Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Cameron’s demolition job risks tearing the country from its past (Daily Telegraph)

Whichever is the more conservative party is likely to win the next election – and right now that looks like Labour, writes Mary Riddell.

2. An unhappy marriage: union influence may cost Labour election chances (Independent)

By threatening more strikes union leaders prove they have not adjusted to poorer times - and their selfishness will only push voters away, says Steve Richards.

3. Democracy loses in struggle to save euro (Financial Times)

The sight of the German representative on the ECB being isolated and outvoted was chilling, says Gideon Rachman.

4. Why the whiff of success clings to Brand Boris (Times) (£)

David Cameron must rediscover the qualities that won him the leadership to see off the Mayor’s challenge, says Rachel Sylvester.

5. The universal credit programme is on course for disaster (Guardian)

Iain Duncan Smith's plan to streamline our benefits system is practically unachievable, says Frank Field.

6. Tories may regret their disdain of Romney (Financial Times)

It is folly to have such poor relations with a party that could soon hold the world’s mightiest office, argues Janan Ganesh.

7. Alzheimer's could be the most catastrophic impact of junk food (Guardian)

There is evidence that poor diet is one cause of Alzheimer's, writes George Monbiot. If ever there was a case for the precautionary principle, this is it.

8. Europe's Dutch barometer (Independent)

Holland’s fragmented politics have become more divided than ever, says an Independent leader.

9. Conservative party: cheers, fears and falling ratings (Guardian)

Mr Johnson may be the Tories' prince over the water now, but golden summers and victory parades do not last for ever, says a Guardian editorial.

10. Black Wednesday: The day that Britain went over the edge (Daily Telegraph)

Black Wednesday was a fateful moment that changed our country – and shaped a future prime minister, writes Philip Johnston.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump's dangerous nation

From North Korea to Virginia, the US increasingly resembles a rogue state.

When Donald Trump was elected as US president, some optimistically suggested that the White House would have a civilising effect on the erratic tycoon. Under the influence of his more experienced colleagues, they argued, he would gradually absorb the norms of international diplomacy.

After seven months, these hopes have been exposed as delusional. On 8 August, he responded to North Korea’s increasing nuclear capabilities by threatening “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. Three days later, he casually floated possible military action against Venezuela. Finally, on 12 August, he responded to a white supremacist rally in Virginia by condemning violence on “many sides” (only criticising the far right specifically after two days of outrage).

Even by Mr Trump’s low standards, it was an embarrassing week. Rather than normalising the president, elected office has merely inflated his self-regard. The consequences for the US and the world could be momentous.

North Korea’s reported acquisition of a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on an intercontinental missile (and potentially reach the US) demanded a serious response. Mr Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric was not it. His off-the-cuff remarks implied that the US could launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, leading various officials to “clarify” the US position. Kim Jong-un’s regime is rational enough to avoid a pre-emptive strike that would invite a devastating retaliation. However, there remains a risk that it misreads Mr Trump’s intentions and rushes to action.

Although the US should uphold the principle of nuclear deterrence, it must also, in good faith, pursue a diplomatic solution. The week before Mr Trump’s remarks, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, rightly ruled out “regime change” and held out the possibility of “a dialogue”.

The North Korean regime is typically depicted as crazed, but its pursuit of nuclear weapons rests on rational foundations. The project is designed to guarantee its survival and to strengthen its bargaining hand. As such, it must be given incentives to pursue a different path.

Mr Trump’s bellicose language overshadowed the successful agreement of new UN sanctions against North Korea (targeting a third of its $3bn exports). Should these prove insufficient, the US should resume the six-party talks of the mid-2000s and even consider direct negotiations.

A failure of diplomacy could be fatal. In his recent book Destined for War, the Harvard historian Graham Allison warns that the US and China could fall prey to “Thucydides’s trap”. According to this rule, dating from the clash between Athens and Sparta, war typically results when a dominant power is challenged by an ascendent rival. North Korea, Mr Bew writes, could provide the spark for a new “great power conflict” between the US and China.

Nuclear standoffs require immense patience, resourcefulness and tact – all qualities in which Mr Trump is lacking. Though the thought likely never passed his mind, his threats to North Korea and Venezuela provide those countries with a new justification for internal repression.

Under Mr Trump’s leadership, the US is becoming an ever more fraught, polarised nation. It was no accident that the violent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of the 32-year-old Heather Heyer, took place under his presidency. Mr Trump’s victory empowered every racist, misogynist and bigot in the land. It was doubtless this intimate connection that prevented him from immediately condemning the white supremacists. To denounce them is, in effect, to denounce himself.

The US hardly has an unblemished history. It has been guilty of reckless, immoral interventions in Vietnam, Latin America and Iraq. But never has it been led by a man so heedless of international and domestic norms. Those Republicans who enabled Mr Trump’s rise and preserve him in office must do so no longer. There is a heightened responsibility, too, on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, the president. The Brexiteers have allowed dreams of a future US-UK trade deal to impair their morality.

Under Mr Trump, the US increasingly resembles a breed it once denounced: a rogue state. His former rival Hillary Clinton’s past warning that “a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons” now appears alarmingly prescient.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear