Michael Gaynor
President Trump's choice of John Bolton as National Security Adviser is an unmistakable message to Kim Jung-Un
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
March 26, 2018

With Pompeo the Secretary of State designate (to replace Rex Tillerson) and Bolton replacing McMaster as National Security Adviser next month, President Trump's message to Kim is crystal clear: peaceful denuclearization is preferable, but having the continental United States susceptible to nuclear attack from North Korea is intolerable.

North Korea's Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, sent his sister Kim Yo-jong to the opening ceremonies of the 2018 Winter Olympics, and President Donald Trump sent his daughter Ivanka.

The representatives did not meet, but soon after Kim shocked the world by inviting President Trump to meet to negotiate.

President Trump made it clear that the security of the United States requires the denuclearization of North Korea, and he just made it crystal clear that he has a back up plan if negotiation fails.

The liberal media establishment is loathe to give President Trump any credit.

It portrays President Trump as unfit to be President and a threat to world peace.

Accordingly, I don't expect the libersl media establishment to perceive, much less acknowledge, the brilliance of President Trump's selection of John R.Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, as the next National Security Adviser.

The liberal media establishment was shocked that President Trump had successfully maneuvered North Korea's Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, into inviting him to the negotiating table.

Alas, the liberal media establishment seems to still be in denial as to President Trump's abilities, because President Trump is its worst nightmare.

North Korea's Kim dynasty played Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama as it pursued nuclear missiles.

But Kim Jong-un will not likewise play President Trump, now that North Korea is a nuclear power with ballistic missiles and soon to be able to strike the continental United States with nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.

President Trump is not the kind of person who will submit to nuclear blackmail.

Likewise, President Trump is not the kind of person who will let North Korea position itself to launch a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile to strike the continental United States.

To dissuade Kim Jong-un from thinking otherwise, President Trump chose to replace National Security Adviser McMaster with Bolton as preparations of a dramatic meeting between Trump and Kim proceed.

Bolton is the person who wrote "The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First" (www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11978/north-korea- first-strike") earlier this month.

Bolton wrote:

"The Winter Olympics' closing ceremonies also concluded North Korea's propaganda effort to divert attention from its nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. And although President Trump announced more economic sanctions against Pyongyang last week, he also bluntly presaged 'Phase Two' of U.S. action against the Kim regime, which 'may be a very rough thing.'

"CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in January that Pyongyang was within 'a handful of months' of being able to deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. How long must America wait before it acts to eliminate that threat?

"Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an 'imminent threat.' They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.

"In assessing the timing of pre-emptive attacks, the classic formulation is Daniel Webster's test of 'necessity.' British forces in 1837 invaded U.S. territory to destroy the steamboat Caroline, which Canadian rebels had used to transport weapons into Ontario.

"Webster asserted that Britain failed to show that 'the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.' Pre-emption opponents would argue that Britain should have waited until the Caroline reached Canada before attacking.

"Would an American strike today against North Korea's nuclear-weapons program violate Webster's necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic-missile age is simply different than in the age of steam. What was once remote is now, as a practical matter, near; what was previously time-consuming to deliver can now arrive in minutes; and the level of destructiveness of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is infinitely greater than that of the steamship Caroline's weapons cargo.

"Timing and distance have long been recognized as surrogate measures defining the seriousness of military threats, thereby serving as criteria to justify pre-emptive political or military actions. In the days of sail, maritime states were recognized as controlling territorial waters (above and below the surface) for three nautical miles out to sea. In the early 18th century, that was the farthest distance cannonballs could reach, hence defining a state's outer defense perimeter. While some states asserted broader maritime claims, the three-mile limit was widely accepted in Europe.

"Technological developments inevitably challenged maritime-state defenses. Over time, many nations extended their territorial claims, but the U.S. adhered to the three-mile limit until World War II. After proclaiming U.S. neutrality in 1939, in large measure to limit the activities of belligerent-power warships and submarines in our waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly realized the three-mile limit was an invitation for aggression. German submarines were sinking ships off the coast within sight of Boston and New York.

"In May 1941, Roosevelt told the Pan-American Union that 'if the Axis Powers fail to gain control of the seas, then they are certainly defeated.' He explained that our defenses had 'to relate . . . to the lightning speed of modern warfare.' He scoffed at those waiting 'until bombs actually drop in the streets' of U.S. cities: 'Our Bunker Hill of tomorrow may be several thousand miles from Boston.' Accordingly, over time, Roosevelt vastly extended America's 'waters of self defense' to include Greenland, Iceland and even parts of West Africa.

"Similarly in 1988, President Reagan unilaterally extended U.S. territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Reagan's executive order cited U.S. national security and other significant interests in this expansion, and administration officials underlined that a major rationale was making it harder for Soviet spy ships to gather information.

"In short, both Roosevelt and Reagan acted unilaterally to adjust to new realities. They did not reify time and distance, or confuse the concrete for the existential. They adjusted the measures to reality, not the reverse.

"Although the Caroline criteria are often cited in pre-emption debates, they are merely customary international law, which is interpreted and modified in light of changing state practice. In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007.

"This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive 'fire and fury' against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

President Trump wants North Korea to be verifiably denuclearized.

The best way to achieve that goal is through negotiation.

But it's not the only way, as Bolton brilliantly explained.

With Pompeo the Secretary of State designate (replacing Rex Tillerson) and Bolton replacing McMaster as National Security Adviser next month, President Trump's message to Kim is crystal clear: peaceful denuclearization is preferable, but having the continental United States susceptible to nuclear attack from North Korea is intolerable.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

July 9, 2018
Librarian of Congress and Federal Court should respect America's Declaration of Independence as approved by Congress, instead of a revision de-emphasizing the importance of God


June 27, 2018
SCOTUS holds Trump travel ban to be constitutional; anti-Trumpers outraged


June 23, 2018
Would Cardinal McCarrick have followed canon law on distributing Holy Communion if he had not been a sexual abuser?


June 19, 2018
Should child neglect be overlooked when children are used as shields by parents entering the United States illegally?


June 6, 2018
The Constitution does not limit the presidential pardon power except in case of impeachment


May 7, 2018
President Trump, please turn the tables on Special Counsel Mueller by challenging him to subpoena you instead of letting him interview you


March 26, 2018
President Trump's choice of John Bolton as National Security Adviser is an unmistakable message to Kim Jung-Un


March 20, 2018
"Fruit of poison tree" protects President Trump as well as you and me


February 6, 2018
Poetic justice: Colluding with the Russians charge boomeranging on Trump persecutors as investigative abuse is uncovered


January 22, 2018
Will the Schumer shutdown lead to nuclear war with North Korea?


More articles