I am cynical. What if N Korea and Russia want to give Trump a tiny morsel of something to crow about, even if amounts to nothing? The announcement of talks come just before important elections and might be enough to push voters who are on the fence to support Trump. N. Korea and Russia would love it if we were stuck with him! Why unleash a nuclear attack against the U.S.? We will implode!
45
Usually a summit like this would be negotiated before the two principles meet with the outcomes already agreed upon. This insures that the summit is a success and that the two leaders have something to present to their constituencies while relieving them of the burden to actually negotiate. It also seems to me that the public hysterical back and forth was political theater and less important than what, if anything, went on behind the scenes. If the outcome of this summit leads to an official end to the Korean War and a peace treaty is signed to end the armistice then Donald Trump would have earned a great deal of credit and the world earned the end of a dangerous flash point. My hope is that the South Koreans pave the path toward a successful conclusion and the President walks the walk on that road.
12
Trump will be going into this summit, if it does take place, the only way he's capable of going into anything: with a few half-baked ideas and a lifelong dependence on the power of blather. He says he likes to improvise, but the truth confirmed by those who have worked him is that he can't get his head around much information.
My main worry is that he'll just want something in the shape of a deal. Then all that remains is to call it the greatest deal in the history of the world and walk away. People in South Korea and Japan are afraid that he'll only remove the danger to the US while leaving them exposed to blackmail or actual attack. More likely, he won't be up to doing anything but gain a fleeting and phony personal triumph for himself.
42
and while the DPRK's Dear Leader is in Geneva,
or wherever this supposed 'meeting' is to take place,
will DJT deliver a Bloody Nose to the Peninsula??
actually:
we ought to propose that they both 'meet' in the Octagon,
one on one,
with the last one standing being allowed
to go to an island-prison of our choosing.
9
Donald Trump. From “Little Rocket Man” to 2019 Nobel Peace Prize winner. God really has a sense of humor.
27
Trump is defiantly being "played" Now he/we look like second bananas.
A sharp real estate hustler like him should know better!!
17
I think we can count on the same kind of stupidity as the decision to move the consulate to Jerusalem. Bluster, "big man," no real substance. Will the meeting ever take place?
38
I expect that the meeting will take place. Kim Jong Un has promised he will stop testing both missiles and nuclear weapons during the time frame within which the meeting happens. I like that idea, and don't feel there's any risk at all to a meeting. What have we got to lose? As to the meeting giving Kim a chance to "look like the equal of Trump" by standing next to him, that's nonsense.
6
Safe travels, Nick! We here will continue having the wool pulled over our eyes by our 45th president, who not only has ditched his "Fire and Fury the world has never seen!" ranting at Kim Jong-Un, but is welcoming meeting him to talk about the denuclearization of the D.P.R.K. "Before May!" Will wonders never cease?
Though we are blinded and deafened by our tweeter in chief's demented ideas, we can still see that distractions are the little rotten apples Trump throws at us while his peccadilloes ("the Russian Connection" and "The Big Stormy Daniels Pay-Off") continue to be limned and broadcast by "Fake News" and journalists from here to eternity and all over the globe.
Face it, Nick Kristof, as long as Donald Trump remains our president, we're facing the precipice and dead end of American democracy. Trump may be a consummate deal-maker and scammer, but he's a truly dreadful president. We're long past the years of "duck and cover", and we have more to worry about from our dear dotard, Donald Trump than from North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
43
Let's argue this point about Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un. Who is North Korea's trade partner? Many will say China and few will say Russia too. Let's suppose that Putin persuades North Korea and Kim Jong-un to meet with Trump helping to make Trump look good thereby helping to further secure his Presidency? Imagine!!! Npw I'm notsaying this is a fact, but then again...
13
How shocking that so many NYT readers side with Trump against Kristoff on the Summit of Lunatics. How is it possible not to see that Trump is grasping at straws? And that Kim has very adroitly offered him a straw--oh! and look, the King of Hungry Ghosts grabbed it right away! What a master of diplomacy! Nobel Peace Prize right now for Mr. Trump! I keep having to remind myself: over sixty million Americans voted for this degenerate con-artist and it would seem that they would do so again at the drop of a hat.
60
Mr Kristof, how cute of you to remark: “One reason for skepticism is that nobody has ever made money betting on North Korean moderation or denuclearization”. I request you repeat after me three time: “I do not think anybody has made money on Trump’s moderation or his desisting to threatening (economic or military) others.
10
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un meeting with USA President Trump will be a stalemate. We may see a chip on a shoulder. And we may hear the phrase – “I double dog dare you’', and even hear the famous “I tripple dog dare you.”
