Three things to know about North Korea's missile tests - Al Jazeera

Three things to know about North Korea's missile tests

With advances in its long-range missile programme, here are three technical milestones and why they matter.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un inspects the long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12 (Mars-12) [KCNA via Reuters/File photo]

byAlex Gatopoulos

Since Kim Jong-un's ascendancy in December 2011, North Korea has accelerated its missile development programme, the tempo of tests increasing considerably from those under his father Kim Jong Il. After failures in 2016, North Korea has this year made bold advances in its missile programme.

Kim Jong-un moved closer to make good on his threats to reduce the US "to ashes" with the July 28 launch of a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), claiming that this flight test demonstrates the capability of the missiles to reach the US mainland. This test comes just weeks after Pyongyang tested what it claimed to be the country's first ICBM.

Immediately following the July 28 launch, US and South Korean forces conducted live-fire exercises and the US flew two supersonic B-1B jets over the Korean peninsula in a show of force. US ambassador to the UN stated that the US is "done talking about North Korea" while Donald Trump and Japan's Shinzo Abe have agreed that it is time to take action against Pyongyang.

Here are three of North Korea's recent technical milestones in long-range missile technology which stand out and why they matter.

1. Firing almost vertically and reaching higher altitudes

There are significant challenges to testing a long-range missile in a country that is too small to run test flights within its own border. Initially, North Korea's only option was to launch these flights over its neighbours. It did that in 1998 by test-firing the Taepodong-1 missile over mainland Japan, to instant international condemnation.

Now, North Korea has started launching longer-range missiles in what is known as a "lofted trajectory", firing the missile almost vertically. This allows the missile to land a short horizontal distance from launch but travel a great distance overall. Higher altitudes are a strong indication of new, more powerful engines and a greater ability to carry a payload that distance.

These launches enable Pyongyang to conduct realistic tests of longer-range missiles. They also allow engineers to gather data sent back from the test missile to better understand the challenges faced when a long-range warhead re-enters the Earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, something that generates vast amounts of frictional heat.

This is exactly what North Korea did when it tested the Hwasong-14 (Mars-14) on July 4.

According to the US military's Pacific Command, or PACOM, which monitors these launches, it flew for 37 minutes, rising to a maximum altitude (known as an apogee) of nearly 2,800km, over seven times higher than the International Space Station which is in orbit only some 400km above the Earth.

A steep, near-vertical launch allowed the missile to travel a distance that roughly simulated long-range flight by travelling higher than most missiles but splashing down only a short distance away into the Sea of Japan, limiting the diplomatic damage that would inevitably be caused by a random projectile flying through a neighbour's airspace.

The ICBM, a clunky Cold War-era name for a long-range missile, is formally defined as one that can fly more than 5,500km.

According to David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the Hwasong-14 was fired under proper flight conditions, it could reach a target more than 6,700km away. This puts the missile firmly in the long-range or ICBM bracket, and means it could potentially hit the US base on the island of Guam as well as Alaska, although the naval base on Hawaii and the rest of the continental US are still out of reach.

2. Solid fuel means faster launches

First tested by the North just over a decade, ago solid-fuelled missiles are faster to set up and easier to fire.

Unlike liquid fuels, which take time to load and are extremely toxic and corrosive to handle, solid fuels are easier to maintain and are more stable. A crude analogy between the two is to liken solid-fuelled missiles to setting off gunpowder-filled fireworks rather than filling each one with liquid fuel every time you wanted to fire one. Solid fuel reduces launch times from hours to minutes.

Reducing the time from when a missile battery is taken out into the open to be readied for a launch, and therefore is exposed to enemy observation, makes it far less likely to be discovered and destroyed. Using solid fuels also scales back on the additional vehicles needed to transport volatile and dangerous liquid fuels, making a missile battery smaller and harder to spot. As this fuel is more stable, it can also take a few knocks when moved around.

3. Toughening up missile batteries

Fortifying a missile battery so it can travel anywhere on land rather than along North Korea's tiny road system - the country has 724km of paved and 24,830km of unpaved roads respectively - gives it more places to hide.

