There have been works branding the second Trump administration as “Trump 2.0” before and after the U.S. presidential election in 2024. It may seem like a minor issue, but I am obliged to challenge the term. This is because language shapes and reshapes our thinking constantly.
Against “Trump 2.0”
First, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term “2.0” is used “to describe a new and improved version or example of something or someone.” If this is the case, the word “Trump 2.0” implies a positively developed second Trump presidency. But I am not sure if I can call his second term a positive improvement. This has already been demonstrated by various shocking policy announcements: planning to take over Gaza, wanting to seize the Panama Canal, aspiring to annex Greenland, withdrawing from the World Health Organization, withdrawing (again) from the Paris Climate Agreement, and triggering a global trade war, among others.
Second, the phrase “Trump 2.0” is based on the idea that everything, including social and political affairs, progresses through a single series of stages. It carries connotations of linearity. But when it comes to President Trump, this linearity does not apply. His behaviors and policies are not linear, but highly unpredictable. I am afraid that President Trump is like an American football once it has been dropped – the next move is impossible to predict. The only thing I can predict is Trump’s unpredictability. In other words, he betrays the notion of linearity.
There are problems with the term in question. Hence, I use the phrase “second Trump administration” in this writing.
For “the second Trump administration”
Many people talk about the prospects of new U.S.-North Korea relations. Whether bilateral or multilateral, the format is less important compared to the content or essence of negotiations. The key point is to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea, paving the way for the economic development of the country, eventually leading to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
The U.S. seems to be the most important actor for the time being. As Mr Trump clearly stated on the first day of his second presidency and afterward, the U.S. plans to engage with North Korea in a positive manner. Considering Trump’s style, he may prefer bilateral engagement to multilateral negotiations, meaning he may bypass the Six-Party Talks. The “Six-Party” refers to the stakeholder nations, namely the U.S., Japan, China, Russia, South and North Korea.
Indeed, given the current international landscape, there is a possibility that President Trump will try to strike a deal with North Korea directly. He may not care about, for example, South Korea. If this bilateral deal is realized, other stakeholder nations may follow similar steps in one way or another. For instance, South Korea might pursue a peace treaty with North Korea to nullify the ongoing Korean War, which started in 1950 and ended with a ceasefire in 1953. Japan could normalize its diplomatic relations with North Korea. As for China and Russia, they would reconfirm their friendly relations with the country.
North Korea’s survival
Meanwhile, almost everyone would agree that North Korea’s security environment is unfavorable. North Korea’s top priority is to survive. There are two points.
First, the current security environment stems from the ongoing Korean War that ended with a ceasefire only. A permanent peace treaty is needed. Because of this ongoing war, from North Korea’s point of view, it has been constantly threatened by South Korea and the U.S. In the past, South Korea frequently expressed its intention of absorbing its Northern neighbor. The U.S. still has 28,500 troops in South Korea. Moreover, the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for 33 years, from 1958 to 1991. Therefore, it is not surprising that North Korea decided to develop its nuclear program. That is why the ongoing Korean War should be permanently resolved.
Second, North Korea has maintained its ideology of class struggle since its foundation in 1948. As Chan Young Bang reminds us, the former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev said, “foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and domestic policy is an embodiment of ideology” (p. 173). To some extent, North Korea’s rigid and aggressive foreign policy is the result of its ideology. Further, Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Foreign Minister under Gorbachev said that “coexistence […] is incompatible with class struggle” (p. 53). This remark makes more sense in this highly globalized 21st century: North Korea needs to live with others, particularly in terms of the economy. That means, as long as North Korea pursues ideological class struggle, it would be difficult to fundamentally resolve its survival issue.
For the sake of North Korea’s survival (and stability on the Korean Peninsula), the ongoing Korean War should be brought to an end. In addition, North Korea would need to change its ideology.
Trump and time
To conclude, one might want to be cautious about using the term “Trump 2.0”, as it entails potentially dangerous interpretations of President Trump. Apart from that, all the relevant parties surrounding Korea should utilize this unique moment created by the second Trump administration. Most importantly, they must understand North Korea’s security concerns. At the same time, North Korea itself would have to prepare to embrace any necessary change. Time is limited.
[Photo by the White House, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Dr Sungju Park-Kang is a Research Fellow at the DPRK Strategic Research Center and Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at KIMEP University, Kazakhstan. Park-Kang is also Adjunct Professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, University of Turku, Finland. He was formerly Assistant Professor of International Relations and Korean Studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands and at the University of Central Lancashire, UK.
