"Can North Korea Trust Us?" Yes.
Can North Korea trust Trump? Who knows....
17
The letters below make it clear that the Times' readers (at least those who send letters) dislike and distrust Trump far more than they dislike and distrust Kim Jong Un. One gets the impression that the Times' editorial writers and op-ed writers feel the same way. But why should this surprise anyone?
17
If South Korea matched North Korea in every type of military capacity -- and they can whenever they muster the will to do so -- then North Korean and US mutual trust would not be an issue. South Korea outweighs North Korea in military aged population, industrial prowess and capacity -- in everything it seems but willingness to defend itself. Well, there is always Uncle Sucker to do it for them!
11
I think the NYT is still missing the point. America needs to be renewed. Trump is a childhood bully. North Korea is the little kid in the corner that does not speak the language and is an easy target. Trump is simply sitting down with the new kid at the lunch table sharing the greasy pizza and chocolate milk after dumping his head in the toilet a few times (aka sanctions). Enjoy the show. North Korea will remember this just like all the other bullied kids remember. And those bullied kids simply shriveled away into irrelevant jobs (normally called journalists).
4
United States is avatar of having been as much "duplicitous and wicked" as any other nation in the past.
14
Let us not forget that the Stormy Daniels payoff story was gaining traction in the media last week-and our SCOTUS is skilled in the media pivot. Here comes South Korea with news and he decides to meet with Kim, thus removing the porn star affair/payoff from the lead for a few news cycles. As to South Korea: I think they realize that the present White House regime is an unreliable actor right now and is putting their survival first-as they should. Time to remember that the only survival SCOTUS cares about is his own. But if he does go to North Korea, Kim would be wise to throw him a "yuge" military parade in his honor. SCOTUS would be his BFF forever.
5
It is sort of like:
If you have no good ideas, try a stupid one.
or
It can't get any worse so why worry.
or
When it can't be fixed, just give it a good kick.
Really, what could go wrong?
18
We can't trust Donald Trump to make a deal with Congressional Democrats to seal any deal with North Korea.
We can't trust Donald Trump to put American interests and values ahead of whatever he is hiding from the American people in his personal and family income tax returns and business records in making any deal with North Korea.
We can't trust Donald Trump to put American interests and values ahead of Vladimir Putin and Russian values and interests in making any deal with North Korea.
8
Nearly all the posters here think Trump is a bad President and will fail to find peace with NKOR because he just is not up to the task. So, what has 70 years of policies and advice from the "wise men" at Foggy Bottom done for peace? Nothing.
We are still in a state of war with NKOR just the way the establishment likes it and Trump is tearing up their "diplomatic" playbook. Who really looks stupid?
8
Well I think decades ago an American president should have requested a meeting with the Chinese president and put to him this question: "Are you prepared to start a thermonuclear world war to protect the Kim regime, because we can no longer suffer a totalitarian regime to live?" But the American commitment to democracy has been waning in that time hasn't it? If you whistle "gerrymander" I'll point. I guess tolerating Brownback and Walker and Kim is par for the course.
1
That Illustration by Jeffrey Henson Scales, is quite striking...
1
To use a trite but apt metaphor, Kim is riding a tiger. For him to get off would be suicidal. I doubt he is that crazy..
2
DJT believes he is a great negotiator. I have no doubt that the same is true of KJU. What could go wrong?
Both are unreliable and given to lies. Kim is motivated by a survival instinct and Trump is motivated by building his brand.
Maybe Trump is genuinely concerned about a nuclear North Korea, although some of the things he has said (why have nuclear weapons if you're never going to use them?) suggest he might be thinking this is just a big reality show. It's also an opportunity to deflect from both his porn star and Mueller troubles.
27
Cute. The invasion of Iraq was not predicated on "charges of possessing W.M.D. that mostly did not exist." It was justified by charges of possession of elements and products of a nuclear weapons program that did not exist, period.
17
First one has to climb up a mountain before one reaches the summit. Trump has not even started to climb.
Korea did not invade the USA, it was the other way around. The USA divided the Korean nation. The USA is waging a war with sanctions against NK, it has nuclear weapons and soldiers stationed on the border against NK.