North Korea has done this by ruggedising the missile transporter (formally called a transporter erector launcher or TEL). Tracks are used instead of wheels, allowing the heavy vehicles to cross rough ground off the road system, which would be monitored by an enemy trying to track down missile batteries. The thin-skinned missile is also sheathed in a canister so it survives bumpy off-road travel.

These improvements came together in the successful February launch of the Pukguksong-2 (Polaris-2) medium-range missile. Analysts across the world quickly realised the test's importance as the combination of solid fuel, a ruggedised transporter and a protected weapon, meant a battery could potentially hide in forests, underneath cliff overhangs, under bridges - virtually anywhere - and launch within minutes from a cold start.

What is next for North Korea's missile programme?

Producing next-generation missiles that can reach the US will be key for North Korea.

This will not be an easy feat given the trickier aspects of long-range flight. Designs must be able to withstand the stresses and incredible heat produced in missiles by re-entering the atmosphere.

The challenges will come from improving the warhead and delivery system and coupling the two. North Korean scientists will struggle to extend the missiles' ranges while shrinking their still rudimentary nuclear devices so theý are light enough to be carried by the missile to the target.

Then there is the quest for accuracy, if the missiles are to have any military use.

North Korea has bragged that its latest batch of missile tests were extremely accurate. It is still vague how this accuracy is being assessed given that North Korea does not have a network of satellites able to guide distant warheads to their targets, relying on the projectiles' much less accurate inertial guidance system.

This electronic system is used in older missiles such as the Scud. It works on the principle of the missile using internally measured basic data on its speed, direction, and so on, to try to roughly assess where it ended up rather than being told where it was exactly by, say, the Global Positioning System (GPS).

If the sharp tempo of tests doesn't abate, North Korea is likely to see substantial improvements in its missile programme. Kim Jong-un seems determined to "frequently send big and small 'gift packages' to the Yankees", as he instructed scientists after the July 4 test, according to the country's state media KCNA.

Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication. - New York Times

Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication.

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGAUG. 7, 2017

WASHINGTON — Whit Ayres, a Republican political consultant here, likes to tell his clients that there are “three keys to credibility.”

“One, never defend the indefensible,” he says. “Two, never deny the undeniable. And No. 3 is: Never lie.”

Would that politicians took his advice.

Fabrications have long been a part of American politics. Politicians lie to puff themselves up, to burnish their résumés and to cover up misdeeds, including sexual affairs. (See: Bill Clinton.) Sometimes they cite false information for what they believe are justifiable policy reasons. (See: Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.)

But President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called “the conflict between truth and politics” to an entirely new level.

From his days peddling the false notion that former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, to his inflated claims about how many people attended his inaugural, to his description just last week of receiving two phone calls — one from the president of Mexico and another from the head of the Boy Scouts — that never happened, Mr. Trump is trafficking in hyperbole, distortion and fabrication on practically a daily basis.

In part, this represents yet another way that Mr. Trump is operating on his own terms, but it also reflects a broader decline in standards of truth for political discourse. A look at politicians over the past half-century makes it clear that lying in office did not begin with Donald J. Trump. Still, the scope of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods raises questions about whether the brakes on straying from the truth and the consequences for politicians’ being caught saying things that just are not true have diminished over time.

One of the first modern presidents to wrestle publicly with a lie was Dwight D. Eisenhower in May 1960, when an American U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Soviet airspace.

The Eisenhower administration lied to the public about the plane and its mission, claiming it was a weather aircraft. But when the Soviets announced that the pilot had been captured alive, Eisenhower reluctantly acknowledged that the plane had been on an intelligence mission — an admission that shook him badly, the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said.

“He just felt that his credibility was such an important part of his person and character, and to have that undermined by having to tell a lie was one of the deepest regrets of his presidency,” Ms. Goodwin said.

In the short run, Eisenhower was hurt; a summit meeting with the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev collapsed in acrimony. But the public eventually forgave him, Ms. Goodwin said, because he owned up to his mistake.

In 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, President Richard M. Nixon was accused of lying, obstructing justice and misusing the Internal Revenue Service, among other agencies, and resigned rather than face impeachment. Voters, accustomed to being able to trust politicians, were disgusted. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won the presidency after telling the public, “I’ll never lie to you.”