The basic exchange of words will be: “I demand that you stop building your nuclear missiles.” The answer will be: “I will if you will also agree to stop building yours.”
On Sept. 24, 1996, the United States and the world's other major nuclear powers signed a treaty to end all testing and development of nuclear weapons. Do you believe all nations having nuclear capabilities are being good boys and girls?
War has never brought about peace in the history of man. You have to first admit in the existence of man's child-like unchangeable behavior. He is pompous, self-serving, territorial, aggressive, with an innate ability to destroy and kill. Humans will eventually self destruct due to their inability to control their inborn dichotomies of love vs. hate, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and moral vs. immoral. A soldier will either fall in love with war or with peace, but can not simultaneously love both. Man should stop making war in the name of liberty, justice, peace and in the name of God (all religions in the world). The true God is good and would not be blessing war, soldiers, nor killing.
4
Hey Nick, enough with your Trump bashing. Remember, Trump is the guy who ran three successful casinos in AC.
Oh yeah, that's right, he ran them all into the ground.
Well, you can't win them all, and Trump won none.
But, as Trump tells it, the casino business can be quite complicated, a gamble he says, especially when you don't know have a clue what you're doing.
So sure, when it comes to North Korea, why not roll the dice. What do we have to lose? We've got a gamblin' man on our side. Or is he?
DD
Manhattan
10
Nobody’s been more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize as President of the United States.
4
Both men are seriously disturbed. However, I believe Kim Jong-un is intellectually superior to Trump who can barely speak coherently from a teleprompter. If this is to truly be a face-to-face between them, I fear it will not go well.
40
We know how this ends. NK agrees to denuke in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions. Then NK gets caught cheating and sanctions are put back in place.
14
If South Korea took full responsibility for its own military defense, as it is quite cable of doing, there would be no need for the US to be involved.
2
The Treaty of Portsmouth formally ended the Russo-Japanese War of
1904–05. The negotiations took place in August in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, and were brokered in part by U.S. President Theodore
Roosevelt. The final agreement was signed in September of 1905, and it
affirmed the Japanese presence in south Manchuria and Korea and ceded
the southern half of the island of Sakhalin to Japan. Korea endured
almost 50 years of occupation and more by Japan. I doubt there is a
Korean alive today who does not know of that abomination; and harbor
some resentment of the American presence . Perhaps, if we got out of
their way, the north and South in Korea could settle their unification.
We cannot change the fact that the clown in the north has an atomic
weapon now, as do several other suspect countries. Our military needs
to remain strong ; but do we still need 27,000 troops there [65 years
after l and many others left ]. In fact, is there any place in the
world where we fought that we don't maintain a military presence ? Many
of those under Kim [the grandchild of the clown who was there in my
time] are totally brainwashed; But I cannot believe all are. "The
demagogue, whether of the right or the left, is consciously or
unconsciously, an undetected liar "[Walter Lippmann]
10
A gamble? Trump is a man who has proven he can only win when the dice are loaded or he deals from the bottom of the deck. And given his history in Atlantic City, I’m not optimistic now.
17
Brilliant marketing move by Kim. Show the world that just having nukes and ICBMs will enable you to manipulate the most powerful nation on earth and the demand for your technology will skyrocket.
Trump fell for it. Our allies have to be furious.
34
Dear Critics of Trump-Kim Summit,
please read this piece by Peter Van Buren. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanburen-northkorea-commentary/commen...
As a Korean American in my sixties, this is the best news I ever heard in my entire life about the Korean situation. No one single US president achieved what Trump will, if the meeting indeed takes place. No Carter, no Kennedy, no Reagan, no Clinton, no Bush, no Obama. They all talked and talked ad infinitum with no result. I hated when Trump mouthed off 'bloodied nose', but now I would love him if he will indeed meet Kim Jong-un and bring about some tangible progress toward peace and denuclearization, however small step it may be. Through this process if war is suppressed, peace enhanced and the livelihood of the North Korean people is improved, then it is all so much worth it.
So, stop criticizing. Give diplomacy and peace a chance.
When Trump stops talking 'fire and fury', that in itself is a good thing too.
8
Make no mistake-- two grand standers and an audience of world wide proportions with only their mighty egos to consider. This has all the ingredients of a modern day Greek tragedy. Elevated as they will be, should the meeting come off, the results will be catastrophic.