Japan was a brutal occupier of Korea for some 40 years.
Korea was the victim and the USA and Japan were the aggressors.
Now the NK can claim to have weapons of deterrence and they are prepared to use them if they have to, same as the USA. That is Realpolitik.
5
My immediate reaction to the question of trusting Trump was an impetuous “No”. But now, learning he’s consistently thought himself an authority on nuclear disarmament for decades, I’m forced to reconsider the matter ? ! ?
1
The Trump Un(fit) & Kim Jong Un meeting would be if it comes off similar to having the coin toss for the Super Bowl before the season starts. The participants in the Super Bowl get there after long hours of hard work and preparation. Even if Trump were capable of negotiations with Kim, which he isn't they should happen only after all preliminaries consistent with American foreign policy have been concluded.
2
Our own veterans, who risked their lives for us, cannot trust the U.S. government.
This goes all the way back to WWI.
Why would North Koreans trust us?
Donald Trump is even more of a madman than is Kim.
4
This is a brilliant stroke by Kim.
He'll have Trump eating out of his hand by simply playing to his ego.
By the time this "negotiation" is over, we'll probably be helping to expand North Korea's nukes instead of dismantling them.
North Korea is not the one that should be worried.
8
When I was younger, we worried that nuclear weapons would spell the end of the world. That is always possible, but now I think their legacy may be less total but still rather sinister. Let's say we hadn't intervened in Libya, and Qaddafi had been free to go on massacring and raping across eastern Libya until his dynastic dictatorship was secure for another century, all because he had agreed to give up his nuclear ambitions. Let's say a new Iranian nuclear deal includes a provision that we will not interfere with any domestic disturbances. Then, someday when there is a nearly-successful revolt, we sit by while it is crushed and the Islamic Republic buys at least another 50 years in existence. Or let's say the Iran deal is scrapped, nothing takes its place, and Iran has nukes once a revolt comes about. Needless to say, they will simply threaten to use them against any country that attempts a Libya-style intervention. I have a hard time believing that other dictators won't learn the obvious lesson: Go acquire nukes. Whether you keep them or trade them in for a deal, they will keep you in power. And here we are in an era where liberal democracy is loosing popularity globally and we may see a crop of new dictators soon (i.e., Poland, Turkey.) This seems like the worst time to be teaching such a lesson to dictators. Nukes might not spell the end of the world any more, but they might spell the end of democracy.
2
With his track record on veracity, why would anyone trust President trump?
5
Even under a sane President, the US has not always been a reliable negotiating partner. We have done our own fair share of double crosses to former allies, just ask the Pahlavi's. The one good thing about this is that we are not shooting at each other, which is were the world was heading. The problem is that both heads of state are not terribly smart and driven by ego, a potentially dangerous combination.
The trick is going to be how to craft a win - win result for two Presidents with fragile egos. I wouldn't want to be Tillerson or the State Department during this time. They are the obvious targets to be thrown under the bus for a less than glorious outcome.
6
Seeing the headline before I read the article, I thought Ross was going to rail against those who wanted to abandon/significantly renegotiate the Iran deal. Like Trump. Because if a deal to non-nuke can be undone at the drop of an Administration's turn, why should North Korea accept the durability of any deal that the Trump administration enters into? Indeed, why should North Korean think that after a deal to de-nuke, Trump himself wouldn't change his mind? They wouldn't be the first contractor he has stiffed.
7
Kim has a huge advantage going into this negotiation. Trump wants, hungers, for a “win”. But in Trump’s mind a win is simply something he can strut about for one or two news cycles. Then he moves on. So Kim can promise the world, extract whatever concessions and aid he can from Trump for as long as he can, and do nothing on the ground to change his nuclear program. Trump will not care when, a year or two from now, the truth is revealed. By then, he will either be in jail, President for Life, or opening the Trump Hotel and Casino complex along the border between North and South Korea.