President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction in trying to cover up his affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, during legal proceedings. Chris Lehane, a former Clinton adviser, said Mr. Clinton’s second-term agenda suffered during his impeachment, yet paradoxically his favorability ratings remained high — in part, Mr. Lehane said, because “the public distinguished between Clinton the private person and the public person.”

But sometimes it’s easier to tell what’s false than what’s a lie. President George W. Bush faced accusations that he and members of his administration took America to war in Iraq based on false intelligence about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush and his team emphasized and in some cases exaggerated elements of the intelligence that bolstered the case while disregarding dissenting information, leading critics to accuse them of lying. Among those who said Mr. Bush had lied was Mr. Trump.

Over the past two decades, institutional changes in American politics have made it easier for politicians to lie. The proliferation of television political talk shows and the rise of the internet have created a fragmented media environment. With no widely acknowledged media gatekeeper, politicians have an easier time distorting the truth.

And in an era of hyper-partisanship, where politicians often are trying to court voters at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, politicians often lie with impunity. Even the use of the word “lie” in politics has changed.

“There was a time not long ago when you could not use the word ‘lie’ in a campaign,” said Anita Dunn, once a communications director to Mr. Obama. “It was thought to be too harsh, and it would backfire. So you had to say they hadn’t been honest, or they didn’t tell the truth, or the facts show something else, and even that was seen as hot rhetoric.”

With the rise of fact-checking websites, politicians are held accountable for their words. In 2013, the website PolitiFact declared that Mr. Obama had uttered the “lie of the year” when he told Americans that if they liked their health care plan they could keep it. (Mr. Trump won “lie of the year” in 2015.)

“I thought it was unfair at the time, and I still think it’s unfair,” Ms. Dunn said, referring to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama later apologized to people who were forced off their plans “despite assurances from me.”

On the theory that politicians who get caught in lies put their reputations at risk, Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College (and contributor to The New York Times’s Upshot) and some colleagues tried to study the effects of Mr. Trump’s misstatements during last year’s presidential campaign.

In a controlled experiment, researchers showed a group of voters a misleading claim by Mr. Trump, while another group saw that claim accompanied by “corrective information” that directly contradicted what Mr. Trump had said. The group that viewed the corrections believed the new information, but seeing it did not change how they viewed Mr. Trump.

“We know politicians are risk averse. They try to minimize negative coverage, and that negative coverage could damage their image over time,” Mr. Nyhan said. “But the reputational consequences of making false claims aren’t strong enough. They’re not sufficiently strong to dissuade people from misleading the public.”

Of course, lying to court voters is one thing, and lying to federal prosecutors quite another. When Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, was accused of a long list of federal corruption counts related to claims that he tried to sell Mr. Obama’s seat in the United States Senate, he was asked quite directly about lying.

While Mr. Blagojevich was testifying under oath, a prosecutor pressed him on whether he made a habit, as a politician, of lying to the public. They sparred over whether Mr. Blagojevich had fed a misleading story to a local newspaper.

“That was a lie,” the prosecutor, Reid Schar, was quoted as saying.

Mr. Blagojevich refused to fess up. “That was a misdirection play in politics,” he answered.

He was sentenced to a 14-year prison term in 2011.

Joel Sawyer, a Republican strategist in South Carolina, said there were two ways for a politician to deal with deceit.

“One is to never acknowledge it, which seems to have been employed pretty successfully by our current president,” Mr. Sawyer said. “The second is to rip the Band-Aid off and say: ‘I screwed up; here’s why. Give me another chance, and I won’t disappoint you again.’”

Mr. Sawyer worked for a politician — Mark Sanford, then the governor of South Carolina — who took the latter approach. On a June weekend in 2009, Mr. Sanford slipped out of the South Carolina capitol and flew to Buenos Aires to be with his lover, but told his staff that he had gone hiking on the Appalachian Trail. His aides, including Mr. Sawyer, unknowingly passed the lie on to reporters.

Mr. Sanford later apologized profusely. Voters eventually rewarded him; today he serves in Congress.

Many of Mr. Trump’s lies — like the time he boasted that he had made the “all-time record in the history of Time Magazine” for being on its cover so often — are somewhat trivial, and “basically about him polishing his ego,” said John Weaver, a prominent Republican strategist.

That mystifies Bob Ney, a Republican former congressman who spent time in prison for accepting illegal gifts from a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and lying to federal investigators about it. “It really baffles me why he has to feel compelled to exaggerate to exonerate himself,” Mr. Ney said.