16
Trump has little regard for America's allies and his nationalistic and isolationist tendencies could very well come in to play at this meeting to the detriment not only of South Korea but to America's leadership and influence in Asia. Add to the mix Trump's narcissism and need for adulation and this meeting leaves me uneasy for the outcome. I could see Trump throwing South Korea to the wolves for a "win."
7
As usual, Trump shows his lack of understanding of both diplomacy and history. Meeting with Kim without and before lower level negotiations is nothing more than showmanship, which will gain us little if anything.
3
This meeting is dangerous only if it worsens the situation. As we’ve seen in Trump’s televised DACA meeting. he can be reasonable and engaging in public. But as we also saw, he is likely to about face and immediately afterward contradict himself entirely on Twitter.
That scenario would not play well with N Korea.
Trump & Kim do not have mastery of the detail needed for an agreement. But if they agree on a few ambiguous bullet points for later amplification and outline a series of steps where those competent in details can meet to hammer out the nuances, it would be a big success.
2
For Trump a meeting with Kim will be a reality show. For Kim it will be reality. That difference makes any meeting fraught with danger.
23
Nixon and Kissinger met with Mao and Zhou to bring China into the world of nations almost 55 years ago, and it hasn't turned out to be a mistake. Of course all four of those men were much more adept at dealing with the thorny issues of forming new relations with former adversaries, while Trump has a hard time relating to anyone who doesn't agree with him. He has almost no State Department experts on NK, except for the one who retired very recently, probably because of frustration with Trump's policies. Now he needs someone like this expert more than he knows, because he can't charm Kim into an agreement. Pick up the phone, Donald, and ask this man to come back to be your lead negotiator! You'll need someone who knows NK if you don't want to be embarrassed in the eyes of the world.
As much as I hate to say it, I agree with your willingness to meet with Kim, but you need to surround yourself with strong, smart people. If you try to negotiate by yourself, you lose. And that means we lose, and so does the world.
3
We've all seen Trump in action now, and he reneges, it is his standard negotiation tactic, until he gets what he asked for and then he reneges again.
This is all a game to Trump, his preconceived ideas will not serve him here, and his ability to learn something new is non existent.
So why would Kim Jong un believe anything he says?
4
What is the context? A complete failure of non-proliferation would guarantee a nuclear world war. We already have three countries with nukes not allowed to have them legally: Israel, Pakistan, India. Neither India nor Israel will go on the attack: they are representative democracies. Pakistan, though, is a terrible case: an Islamist Republic, masquerading as a representative democracy, truly a military regime where rogue fanatics, one could imagine, could seize nukes at any moment.
So North Korea has to be stopped from doing what it is doing: nuclear blackmail, for the rest of the planet to contemplate. Instead, North Korea has to convene that nuclear NON-proliferation is an excellent socialist idea whose time has come. In exchange, one should make North Korea an offer, even an alliance, which it cannot refuse.
Some may sneer, as Mr Krystoff seems inclined to do. However, like Israel, North Korea is a very special case. Like Israel, it’s a rather small country, all too isolated.
Korea, on and off, had 18 centuries of war with China. North Korea needs a friend. In the grander scheme of things historical, the USA is not going to set-up a colony in Korea, but China seems keen to re-invest countries which it used to invade, control and colonize in the past. This is clearly exhibited with the South China Sea.
The deal Trump can propose is obvious: diplomatic recognition, full commercial relations, etc, in exchange for denuclearization and demilitarization of rocketry
3
Sorry, that last comment should have read:
If South Korea took full responsibility for its own military defense, as it is quite capable of doing, then there would be no need for US involvement.
2
The cynic in me is reminded of the old adage that birds of a feather tend to flock together. Trump’s meeting with Kim, if it happens, may enable him to obtain some tips on achieving dynastic family rule. Certainly it will serve to distract the media and voters from other issues that are not boding well for Trump. This is something much more consequential than a real estate transaction or the interplay on a TV reality show, wherein Trump’s negotiating abilities have shown very mixed results, including six bankruptcies. The realist in me fears that we are banking too much on the aptitude of one man, whose volatile behavior appears focused on his personal interests that may change from day to day. The alleged cynic in me has too often been shown to be a realist when it comes to assessing Trump’s behavior.
2
This is a man who almost on a daily basis has red-faced, screaming tantrums at what remains of his staff. There is practically nothing left of the State Department senior staff to brief him, and he wouldn't listen if there were. Can you name a single, well-thought-out decision he's made that has benefitted the country? Wall; Paris Accords; beautiful, clean coal; tariffs; all cabinet-level appointments; all judiciary appointments. If ever there were a man to be counted on to do the absolutely worst thing, ever, anywhere, he is that man.
