drug addict, a soldier who lost his sight and both legs while serving in the Marines but reenlisted, and Ji Seong-ho, a "defector youth on crutches." The speech, which appealed to emotions, also evoked a quiet sense of inspiration. He stated that ordinary heroes—mothers, children, firefighters, police officers, medics—have built and sustained America, and that "it is the people who are making America great again." This is Trump's version of "People First." Just a year ago, in his inaugural address, Trump pessimistically described the state of American society using various negative words such as "disrepair," "depletion," "tombstone," and "bleed." He argued that this "American carnage" must stop immediately. Rather than seeking to resolve the conflicts expressed during the election campaign, he appeared to be exacerbating divisions. However, the picture of America he painted in the State of the Union address was highly optimistic. He claimed that Americans had overcome natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires through collective effort, that the economy had improved due to historic tax cuts, and that there had never been a better time to realize the "American dream." He appealed for "unity" by finding "common ground," setting aside political interests. By emphasizing "unity" over division and the "American dream" over "American carnage," he is resetting American society and politics, which had become deeply fractured, to usher in a stable second year of his presidency and to aim for victory in the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential election. Is Trump's American primacy evolving?

 

Public opinion on the speech has been largely favorable. According to a poll conducted by CBS, 75% of respondents evaluated the speech positively. CNN's poll also showed 48% responding very positively, 22% somewhat positively, and 28% negatively. With 70% of respondents evaluating it positively, it is not a bad result. Of course, the survey targeted those who watched the speech, so it might have yielded favorable results for Trump. However, considering that Obama, a master orator, received an average of about 70% positive evaluations for his State of the Union addresses, this is by no means a poor outcome. One interesting fact is that while 43% of respondents expressed distrust in Trump's presidential performance, 62% of respondents believed that the United States was heading in the right direction. There are also polls indicating a rise in Trump's approval rating. According to a recent poll conducted by Monmouth University, Trump's approval rating reached 42%, a remarkable increase from 32% a month earlier. Of course, some media outlets offered harsh criticisms. The New York Times and The Washington Post, which are hostile to Trump, pointed out factual inaccuracies in his speech, such as "the greatest tax cut in history." They also criticized the lack of policy specificity, such as the proposal for infrastructure investment. However, it is rare for a president to make specific policy proposals in a State of the Union address.

  

The primary reason Trump might be aiming for victory in the 2018 midterm elections and even seeking re-election in 2020 is undoubtedly the booming U.S. economy. The economic indicators are favorable. A 4% unemployment rate is close to full employment, and a 3% economic growth rate is stable. The stock market is hot, and the real estate market is also strong. While more observation is needed, Trump's tax reform plan appears to be contributing. The substantial reduction in corporate taxes is stimulating corporate investment and encouraging the repatriation of overseas capital. This is expected to lead to wage increases and job creation; even The New York Times is reporting on the optimistic atmosphere in the business community. According to CNN, American public satisfaction with the economy has reached its highest level in 17 years. Of course, the current economic boom owes much to the previous Obama administration. However, the political dividends are likely to be reaped by the current Trump administration. While promoting economic prosperity and sending messages of unity, Trump is attempting to confront the Russia scandal head-on by releasing the "Nunes Memo." He is also trying to lead the political agenda with a surprising immigration policy proposal. However, it remains uncertain whether his intentions will be realized.

  

The 2018 State of the Union address demonstrated that Trump can exhibit presidential demeanor if he speaks and acts according to a well-crafted script. This is why even hostile media outlets and Democrats offered the assessment, "At least for today, he was presidential." In fact, his speech to the National Assembly during his state visit to South Korea was good, and his Davos speech, which was heavily criticized by the mainstream media, was not bad either. However, in an interview at Davos, he reverted to his old self. While he shone briefly during the State of the Union address, it is highly likely that he will return to his true nature soon. To seize the initiative in the second year of his presidency and win upcoming elections, he must strive to become a "prompter" president with refined speech and conduct, rather than a "tweet" president who improvises excessively.

