As the United States stands on the brink of nuclear war in light of escalating threats from North Korea, the most informed man on the leader of that country, Kim Jung-Un, is not our Secretary of State, John Kerry, or President Obama, but former NBA great Dennis Rodman, who goes by the sports nickname ‘The Worm.’ As a result of his visit to the country as part of shooting a documentary, and subsequent friendship with North Korea’s leader, he suggested that Obama should call North Korea’s leader and discuss basketball. He was widely scorned, but I argue he’s on to something lost in both politics and religious discourse.
Dennis Rodman recently traveled to North Korea to visit Kim
Jong-Un, and returned calling him his friend and suggesting that something as
simple as Obama picking up the phone and talking about their common passion of
basketball might be enough to chill relations between the two nations, and
possibly stop nuclear war. With very few exceptions,
the media ridiculed Rodman and his suggestion, laughingly dismissed with the
label “basketball diplomacy.” The Obama Administration was also quick to issue
a negative response to Rodman’s efforts, with White House Spokesman Jay
Carney simply restating U.S. concerns about human rights violations, and
noting that lines of communication are always open between the two countries. This casual dismissal not only took place by way of
discussion about Rodman, but also in front of the athlete himself, such as
George Stephanopoulos’ interview on ABC’s This Week.
Granted, Rodman seemed uncomfortable and out of his depth
with American political culture and its years of reflection and policy making
on North Korea. But should he, can he, be taken seriously on this? One website
even went so far as to state, “There’s no reason for the rest of us to take
[Rodman], or his methods, seriously, though.”
After some reflection, in my view the media, conservative
and progressive politicians, the Obama Administration, and much of America’s
citizenry, were far too quick to assume Rodman could not be taken seriously
with an idea that could really change the course of international affairs.
Rodman was right, and he has articulated a simple practice of human interaction
with promising possibilities in a great number of areas of life.
What was it that Rodman suggested that many found so
laughable? He said that Obama should pick up the phone and call Kim Jong-Un,
and talk about something that both men have in common. He’s saying, engage in
personal interaction as human beings about a topic of mutual passion, and see
what might happen in transforming the relations between the two countries as a
result. At first consideration this may seem simplistic and naïve. But there’s
good social psychology behind. The scientific and experiential data indicates
that when enemies or rivals are brought together for personal encounter and
conversation, over time they tend to develop more positive views of each other,
and while their disagreements and tensions don’t disappear, there is a newfound
ability to maintain them in peaceful and civil fashion.
This is one of the elements used by the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.
In our work we bring Mormons and Evangelicals, Jews and Muslims, Christians and
Pagans together, religious groups usually at odds with each other. For those
who make the effort and come together, even while discussing and not ignoring
areas of unresolvable disagreement, a transformation occurs in heart and mind.
The parties are able to come to a new understanding of each other as friends,
even while disagreeing and perhaps even finding aspects of the other’s beliefs
and practices distasteful. They move beyond the traditional categories of
enemies and friends, to the creation of a new social category, that of trusted
rival.
Some may say in response to this suggestion that it is
inappropriate. A couple of years ago I was invited by FRD to be part of a small
group that would speak Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with during his
visit to the United Nations in New York. I wasn’t able to make the trip, although
I wanted to, but I touched bases with a
fellow Evangelical who likewise had received the same invitation, but
turned it down as inappropriate. He argued that Ahmadinejad was like Hitler,
and it would have been wrong to meet with such a dictator in that it would
grant him undue legitimacy. The same argument is used in regards to Kim Jong-Un.
He is considered a dictator, a murder, and a leader who oppresses his people. Better
to keep our distance, denounce the human rights abuses, and continue to rattle
our military and political sabers.
But such thinking is clearly wrong-headed. I would argue
that it is possible to sit down with someone like Kim Jong-Un or Ahmadinejad,
and while not granting approval of their troubling actions, and in a position
of strength coupled with diplomatic humility, engage such people in a
face-to-face meeting. And the subject matter for such conversations need not be
a continual restatement of our areas of concern and disagreement. Those should
not be ignored, but they are well known, and there is a place for expanding the
conversation so that a humanizing process takes place and relationships can
develop. Over time such processes will result in the formation of trusted
rivals, which holds far more promise than the perpetuation of confrontational
engagement from afar.
What is the alternative? The U.S. went to war in Korea in
the 1950s with the idea of stopping the spread of Communism, and after mass
death on both sides, the result was a Korea divided into South and North (Communism
still firmly in place), the ongoing placement of U.S. troops in the region, and
the threat of nuclear war always on the horizon. Lately the rhetoric from North
Korea has ramped up, and in response, the U.S. sent F-22 stealth fighter jets
and a naval destroyer with the capacity to down surface to air missiles should
there be a detected launch of a possible nuclear device. Our policy for many
years has been one of detached isolationism. The idea is to keep North Korea
isolated, continue to exert pressure through the use of United Nations
sanctions, and issue statements of denunciation over concerns from afar. Some
consideration has been given lately to moving away from isolation to one of
engagement, but personal forms of interaction that shift from the rhetoric of a
dictator enslaving a rogue nuclear nation have yet to be considered. Indeed, in
his entire first term, President Obama did not make a single effort to reach
out personally to Kim Jong-Un. This administration merely perpetuates the
policies of their predecessors that have been tried and found wanting. In my
view for decades we have been fulfilling the pop culture definition of
insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Perhaps it wouldn’t work. President Obama may one day pick
up the phone, or get on Air Force One, and travel across the sea to sit down
with North Korea’s leader. And maybe after talking about basketball, discussing
their favorite NBA teams and stars, when the conversation turns to their grievances,
each man remains as staunchly committed to their loggerheads as they are now. Or Kim Kong-Un may prove himself through his actions and speech in relationship and conversation to be little more than the dictator that America assumes him to be.
But we won’t know if we don’t try. Relationships and conversations between
rivals have a transformative effect in the area of religious conflict. I’ve
seen it, and I practice it all the time. It will work in politics too, if our
political leaders can find the will to resist jumping on the bandwagon of
dismissal and ridicule of a simple idea simply to stave off complaints from an
opposing party or bring their actions into conformity with the latest polls.
Dennis Rodman is certainly outside the bounds of “normal”
society. But he’s right on the personal element, on friendships and
conversations. Let’s not dismiss a possibility simply because we find the
messenger flamboyant, and therefore lacking in credibility. Let’s consider
taking the risk of trying basketball diplomacy so that personal relationships
between trusted rivals can serve us all as a tool in preventing nuclear war.