18
As I non-Trump voter, I nevertheless submit this article is Exhibit A as to why Progressive political theory is bereft of its senses.
The author is forced to admit at the end of his article (how could he not, given his previous writings on North Korea) that he approves of the actual thing Trump is doing, and is forced through the middle of the article to concede that Trump's methodology is the way we got to the actual thing Trump is doing, at least in substantial part.
Yet, the thesis of the article is that the very thing the author approves of and credits Trump getting us to is "a dangerous gamble and a bad idea."
The reason for this, the author posits is that Trump is a bad person diverting attention his surrender of the lower 48 states to Putin, and Alaska and Hawaii to a porn star.
Thus, the Progressive Dialectic lives on: It is not a policy and most certainly not the actual results of a policy that are important to a nation, but rather whether the advocate of the policy leading to the result is "of" the Progressive Group; i.e. one of the Elect, and therefore the vessel of a superior soul worthy of the right to speak.
This is Puritanism anew, and just as stifling to intellectual thought in the Progressive form as its forebears.
6
I will be surprised if this historic meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un ever takes place. This is not going to happen. The White House is already setting tougher conditions for a meeting between Trump and the North Korean leader saying that the North must take “concrete steps” toward denuclearizing. It is foolish to expect that North Korea is going to dismantle its large and very sophisticated weapons program. At the press conference today, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was saying: “Look, they’ve got to follow through on the promises they made,” —raising the possibility that a meeting may never happen.
Sanders called “denuclearization” a precondition for any direct meeting between Trump and Kim. But experts called the prospect of North Korea dismantling its nuclear program before the start of talks totally unimaginable.
6
"Yet President Trump’s decision to meet Kim Jong-un strikes me as a dangerous gamble and a bad idea. "
Even our Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson might agree with you. Speaking to reporters in Djibouti, the latest stop on his week-long tour of Africa, Tillerson said "it was a decision the President took himself" He also said "conditions were not yet ripe for negotiations with North Korea". Is he trying to distance himself from the president on this issue?
12
Well, Nick, we’ll have two egomaniacal tyrants confronting each other. Kim is smarter than Trump because all world leaders are smarter than Trump. Trump has difficulty listening. How do we know that Trump wil accurately parse Kim’s words?
All Kim has to do is to tell Trump that he is the greatest leader in the world, and that talking with him is a real honor. Trump will give him what he wants.
Trump will say of Kim, “Great guy! I don’t know why the failed presidents before me couldn’t make a deal with him.”
And Trump’s supporters in the heartland will now trust Kim, the way rhey do Putin.
I’m not politically correct enough to see anything beneficial coming from this talk between the two because it is not a talk in the intelligent sense.
24
The more I hear commentators in this newspaper and other media discussing the prospects, the more I believe this is going to be another one of those Trump moments: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated". Replace health care with the words "diplomacy with North Korea" or "the details of deal with North Korea" and you get the picture.
27
Incredible. Trump is going to meet Kim Jong-un and stopping the DPRK nuclear program is on the tabe for negotiation. What is the reaction by Mr Kristof? "It's a bad Idea." Exactly who in the past, developed a potential pathway to nuclear disarmament by North Korea. It sure wasn't any past president. It wasn't by all those diplomats leaving the State Department. Just which of those failures does Mr. Kristof like? The real problem seems to be his disregard of Trump. It must a horrible for him to accept a bombastic, self promoting, reality host who defeated Clinton and took both houses with him, Now Trump is headed to try to do something to reduce the danger of a nuclear exchange. For myself, win or fail, I like it and I think it is a good idea.
12
I think Democrats made gains in Congress, so at least a substantive part of your premise is wrong.
1
Yes, it is incredible that anyone could remain so naive after a year of Trump's brainless shenanigans as to believe that he and his "best people" can possibly play this opening to any kind of reliable long-term outcome.
He's an ignorant moron given to stupid impulses, and his incapacity for empathy and respect for others makes it virtually certain that this tentative agreement to meet will be seen as the high-water mark of a de-escalation effort.
In theory, as promising an idea as we've seen; in his belligerent, bumbling hands, not so much.
6
Lets be clear. If Trump had rejected this offer, Kristof would have written a column about the "lost opportunity". This is more fodder for partisans in the tribal war as many comments here make clear.
Frankly, Trump had no real choice but to accept the offer. He may spend the next couple months looking for an excuse to back out, but Kim has maneuvered him into a corner. Trump may not have a realistic endgame in mind, but Kim probably does.