3
Mr. Douthat has it all wrong. A meeting will take place because both sides want it. Kim is fascinated with American culture and civilization, and Trump wants to once again be able to say that he has gone where other presidents had feared to tread. Visit to the US is also an hypothesis not to be excluded. Whence the reference to the Afrikaner government, which must have baffled many of his readers. Is he speaking about victory of National Party in 1948, a coalition made up of "verkrampt,"conservative leaders,many members of far right Broderbond, Strigedom("Old Stoneface,"Henrik Foervaert, or the more liberal "verlichte" minority in the party which, like intellectuals from Stellenbosch, saw an eventual end to separate development. But I digress. Believe that author has dropped the ball in the end zone on this one if he assumes that initial meetings between the 2 leaders will or should result in denuclearization of Korean Peninsula. Cultural contacts first. Does anyone think that Kim JUNG UN will ever give up his arsenal?Unlikely, and first item should be a detente, followed by cultural exchanges.That will be a victory for both sides.
5
Donald Trump is not trustworthy. Unfortunately the U.S. hasn't been trustworthy in it's dealings for many years. Prolonging Vietnam, Iran/ Contra,Iraq, and Libya are huge blunders undermining peace and trust. Now the King of Cons is supposed to work for the good of all. Good luck with that.
3
Excellent opinion. I think the US has many more incidences of going back on its agreements then North Korea. If you go back to the 50's where we involved ourselves in many overthrows of South America and Central America, abandoning the Kurds after they fought with us. abandoning many Iraq and Afghan's who worked with us, abandoning many Viet Namise that helped us, breaking our treaty with Russia over arming their boundry countries, etc. Yes we have a long history of deceit and many do not trust us.
4
The evidence all makes it clear that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy. North Korea cannot trust him. Americans cannot trust him. Trump is predictable in only two aspects. He cares only about himself. And he invariably ferrets out the racist perspective on any issue. In any case, North Korea isn't counting on trust. The myriad shortcomings and vulnerabilities of Trump and his White House are well known. Clearly, and with good reason, North Korea believes it can manipulate Trump.
1
No, but we can't trust them either.
Once they're defenses are down, trump will attack.
1
If our allies no longer trust Trump, why would our enemies? If the president's own party can't trust him, why shouldn't our enemies? If the presiden't's own wife has reason (s) to distrust him, why shouldn't our enemies?
"Trust" and "Trump" don't belong in the same sentence.
6
North Korea can't trust Trump. America can't trust him, for God's sake. His own political party can't, either.
7
Trump will never be Barack Obama and North Korea is not Iran.Talk about denuclearizing North Korea is misleading.Kim has the bomb and can deliver it.Kim IS a nuclear power.He undoubtedly scared Trump when he went around him and instead went directly to South Korea.Trump could have lost his self-promoted image as the "great negotiator." No wonder he rushed to negotiate.Kim probably knows that no matter what the deal,Trump will come away from it with his usual bombastic rhetoric.He will say the deal is fantastic,unbelievable,you won't believe it etc,etc.Kim,having given Trump a chance to flatter himself,will get whatever he wants out of the deal and Trump will unwittingly sell it for him.You and much of the world media will proclaim the deal a huge step forward and Kim will finally get the recognized as a nuclear power.Just wait and see!By the way,if you don't want the US to try and promote human rights and democracy ("liberal values'), just come out and say it.Maybe you will get to sit close to Trump at his military parade.
1
All I hope is that Jared is busy right now brushing up on his Korean, Chinese and Russian. Trump is going to needs his expertise in this matter, so Middle East peace will just have to wait.
3
Kim Jong Un is not naive. He will seek a princely payoff for giving up nuclear weapons. I don't know what terms he will demand but here are some possibilities:
- Reunification of Korea under his regime
- A payoff sufficient to put North Korean per capita wealth ahead of South Korea
Some qualifying assumptions: he will not destroy his weapons until the term of the deal have been satisfied. He will insist on international guarantees of the terms of the deal to prevent unilateral abrogation by the US.
Kim's gamble is that Trump will agree to outrageous terms in order to achieve a deal that has eluded his predecessors. It remains to be seen whether Trump will play on Kim's terms, but we need to give Kim credit for audacity.
1
No one can trust us. we are no longer worthy of trust.
3
Douthat makes a bad argument here. He seems to be saying that dictators will only give up the nuclear weapons if liberal democracies guarantee their continued existence. Well, how long should they be guaranteed for? Douthat seems to say that the choice is between a nuclear free world and paying blackmail to dictators perpetually.