But other presidential lies, like Mr. Trump’s false claim that millions of undocumented immigrants had cast ballots for his opponent in the 2016 election, are far more substantive, and pose a threat, scholars say, that his administration will build policies around them.

The glaring difference between Mr. Trump and his predecessors is the sheer magnitude of falsehoods and exaggerations; PolitiFact rates just 20 percent of the statements it reviewed as true, and a total of 69 percent either mostly false, false or “Pants on Fire.” That leaves scholars like Ms. Goodwin to wonder whether Mr. Trump, in elevating the art of political fabrication, has forever changed what Americans are willing to tolerate from their leaders.

“What’s different today and what’s scarier today is these lies are pointed out, and there’s evidence that they’re wrong,” she said. “And yet because of the attacks on the media, there are a percentage of people in the country who are willing to say, ‘Maybe he is telling the truth.’”

Mike Pence dismisses reports of 2020 run as 'fake news' and insists he will work for Donald Trump's re-election - Telegraph

Mike Pence dismisses reports of 2020 run as 'fake news' and insists he will work for Donald Trump's re-election

Rob Crilly, new york

7 AUGUST 2017 • 7:22AM

Mike Pence, the US Vice President, has angrily dismissed reports he is preparing a presidential run for 2020 as “absurd” and “offensive” insisting that he is focused on ensuring Donald Trump’s re-election.

A day earlier The New York Times reported that leading Republicans have begun making visits to Iowa, one of the states crucial to securing the party’s presidential nomination, and that Mr Pence has established his own fundraising committee.

However, he dismissed the suggestion that he was preparing a run as “fake news”.

“The allegations in this article are categorically false and represent just the latest attempt by the media to divide this administration," he said in a statement.

He praised the president’s leadership and insisted his entire team was focussed on re-electing Mr Trump in 2020.

“Any suggestion otherwise is just laughable and absurd,” he added.

Mr Trump has so far made no suggestion he will not run for a second term. And it is extremely rare for members of a president's party – let alone his vice president - to begin preparing so early for that possibility.

But some have made little secret of their wish to find an alternative candidate even if Mr Trump stands again.

In his first six months, Mr Trump has failed to persuade Congress to repeal Obamacare, become further mired in the Russia scandal and seen his approval ratings drop below 40 percent.

His White House appears to be in a state of almost constant crisis with a neverending stream of leaks and dismissals.

Figures who were part of the Never Trump campaign to deny him the 2016 nomination have begun organising for a fresh push.

Bill Kristol, editor-at-large of the conservative Weekly Standard, told The New York Times he begun canvassing support for a "Committee Not to Renominate the President".

High-profile senators such as Ben Sasse and Tom Cotton have made visits to Iowa, while others are courting key donors.

For his part, Mr Pence has set up the Great America Committee, a political fundraising group.

In June he spoke at Senator Joni Ernst’s pig roast in Iowa, the sort of event that attracts political hopefuls building support for election season.

And later this month he is due to address a conference organised by the billionaire Koch brothers, key conservative donors.

Kellyanne Conway, White House counsellor, dismissed the speculation of a shadow campaignand said Mr Trump was intent on being a two-term president.

"It is absolutely true that the vice president is getting ready for 2020 - for re-election as vice president," she told ABC’s This Week.

Trump challenging China on trade would spark 'very aggressive' response, expert predicts - Guardian

Trump challenging China on trade would spark 'very aggressive' response, expert predicts

Moves by Donald Trump to confront China on trade would elicit a “very aggressive” response, a former top US trade negotiator has predicted, as Beijing said an upcoming visit from the US president would help “map out” the next half century of ties between the world’s top two economies.

There has been speculation since last week that Trump – who is due to travel to China this year – is preparing to launch a potentially incendiary investigation into its alleged abuse of intellectual property rights.

After China’s decision to back a UN security council resolution against North Korea on Saturday, some reports suggested that inquiry might have been put on ice. The Financial Times called the anticipated move “the trade diplomacy equivalent of a wooden club” and warned it could provoke “a full-blown trade war”.