  

Protectionism and Peace Through Strength

 

While tax cuts, infrastructure expansion, and immigration reform were the key domestic issues, strong security and protectionism were at the center of foreign policy. Unlike his domestic emphasis on unity, compromise, and common ground, Trump maintained his hardline stance in foreign policy, national security, and trade. Although his tone was softer than in his inaugural address, where he described the "middle class's wealth being ripped away" by unfair trade, he declared that "the era of economic surrender is over," making it clear that he would rectify unfair trade agreements and initiate new negotiations. Like most politicians, Trump's primary concern is the domestic political gains and losses resulting from his policies. Bringing home spoils from trade disputes would be a significant boost for the 2018 midterm elections. In particular, as Trump has not achieved significant results in the renegotiation of NAFTA, he may seek to gain substantial benefits from the amendment negotiations of the ROK-U.S. FTA. Trade pressure on South Korea is expected to intensify for the time being. This is not good news for South Korea, which has already faced safeguard measures on solar panels and washing machines. Although the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recommended that "washing machines produced in countries with which the U.S. has an FTA should be excluded from safeguard measures," Trump was relentless. Retaliatory measures could extend to steel, chemicals, automobiles, and semiconductors, which are driving South Korea's exports. Companies are reluctantly increasing their investments in the U.S. with little to show for it. It is reasonable to expect that the amendment negotiations of the ROK-U.S. FTA, where only differences in positions were confirmed in the second round of talks, will be very difficult until the midterm elections.

  

In the realm of foreign policy and national security, the path of peace through strength was further solidified. Trump argued that while the use of nuclear weapons should never occur and that one day nuclear weapons might "magically" disappear, the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons is currently the only option, given that adversarial nations are doubling their nuclear capabilities. His call to Congress to end the automatic defense budget cuts (sequester) and fully fund the defense budget was met with thunderous applause. The most keenly watched part was his remarks regarding North Korea. After briefly mentioning security threats from ISIS, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, he began his remarks on North Korea by stating, "But no regime has oppressed its own people more brutally or in more comprehensive ways than the cruel North Korean dictatorship," and continued for over eight minutes. This is highly unusual. He designated North Korea as a direct threat capable of attacking the U.S. mainland in the near future and made it clear that he would counter the North Korean threat with a campaign of "maximum pressure," having "learned from past experiences that appeasement only emboldens aggression." The initial "maximum pressure and engagement" has now completely dropped the "engagement" component.

  

The "Bloody Nose" Operation and Maximum Pressure

 

It was also unusual for him to introduce the parents of Otto Warmbier and North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho (NAUH representative) to condemn the North Korean regime's human rights abuses. Although his tone was calm and his language was measured, why did it sound more threatening than his UN speech (September 19, 2017), where he taunted Kim Jong-un as "Little Rocket Man" and threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea? Some compared it to President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address labeling the "axis of evil" on the eve of the Iraq War, or President Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" address before entering World War II in 1941, with some articles likening it to a general's send-off before battle. Coincidentally, reports emerged that Victor Cha, who had been approved by the South Korean government as the next U.S. Ambassador to Korea, withdrew his nomination because he opposed a limited, preemptive military strike, commonly referred to as a "bloody nose" operation.

  

However, there is no need to interpret the Trump administration's State of the Union address as a declaration of war on North Korea or Victor Cha's withdrawal as the removal of an obstacle to a "bloody nose" operation. It is clear that the Trump administration is skeptical of negotiations that would merely gloss over nuclear and missile issues, as in the past. It is also true that the U.S. military is conducting tailored training with North Korea in mind, and the feasibility of military options against North Korea appears higher than ever. However, it is more reasonable to view military options, such as a "bloody nose" operation, as part of the maximum pressure strategy. Victor Cha's opposition to the execution of a "bloody nose" operation (in fact, most experts, including myself, oppose it) does not mean he failed the loyalty test of Trump's inner circle by clearly articulating his reasons for opposition. It is more likely that he was not appointed because he failed to provide assurance of his "team player" status, rather than because he opposed the policy.

  

A military action against North Korea, however limited, carries the risk of full-scale war. Even if direct retaliation against the U.S. mainland is not possible, there are various ways North Korea could retaliate against South Korea or Japan. In such a scenario, escalation is highly probable, and the U.S. would be obligated to intervene under its alliance commitments. If the U.S. did not intervene, its alliances with over 30 countries would likely collapse. Trump's primary concern is winning the midterm and presidential elections. Military involvement on the Korean Peninsula, above all else, would lead to a situation that Trump would find politically untenable domestically. Of course, there is some domestic political justification for the preemptive use of military force, as a brutal dictatorship has become a direct security threat to the United States. However, the cost is the issue. This is not the first time the U.S. has seriously considered the use of military force. In 1994, the commander of U.S. Forces Korea testified before Congress that in the initial phase of a Korean War, there would be an estimated 490,000 South Korean casualties, 1 million civilian casualties, and 52,000 U.S. casualties. The cost of waging war was estimated at $100 billion, and recovery costs at nearly $1 trillion. This estimate was made in 1994, long before North Korea's nuclear tests.