1
My take on Kim is that he is hung-up on Stormy Daniels and views his upcoming meeting with Trump as a great way to meet her.
I have considered all the other possibilities for him wanting to meet with Trump, and this is the only one that makes any sense to me.
I mean, why else would he or anyone else in his right mind want to meet with Trump?
4
1) Douthat presumes the mass slaughter that would have followed a Qadafi victory would have been obviously better than what we got.
2) Douthat assigns zero value to the value of signalling to people oppressed by dictators that if they rise to fight the US will support them.
3) The popular American argument that since smart people have failed we should give stupid people a try really has to stop. The most remarkable of human achievements has been the astounding explosion in understanding the universe. Trust me, stupidity had nothing to do with it.
Ross,
Please excuse me for not wanting to return to the the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century when you and yours ran the world. I am a Jew who remembers the Irish economic genocide if 1845-1852, the genocide of the indigenous populations of the Americas, the pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, the history of slavery in Africa and the West, I remember your Crusades and I remember your Inquisitions. Maybe Kim learned all about two thousand years of Christian love and charity and is also sore afraid.
8
A possible break with the past and a novel approach on reapproachment in the Era of Strong Men.
The plot line to attract and contain.
The lurid tales of a wild Panmunjom brothel for the strong men has the kimchi pot brewing overtime. “Little Rocket Man” promises “Bald Combover Guy” a tryst in the Trust Village. Will this prove a night to remember at the DMZ?
The pleasures of the flesh a prelude to the more serious statecraft necessary for denuclearization démarche?
Will DaDa Xi join in the romp to paint the blue buildings red? A new chapter in JSA politics begins with wild nights on the table.
Liz Smith returns from beyond to record every throbbing diplomatic moment of pleasure.
Peace in our time, affairs of state and the world of tomorrow?
1
The best thing here is the title; otherwise, and as always, Ross Douthat continues resolutely to refuse to know what the liberal values that later were have understood to have articulated this country are.
YOUR values and methods are what imperils this country, Ross.
2
Douthat completely misses what's going on here. There's only one way to approach this topic: Trump views his presidency as a show taking place on cable news night after night, and accepting North Korea's invitation made for good TV. That's what's going on here--it's crazy and absurd, but we have to be honest with ourselves as to what's going on.
Trying to ascribe some sort of logic to what Trump is doing is pointless, and we shouldn't approach his decisions through the ordinary foreign policy prism. Trump is performing his job based on how it will look through the Fox News medium. He is a performer and he's putting on a performance for television. That should be the only thing we talk about.
5
The question was, Can North Korea trust us? The answer is, No, neither North Korea nor any other nation can trust us. Our government has been the least trustworthy on earth since World War II. We (or at least one Administration says things that the next Administration rejects. Our CIA has routinely injected itself into other countries politics since the Dulles brothers ran, respectively, the State Department and the CIA. We are not to be trusted when our interests run counter to the interests of others.
2
We also promised Cuba in 1962 that we would never invade and then we never did. So, a good precedent.
The real issue is that NK wants recognition by the world that it is a legit government and we can offer that in exchange for their agreement to a Two Korea solution for the penninsula. China could extend their nuclear umbrella to NK and Voila, no more need for a nuclearized NK.
1
When Trump took office, the North Korean nuclear program was a done fact. Nothing had been done to stop it. Sanctions were a failure. A little over a year into his presidency he is willing to meet Kim Jung-un who had said the program is on the table to end with no requirements that we discontinue military cooperation with South Korea. Now something that has been forreign to all political columnist and op-ed contributors is going to happen. Some have said the "don't like it or "it's a bad idea." The can't grasp the idea that someone might be able to reduce the threat of an nuclear exchange. Even more disturbing is that Trump might be the one to solve the threat. But I think it is a good idea and I like it. I was alive when we bombed Japan times two. The photographs and newsreels are horrifying. Google thos photos and find the films. Then tell us why an attempt to reduce a danger of that is not a good idea. Mr. Douthat seems to want Trump to succeed. His concerns and hesidency would be the same for any potential meeting with Kim Jong-un. We can at least hope.