10
Read good history about Nixon and his methods of preparation for engaging foreign leaders and you will see that we cannot predict how Trump’s talks with Kim will result. Nixon studied the issues and principles for months, until he could appreciate everything discussed very well. Trump does not put that kind of sincere effort into preparing for anything.
94
Nothing is going to be simple in dealing with this very serious situation. I , for one , am going to withhold judgement until further notice and see how this plays out . Whatever avoids military conflict is a good start as far as I’m concerned.
Now I’m curious to see what would happen if our president did the right thing and implemented the sanctions against Russia. He’s being completely derelict of his duties and is doing nothing in light of the danger the Russians pose to the security of our free and fair elections. From what I understand you CAN change votes by hacking and I read that those changed votes are impossible to detect . I’m worried more about that than North Korea because regarding North Korea Trump is of course representing the United States but with Russians he’s on the side of the Russians , not us . That’s the very sad and scary truth .
34
Paper ballots can't be hacked, but like cars, trucks, buses, and trains, there is no money in keeping machines that work.
2
Hey! 1980’s called. They want their Russian Foreign Policy Back.
Seriously, Russia isn’t our enemy.
Do you really think they did anything above and beyond what we did to him in his 2011 election?
What? You ask? Who was Sec State then?. Who was trying to sandbag Putin every step of the way? You think he was just going to lie down and take it?
Now we know..they’ll interfere. I can’t believe they were able to penetrate our election system so far as to actually plant fake kompromat into Hillary Clinton secured resources....that prompted the FBi to go get warrants to spy on her opponent.
There’s going to be hell to pay for this interference. Putin has 8 years of HRC blackmail bait that’s now worthless. he’s not happy.
3
"At least for the time being, we can look forward to talks instead of tanks." There may be a nice alliteration between "talks and tanks" Mr. Kristoff, but I seriously doubt the US is considering a Vietnam-like ground war in N. Korea. We are talking use of nuclear weapons. We are talking the potential destruction of nations - N. Korea by us and S. Korea by the north and possibly other countries. We are talking about the mass killing of millions and more injured. We are talking a cloud of radiation circling our planet potentially contaminating cities, grazing, and agricultural lands. We need to hope and pray these two men stop sounding so bellicose. We need to hope and pray these two cannot alone order mass destruction on a scale we have never known nor should ever contemplate.
31
I remain astounded by how easily people are conned; what happened to fool me twice, shame on me? When did the President Trump we have observed for the past year, suddenly get replaced by a stable and thoughtful version? Praise for Trump’s supposed brilliance in bringing NK to the table for negotiations is hollow, because he is relying on what amounts to grade school playground strategy: bullying. The ploy is transparent: threaten severe punishment, go over the top with it (“he’s crazy, we don’t know what he might do!”)… then back off, toss a few peanuts, and have them eagerly accepted as ‘better than the alternative.’ This is also known as the ‘bully threatens to beat you to a pulp, takes your lunch money instead, and you’re grateful for it’ approach. People are commenting that Trump deserves a peace prize for bringing us safely back from the brink of nuclear war – nonsense! The person who *put* as at that brink, doesn’t deserve credit for restoring something short of where we started.
How is it more people don’t see through this juvenile tactic, which Trump seems to rely on at every turn? It only works if people fall for it, but when people don’t, it fails miserably; threats left unfulfilled undermine anyone paying attention down the line (red line, Syria, anyone, anyone?). Putin sees through Trump’s facile ‘strategy’ and I’d wager Kim as well. Nothing will come of this, yet Trump, and his supporters, will demand praise for ‘trying’ to resolve a crisis of his own creation.
177
Why all the hate?
Seriously, this is good for America.
This is good for the world.
November 8, 2016 is a long long time ago.
It’s time to let go man. She’s not coming back.
5
It is not that we fall for his tricks but it is a matter of letting it take its course. We are not holding our breath for this breakthrough to really take place. It is the clever ploy of Kim Jong-un that cornered Trump into accepting the offer to enter into direct talks. There is a good chance that trump may change his mind as he does often and not ever engage Kim in any talks. We don't have to condemn this move by trump just because we distrust him.
Glad you have a crystal ball to tell us what will work and what won't work. Could come in handy playing the stock market! You're using your own (manifestly biased) interpretation of past events to predict -- with cocky certainty -- what will happen in the future. But if, as you say, "Nothing will come of this..." then you can simply calm down and hush. But believe it or not, your predictions pertaining to complex global negotiations might prove wrong. (...and PS: the "red line in Syria" you refer to was Obama's failure... You can look back and say with confidence that nothing good came of that.)