China has 'all kinds of weapons' to take on Trump threats, says ex-trade adviser

Read more

In an interview with the Guardian, Charlene Barshefsky, the US trade representative under Bill Clinton, agreed challenging Beijing could “engender a downward spiral” in relations.

“When China is displeased with US actions … you see China act in ways that are very aggressive, designed to intimidate, designed to force the US to back down,” said the veteran lawyer, who negotiated China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) with its then premier Zhu Rongji.

“The US rarely backs down, which is absolutely correct – it should not. But this is China’s way: it bullies in situations like this.”

Barshefsky, who is now a senior international partner at the US law firm WilmerHale, said it was unclear what measures the Trump administration might take against Beijing but she did not expect the White House to cave in to Chinese pressure.

“Then the question is: ‘What is the next move?’ And, ‘How much more heated does this get?’ And, ‘Does it engender a downward spiral?’”

Charlene Barshefsky during her time as Bill Clinton’s US trade representative.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Charlene Barshefsky during her time as Bill Clinton’s US trade representative. Photograph: Dan Levine/AFP

“We will have to see how this plays out. But there will be a lot of very heated and aggressive rhetoric on both sides, there is no question about it ... [And] China will likely not just talk the talk but they will begin to walk the walk, and before too long US companies will start complaining about being even further ill-treated in China. Not blocked; not retaliated against in any large sense. But the environment will become more and more difficult. And China will do that as a way of pressuring the US to back off.”

The warning comes after the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said relations between the US and China – re-established by Chairman Mao and Richard Nixon in 1972 – had reached “a pivot point” after more than four decades of “no conflict”.

On Sunday, the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, struck a similar note, telling reporters the most important task facing Chinese diplomats now was to be “well prepared” for Trump’s upcoming visit to China. That trip would help “to map out the relations of the next 50 years”, Wang said, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Barshefsky said there was now widespread consensus in the US that Beijing’s “explicitly discriminatory” policies towards foreign firms had to be tackled.

China had spent the past decade attempting to cordon off large swaths of the Chinese economy for its own companies as part of an “indigenising” campaign that had intensified since Xi Jinping became the country’s top leader, in 2012.

As part of that push Barshefsky claimed China was “flouting international rules” by doubling down on intellectual property theft and the forced transfer of foreign technology while also pumping “massive subsidies” into Chinese industries to artificially increase homegrown competitiveness.

The [Chinese] state sector is becoming an increasing competitive problem and threat.

Charlene Barshefsky

“Foreign companies – both US and European – feel far less welcome [in China]. The business environment is far more difficult and discriminatory; the state sector is becoming an increasing competitive problem and threat … So this isn’t simply Trump administration perception – this is a widely shared view.”

Despite the worsening situation, Barshefsky said the Obama administration had “in many instances substituted dialogue – endless dialogue – for action”.

It remains unclear when, how or even if Trump will challenge Beijing but reports suggest he could instruct his trade representative to launch a so-called “section 301” case. That would allow the US to unilaterally impose tariffs or other trade restrictions aimed at protecting US industries.

Barshefsky predicted China would hit back by accusing the US of protectionism and claiming it was “the last man standing for an open global trading system”.

Retaliation was also possible: “This has serious repercussions: we are talking about two giants.”

Australia’s Prime Minister Slowly Realizes Trump Is a Complete Idiot - New York Magazine

Australia’s Prime Minister Slowly Realizes Trump Is a Complete Idiot

By Jonathan Chait

The transcript of Donald Trump’s discussion with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull obtained by the Washington Post reveals many things, but the most significant may be that Trump in his private negotiations is every bit as mentally limited as he appears to be in public.
At issue in the conversation is a deal to settle 1,250 refugees who have been detained by Australia in the United States. I did not pay any attention to the details of this agreement before reading the transcript. By the time I was halfway through it, my brain could not stop screaming at Trump for his failure to understand what Turnbull was telling him.

Australia has a policy of refusing to accept refugees who arrive by boat. The reason, as Turnbull patiently attempts to explain several times, is that it believes giving refuge to people who arrive by boat would encourage smuggling and create unsafe passage with a high risk of deaths at sea. But it had a large number of refugees who had arrived by sea, living in difficult conditions, whom Australia would not resettle (for fear of encouraging more boat trafficking) but whom it did not want to deport, either. The United States government agreed under President Obama to vet 1,250 of these refugees and accept as many of them as it deemed safe.