  

The Reagan administration, which advocated for peace through strength like Trump, considered military action in the early 1980s to overthrow the Sandinista socialist regime in Nicaragua, a small Central American nation. However, concerned about the excessive costs, they opted for a covert CIA operation supporting the Contra rebels. For Trump supporters, a preemptive strike against a rogue state threatening the U.S. might be a conceptually attractive option. However, if the nation's resources were to be depleted by military action on the Korean Peninsula, they might withdraw their support. A preemptive military action that guarantees quick success at a low human and financial cost could be a significant domestic political advantage. However, whether we like it or not, North Korea has long possessed the military capability to deter such preemptive military actions. In fact, military options against North Korea have never been officially excluded from U.S. policy choices. They have simply not been pursued due to cost. A "bloody nose" operation is a pressure tactic for "maximum pressure" and largely consists of "bluffing" to make North Korea reveal its hand. However, in poker, even if you know it's a bluff, the opponent's hidden cards can sometimes be powerful. In any case, this is a game where the U.S. and its allies try to make North Korea show its hand. We should not be nudging them and telling them to stop betting and stop escalating the situation. Even if North Korea does not reveal its hand, we should try to get them to come to the negotiating table by saying, "Let's stop escalating the situation." The execution of a "bloody nose" operation is dangerous because it involves Kim Jong-un, but a "bloody nose" operation as an option can be effective because it involves Trump.

  

Could Trump's surprising immigration policy proposal offer a glimpse into the direction of his North Korea policy? The U.S. currently has the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, which defers the deportation of undocumented immigrant youth, also known as "Dreamers." In September 2017, Trump announced the termination of the DACA program, which would lead to the deportation of Dreamers, and the subsequent tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats over immigration reform led to a federal government shutdown. Trump's proposed solution for immigration reform in the State of the Union address is truly groundbreaking. He proposed granting U.S. citizenship not only to the 700,000 undocumented youth protected by DACA but also to an additional 1.1 million undocumented youth who have not even registered for DACA, totaling 1.8 million undocumented youth. In return, however, he demanded the construction of a border wall and the abolition of the visa lottery and chain migration. This is a typical Trump-style negotiation, trading "1.8 million citizenships" for a "border wall." It is a negotiation that swings from one extreme to the other. Both Democrats and Republicans were thrown into disarray by Trump's proposal. Within the Democratic Party, opinions are divided between those who absolutely reject the wall and those who believe they should first accept the 1.8 million citizenships. Even within the Republican Party, some are grumbling that granting citizenship to 1.8 million people is tantamount to amnesty. As Trump revealed in his book "The Art of the Deal," he prefers negotiations that completely shake up the situation and allow him to secure what he wants. In fact, regarding the nuclear issue, what South Korea should be concerned about is not the U.S. military option against North Korea, but a negotiation where North Korea's demands are largely met (granting citizenship to 1.8 million people) in exchange for the dismantling of intercontinental ballistic missiles (building a border wall). If intercontinental ballistic missiles are removed, North Korean nuclear weapons are no longer a direct threat to the United States. ■

Author 

Kim Jae-cheon is a professor at the Graduate School of International Relations, Sogang University. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University and served as the Director of the Institute for International Area Studies at Sogang University. His main research areas include U.S. foreign policy, ROK-U.S. relations, Northeast Asian international relations, and international security and peace. His recent works include "Universal Value of Korean Peninsula Unification: Beyond a Benefit-Oriented Discourse" (2017), "Compartmentalized Hedging in the Middle East: Turkey’s Alternative Strategy towards Iran" (2017), and "Alliance Adjustment in the Post-Cold War Era: Convergence of Strategic Perceptions and Revitalization of the ROK-US Alliance" (2015).

EAI Commentary is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for experts from various fields to offer in-depth analysis and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting.

EAI is an independent research institute independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and solely represent the views of the author.