3
I can't imagine the North putting themselves in a place where they will be scolded. This smells like a stall. Also smells like Moscow who has been the master puppeteer playing Trump by appealing to his worse impulses.
25
"...a summit raises the stakes, so that a failure could trigger angry new escalations on each side, leaving us worse than where we started."
This is my greatest fear: a failure in this diplomatic effort is used as a justification for a military adventure in NK that will quickly escalate into the loss of millions of lives. In fact even worse, I wouldn't put it past Trump as planning to fail in this diplomatic effort, just so that he can scratch his itch (i.e., use "his" weapons).
78
Trump may be a fool and con artist but I doubt he is suicidal! Besides, even an idiot and a bully understand that a nuclear war is not a choice. In fact, that is exactly the reason why I bet North Korea will not agree to dismantle its nuclear arms and why we will fail to accomplish our stated goal of forcing NK to give up its nuclear arms capability. We have, wittingly or unwittingly, made it impossible for any nuclear capable regime to disarm itself through our past invasions of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.
2
Pressure on Trump concerning Russia, finances, nepotism, etc. are stimulating the reality TV script writers to come up with grand distractions. This is best understood as a component of misdirection.
61
Even as Mr. Kristoff's sophistry is evident, he cannot help but praise Trump, a little bit. Though he does so while being completely sententious. If the methods he ascribes to convention were effective with this particular band of miscreants, we would most likely not be in this situation. Sometimes, maybe, being unabashedly non-conventional is the best path.
9
Playing russian roullette with the nuke arsenal is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, the “best path”.
17
trump will be putting on a show. He will be the showman. It's about narcissism and the art of the deal. Except, trump cannot be taken seriously as his word is as good as a weathervane in a hurricane; constantly changing
76
Your problem is you still haven’t learned.
Take him very seriously.
Just don’t take him literally...which you allude to when you say his word is as good as a weathervane in a hurricane. His word...is not be taken literally.
Got it?
2
This may be considered many things, but on its' face a step forward beats one to the rear. What anyone knows of another is only that which the person divulges and at this point the willingness of these leaders to have a face to face meeting is, by any definition, an advancement.
It may be both men have been justifiably criticized, but to muddy the waters before either steps into the pond is short sighted, not prescient.
Given the reports to which the world in general has been exposed, neither man is playing with a full deck which I, as an optimist without a crystal ball, reject
No one is perfect, but like the rest of us, both of these men have ability to reason which is the basis of this meeting. Denigrating their willingness to engage as "a dangerous gamble and a bad idea" at this point, is in a word confining, indicating a predisposition to accept inevitable failure because it doesn't fit the long accepted narrative.
Call them what we will they are both the accepted leaders of their respective national who are approaching a serious problem the way leaders should; face to face.
3
The history of Trump's dealing would indicate that his expertise is a deal breaker not a deal maker. We all know that he does not rely on advise from any qualified sources or experts other than his intuitive gut which at best is not reliable to any degree as there are no known facts that justify the action nor real reason.
When one fly's at tree top level or by the seat of one's pants an expected result can be reliably predicted and in normal circumstances is not the best choice.
This "Gamble" could prove extremely expensive in the short and long run if not approached in the proper manner with a good plan in hand.
16
It probably is a stall. But seriously, what do we have to lose by listening.
This is really China, Japan and South Korea’s problem to solve.
If Trump can help...great.
If he can’t....it’s the status quo and no more dangerous than under Obama or Bush or Clinton.
4
If it were any other president I would be most hopeful for some positive result. I'm afraid my cynicism tells me this is all "smoke and mirrors" for both parties involved. Kim Jong-un has already won the international public relations battle and Trump is looking for deflection from the Russian investigation. Plus, he likes "reality TV" and this is the biggest show yet for him.
51
I share the skepticism of this statement because I just can't fathom Kim giving up a nuclear weapons program that protects his regime from piece-meal destruction of various kinds--including CIA covert and special operations that have almost surely been aimed at him if not in fact done already. Accordingly, any negotiations on his part may only chafe the edges or hide his intent in this respect. Moreover, who trusts this President to be the man to do the otherwise extremely useful business of bringing the North Korean regime to book? Will a man who deliberately trashes the seasoned diplomats of his own government--who betrays his own country into an international trade war--be the U.S. leader to speak and act for the whole American people on an issue of great moment for the whole world?
19
E X A C T L Y, Indeed.
1
This is not a "huge gift to Kim." This is a good idea,. The fact that everything else that Mr. Trump has ever done has been outrageous, and the high likelihood that everything he does in the future will also be outrageous, do not justify the half-denunciation of something that is a good idea as far as it goes.
