Simple answer.... No.
There *is* no defending it. I've noticed the comments on this thread in which posters rush to the defend the "honor" of their own version of Kim Jong un are all based on the assertion that what he said wasn't inaccurate. But whether or not the statement is accurate, there is still no excuse for being a shithead about it. The Constitution puts the congressmen in charge of making laws and it puts judges in charge of making judgments based on those laws, the president is "supposed" to be in charge of diplomacy. Calling the countries that are fighting to emerge from third world, "shit holes" is anything but diplomatic. But then again we all know that Trump has no idea how to be a president.
For many of us, it's enough to recognize the diplomatic error. But I know there are others (some of them on this site) that put less value on diplomacy. So let me explain a few things.
First of all, like it or not, American hegemony is in decline. It's been in decline for several decades now due to forces that Trump has no power over. He keeps talking about "MAGA" through the negotiation of "better deals" but what he doesn't appear to understand is that along with our loss of hegemony, comes a loss of leverage for making such deals. For those who think we still have a "Big Stick" (and Trump certainly tries to foster that illusion) the lesson is that we don't. Gunboat diplomacy is a card that just isn't in our hand anymore and we are seeing an increasing number of players calling our bluff. The Chinese are constantly referring to us with frightening accuracy, as a "paper tiger", which essentially means "all bark and no bite". This is actually the inverse of Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" ideology, where confidence in unquestionable military advantage (over Latin America at least) allowed us to "speak softly, but carry a big stick."
http://img.allw.mn/content/2013/12/02064106_2027.jpgThat first hegemony over the Western Hemisphere was protected through a "no trespassing" policy which played on the fact that the much stronger European empires saw greater value in trading with the U.S. than they did in colonizing Latin America. That policy is referred to as the Monroe Doctrine.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qg-8eJe1am4/UTkQDzK0GfI/AAAAAAAAFO0/pmJ5pg_Z_7E/s640/Monroe-580-1.jpgI'm pretty sure at least one of the reasons why they found more value in trade is that the U.S. was already a haven for capitalism and the rising capitalists in Europe saw that. Sure enough, about half way through that century there was a major shift in global power. Many will say that was the point when the U.S. truly became a superpower, but the root assessment is that after several centuries the power of capital finally reached critical mass and effectively took control of the world. The fundamental thing to realize here, is that empires were no longer defined by ownership of land (the basis of aristocracy) but through ownership of capital. So imperialism traded in it's flags and forts for logos and trade deals.
...This is the world in which the U.S. (or more specifically, the capitalists supported by U.S, foreign policy) stepped up to world domination.
...It's the world in which old Europe willfully granted their colonies independence but used their capital influence to retain control of the resources thereby creating a "Third World".
...It's the world in which the greatest conflict was between the capitalist system itself and it's antithesis, communism.
...Most of all, it's the world in which diplomacy became the primary determinant. The military became the back up plan for when diplomacy fails (to commit disadvantaged countries to bad deals).
And so we had this "cold war", which is essentially a war of saber rattling and deterrents ...for setting the conditions of diplomacy, of course, but I think it's also a reason why the superpowers seem to be loosing their martial superiority over their empires and why they avoid facing each other. . Whatever the cause, you may have noticed that since WW2, the deterrent value of the military has successfully put direct war between empires on hold. I think it's also become clear that neither superpowers are as effective at securing advantages with their military as they are with their diplomacy.
Indeed, throughout the Cold War and ever since, capitalists have gained increasing control over world resources through the use of liberal institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the consortium of governments with jurisdiction over the largest markets, including the U.S. Government that Trump works for. But the difference between the U.S. Government that FDR worked for when he was planning the U.N. and the U.S. Government that Trump works for today, is that the former had the advantage of commanding respect. America had the only industrial centers untouched by the war running at a mesmerizing capacity, the military was clearly defeating Japan and U.S. power was still young enough to appear idealistic.
A lot has happened since then, including numerous military failures, a gradual loss of economic advantage (that comes as a natural result of roughly 50 years of global capitalists liberating the markets from national interests imposed by governments) and of course enough time to show the world what we really are... a nation that shares a government with an evil empire of global investors. So what all this means is that the cards Trump is holding in 2018 just isn't a winning hand. In the world of politics that means he can either bluff (though no one is falling for it) or he can learn to value diplomacy which has ALWAYS been the key to "MAG". Since he's basically speaking harshly while holding a wet noodle, the paper tiger is as good as a looser.
Of course, if Trump's gig is just to get attention, then none of this will matter to him. But for us, this "shithole" comment should be the cue to get rid of the pig.