In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He calls the refugees “prisoners,” and repeatedly brings up the Cuban boatlift (in which Castro dumped criminals onto Florida). He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous.

Turnbull tries to explain to Trump that refugees have not been detained because they pose a danger to Australian society, but in order to deter ship-based smuggling:

Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —

At this point, Trump fails to understand the policy altogether, and proceeds to congratulate Turnbull for what Trump mistakes to be a draconian policy of total exclusion:

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am … Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries.

Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic.

He also fails to understand the number of refugees in the agreement:

Trump: I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting.

Then Trump returns to his belief that they are bad, and failing to understand the concept that they have been detained merely because they arrived by sea and not because they committed a crime:

Trump: I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.

Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically —

Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison.

He still thinks they’re criminals.

Later, Trump asks what happens if all the refugees fail his vetting process:

Trump: I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?

Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.

After several attempts by Turnbull to explain Australia’s policy, Trump again expresses his total inability to understand what it is:

Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?

After Turnbull has told Trump several times that the refugees have been detained because they arrived by boat, and only for that reason, Trump’s question is, “But they are arrived on a boat?”

Soon after, Turnbull again reiterates that Australia’s policy is to detain any refugee who arrives by boat:

Turnbull: The only people that we do not take are people who come by boa. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point."

Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

Donald Trump and Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Getty Images

The transcript of Donald Trump’s discussion with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull obtained by the Washington Post reveals many things, but the most significant may be that Trump in his private negotiations is every bit as mentally limited as he appears to be in public.

At issue in the conversation is a deal to settle 1,250 refugees who have been detained by Australia in the United States. I did not pay any attention to the details of this agreement before reading the transcript. By the time I was halfway through it, my brain could not stop screaming at Trump for his failure to understand what Turnbull was telling him.

Australia has a policy of refusing to accept refugees who arrive by boat. The reason, as Turnbull patiently attempts to explain several times, is that it believes giving refuge to people who arrive by boat would encourage smuggling and create unsafe passage with a high risk of deaths at sea. But it had a large number of refugees who had arrived by sea, living in difficult conditions, whom Australia would not resettle (for fear of encouraging more boat trafficking) but whom it did not want to deport, either. The United States government agreed under President Obama to vet 1,250 of these refugees and accept as many of them as it deemed safe.

In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He calls the refugees “prisoners,” and repeatedly brings up the Cuban boatlift (in which Castro dumped criminals onto Florida). He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous.

Donald Trump Is His Own Worst Enemy

President Trump's efforts to fix his headline-making crises often have the effect of making the situation worse.

Turnbull tries to explain to Trump that refugees have not been detained because they pose a danger to Australian society, but in order to deter ship-based smuggling:

Trump: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —

At this point, Trump fails to understand the policy altogether, and proceeds to congratulate Turnbull for what Trump mistakes to be a draconian policy of total exclusion:

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am … Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries.

Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic.

He also fails to understand the number of refugees in the agreement:

Trump: I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting.

Then Trump returns to his belief that they are bad, and failing to understand the concept that they have been detained merely because they arrived by sea and not because they committed a crime:

Trump: I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.

Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically —

Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison.

He still thinks they’re criminals.

Later, Trump asks what happens if all the refugees fail his vetting process:

Trump: I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?

Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.

After several attempts by Turnbull to explain Australia’s policy, Trump again expresses his total inability to understand what it is:

Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

Trump: Malcom [sic], but they are arrived on a boat?

After Turnbull has told Trump several times that the refugees have been detained because they arrived by boat, and only for that reason, Trump’s question is, “But they are arrived on a boat?”

Soon after, Turnbull again reiterates that Australia’s policy is to detain any refugee who arrives by boat:

Turnbull: The only people that we do not take are people who come by boa. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.”

Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

No, you don’t get it at all! It’s not that they come from certain regions! It’s that they come by boat!

So Turnbull very patiently tries to explain again that the policy has nothing to do with what region the refugees come from:

Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea.

At this point, Trump gives up asking about the policy and just starts venting about the terribleness of deals in general:

I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it — START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.

Shortly afterward, the call ends in brusque fashion, and Turnbull presumably begins drinking heavily.