6
Agreed, despite the risks, it is definitely encouraging that high-level talks between the USA and North Korea will finally take place.
But, while all the "experts" are pointing up the downsides in terms of short-term negotiations for the USA, few are asking what North Korea stands to gain long term.
Yet, for any deal to be sustainable and lead to stable positive changes, there have to be strong measurable gains for the North Koreans. And Especially for the starving beleaguered North Korean people.
To cite but two parallels :
After the end of the Cold War, the West did little to support the necessary massive economic and social adjustments that were vital in Russia. Instead, out of mistrust, the West held back and watched Russia implode - ending up with the Putin regime of today - that is authoritarian, expansionist, and anti-West. Russia today poses almost as much of a threat to global peace as the former Soviet Union did.
After World War I, the punitive Versailles Treaty led in a few years to the implosion of the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler and later World War II.
Right now, isn't it crucial also to consider : what long term gains will accrue to North Korea that will make the world and S.E. Asia a stabler and more peaceful and prosperous place for all - including the North Koreans?
9
I’m suspicious of arguments that flog the notion that Americans (barely) elected Trump because they had become constitutionally enamored of an “authoritarian” approach to governance; unlike arguments seeking to explain similar European and Asian tendencies, which may well have historical and cultural drivers that we don’t share. Trump was successful (so far) because voters became fed up with traditional systems that had failed so BADLY to create beneficial progress. Just enough of us are willing to put up with Trump, his persona and his methods, so long as he DELIVERS.
That written as context, perhaps a summit IS the place to begin, when the leaders calling the shots are so clearly alpha types more accustomed to govern by the first thing that emerges from their mouths, rather than a deep dependence on staff work to define the detailed boundaries of an agreement – we’re not going to get that from this summit, but we’re likely to get the broad outlines that prevent a mushroom cloud from appearing over Pyongyang or Seattle (or both). That would have immense value.
Done right by both leaders, this summit should reduce global tensions substantially, create rationalizations for face-saving by Kim (such as eventual and conditional removal of all U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula, which also would please China), and even be universally acknowledged as a huge win for BOTH of them – imagine an announcement of the formal end to the Korean War, with a detailed treaty to follow.
6
So long as it brings with it verifiable North Korean denuclearization.
Nick’s insistence on the importance of careful preparation is suitable for traditional leaders. It’s not necessarily MOST suitable for these guys – yet they DO call the shots. Let BOTH sides take a large stride back from a precipice that could spell disaster if our balance or theirs on that knife-edge is lost and we fall into the abyss. Let the details that define the inches that make up that stride be left to more pedestrian (saner?) players to define AFTER the stride is taken.
5
" Trump was successful (so far) because voters became fed up with traditional systems that had failed so BADLY to create beneficial progress."
Excuse me? MOST voters didn't vote for this fraud. You have a strange view of what constitutes progress Mr. Luettgen. What I see is a shambles both domestically and internationally unless, of course, you happen to be a corporation or one of the 1%. You keep making these assertions about Trump's "accomplishments" but try as I might, I can't see any. As for any positive results from this "reality TV show" that Trump will have in North Korea one would have to be suffering from the same hallucinations that Trump and his enablers suffer from.
45
"Done right by both leaders..."
Aye, there's the rub.
5
The comments were so much to your dislike that we are starting over again? If so they won’t be any better the second time either!
3
Not really. I didn't 'dislike' them at all. Just found them dangerously one-sided and incomplete. History tells us both sides have to gain from a treaty or negotiation for it to have long term positive outcomes. If we focus too much on distrusting the other side and not considering what is in it for them, we will almost certainly repeat this mistake. It's a word of caution. that's all!
2
Not really, The comments were not at all "to my dislike'. Nor am I proposing to 'start all over again'. Rather, I just wanted to highlight how successful negotiations have to bring tangible long term gains to BOTH sides.
2
The fear that drives you, Mr. Kristoff is that Trump will be successful and that the "resistance" (what an inflated, glorious title as if you were risking your lives against a genocidal occupation) will have underestimated and diminished Trump's talents as an effective chief executive yet again. And to suggest that this no risk, high reward event is anything but a diplomatic coup is entirely preposterous.
7
I believe Mr. Kristol's characterization of the risks inherent in letting Trump do anything without an adult in the room are obvious. "Effective chief executive"? By what measure could that statement be true? Bankruptcies, stiffing contractors, many of whom were themselves bankrupted by the association with Trump, failed marriages, no morals, not to mention, serious questions about his relationship with Putin, Russian oligarchs and Russian banks!! Additionally, if you don't believe we are in danger of a "genocidal occupation", you haven't been paying attention.
3
Is there one example of de-nuclearization by any country on earth who has developed nuclear weapons? I guess North Korea could be the first. Just like Donald Trump was the first president of the U.S. to be installed by a foreign power. Who'd a thought?
50
There is something along this line--the Iran nuclear deal, in which the vast majority of Iran's concentrated Uranium was exported from the country, the number of centrifuges was greatly reduced, and inspections were set up. (All denied or ignored by Fox and the Trump Administration.)
3
We have to have a good deal. If the DPRK agrees to give up all its nukes, with inspections, the US promises regime removal. According to the Times foreign correspondents, Bush, jr transformed Iraq from an impoverished, brutal dictatorship and state sponsor of terror into a peaceful and prosperous democracy. Times reporters have the good sense to talk only to Iraqis in the Green Zone, a tiny group all of whom are much better off since the US regime removal, and never to talk to the overwhelming majority of Iraqis outside the Green Zone (and what do they know, anyway). Likewise, Obama did the exact same beneficial transformation of Libya (there's not many places in Libya safe enough to ask the Libyans, and anyway, what do the Libyans know).
So Mr Kristof is right that Kim should be looking forward to the regime removal the US promises to provide once his nukes are verified as gone. His country can be as beautiful and prosperous as Mosul and Raqqa!
1
" Bush, jr transformed Iraq from an impoverished, brutal dictatorship and state sponsor of terror into a peaceful and prosperous democracy."
Come again? I don't know from which planet have seen that happening. Iraq is now a Peaceful and Prosperous country? No wonder Trump has become president. Iraq may have been ruled by a dictator but it was not impoverished and had never attacked US. We did it to appease Saudi and Israel and because we could. No, we turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists.
4
This whole venture sounds like two Moms trying set up a playdate between two children who spend their time terrorizing other kids and don't have any other friends. I hate the pessimism it riles in me, but I can't see this working in anyone's favor. The only common ground I can see being attained is a desire for self-promulgation to the detriment of others.
30
Stormy has offered her services as a go-between in the dealings between Trump and Kim.
17
Stormy' as well qualified as anyone else still working for this dunderhead...
3
Nick, this is pathetic and hilarious. A Presidential Apprentice that is being outsmarted by an " adult film " Star, is going to personally negotiate with
N.K.. if I were in South Korea, I'd be very, very worried. Donald, the world famous deal maker, may give a huuuuge chunk of the south away. And/or pull all the US military out of the South. And in return, WE get to hear him boast ad nauseam, about HIS great, unprecedented abilities. And that's ALL. No limitations or inspections on nukes. He would probably even drop the current sanctions. It's ALL being " better " than Obama, irregardless of any actual results or solutions. The Trump Negotiations Motto : " I came, I blustered and bragged, therefore I WON ". And that's all, folks.
21
Once again this president has devalued the prestige of the Office and the leverage that used to go with it, Next let’s have a luncheon with the Ayatollah as long as he agrees in advance to ‘talk nice about me’. Should not diplomacy be more than television programming?
8
“…a porn actress and a Russia investigation. Maybe Trump has thought this summit through, or maybe he just wants to change the subject.”
Whereas the porn actress matter is simply another “who-cares 5th Ave. shooting”, the Russia investigation has importance far beyond that. The Mueller investigation is ramping up. The potential threat to Trump is enormous, and Trump is privy to precisely how enormous. The importance of the North Korea matter rivals or exceeds the Russia investigation. Agreeing to the summit is not simply a means of changing the subject. Trump will now be able to turn up or turn down the temperature on NK, as needed, to counter the Russia matter. Would Trump use NK to further his personal agenda? Does anyone think he would not?
27
That is what has worried me all along! Nuclear weapons flying through the air at South Korea or us would certainly take the focus off the "Russia thing".
3
Oh for God's sakes, knock it off with all the blather about traps and protocol. Finally, the two principal people are going to sit in a room and talk. Talk. It's about darn time. I am so fed up with so-called "experts" telling our presidents how to behave. This should have been done by the last president, a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize, for crying out loud. Thank you Mr. Trump for having the guts to talk.
7
Our alliance with South Korea is solid as a rock.
2
Right. Because rather than being concerned about a nuclear war we should be concerned about important issues like Russia trying to influence voters and Trumps affair with a porn star. How far the grey lady has fallen.
5