4
"...place some of that hope in Trump's most Trumpish qualities.."? Did I read this correctly? A lot of this column makes sense and is inarguable. But to have Trump and Kim go head-to-head, face-to-face, will lead to naught. If anything, these two egomaniacs will manage to escalate the already heightened tension between the two countries. My guess is that in several weeks, this president will find an excuse to not meet with Kim...which is fine with me. Ten to one, Trump has already forgotten his impulsive suggestion.
We can say what we want about Iran. Yes, it has to be watched closely and is not to be trusted. But that is the trade-off that was left to a coalition of countries to keep nuclear arms away from this Mid-East nation. And that is the bottom line, as far as I am concerned. Nuclear war means unimaginable devastation, no matter who perpetrates it. (Do you understand that, Mr. Trump?) So let's keep up with diplomacy. Follow President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's lead. Work with other nations so that together we can work on North Korea.
1
Ross is inventing an explanation around the inexplicable. The column even starts by attempting to argue Trump's consistency on nuclear weapons. This is a clear example of an "if-then" statement if I ever saw one. If Trump is consistent on nuclear weapons then... That's the same thing as the "assume we had a can opener" joke. I'm not buying it.
Trump is, and always has been, leveraging North Korea for political advantage. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't pick a fight with anyone else so Trump has made North Korea his foreign policy issue of choice. This grants China the leeway to assume control of the Pacific and gifts Russia a free hand in the Middle East. North Korea was a non-issue until Trump engaged with Kim. Now the ordeal is a spectacle.
I only fear nuclear weapons now that Trump is charge.
Mr. Douthat, there is unfortunately not only a paranoid kingdom north of the 38th parallel led by the Kim clan, there is also a paranoid kingdom in the U.S. of A. lead by Trump-Kushner family. Both clans live a life of luxury while enriching themselves on the backs of the poor.
On the other hand, Trump is far more paranoid of being kicked from his throne than the "little Rocket man".
1
It is the application of a policy of international sanctions that has brought North Korea whining and sniveling to the brink of negotiations. Their nuclear program has impoverished the country and harmed its citizens. Now is the time for firm diplomacy to advance the gains we have made and forge them into meaningful nuclear disarmament by the regime in NK. Too bad we don't have a State Department to hammer out and codify our achievements. We have, instead, an oafish and impulsive president who thinks he alone can close a deal with Kim. It is foreseeable that Trump's delusions of grandeur will result in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Stay tuned!
You write "But on a few questions there is real consistency across his years as a public eminence." Yes, it's true. The consistent core values that Trump has always maintained are greed, racism and sexism. Everything else is flexible, in his never-ending search for applause and approval. If the crowd had never cheered when he said "Build the wall" he would have dropped the slogan, because it was just a coincidence that his racism coincided with the crowds, and all he really needs is approval and domination of others. For men that means bullying, and for women it means unwanted sexual advances. He really is easy to understand - don't complicate it.
1
To go into foreign relations believing it's easy has dominated this administration's attitude--particularly Mr. Trump's. It's doubtful he listens well, reads history, or discusses anticipatory strategies with seasoned diplomats---since there don't seem to be any.
It's utterly foolhardy to approach this without studies, informed planning, or anticipating problems/ duplicity in decoding the path forward.
There have been no public statements from North Korea, what we've heard is conflicting, and what we know has only come from South Korea.
He sounded truly unhinged in Pennsylvania, my home state.
It was frightening.
1
After WWII we were the strongest country still standing. We keep operating as if that's still true. Our post 9/11 behavior has demonstrated that we're not trustworthy. Frankly our pre 9/11 behavior wasn't any better. Regime changes and wars based on false pretenses are a thing of the past. Our empire is fading away but we don't want to admit it.
Kim Jong-Un is smart. If talks fail, he'll be able to tell the world that he tried but the US refused to negotiate in good faith. He has nothing to lose because China will continue to stand by him.
He wants what his father and grandfather before him wanted and that's to be recognized as a legitimate country. Change must come from within and since North Koreans haven't rebelled perhaps we should just start treating North Korea like a normal country.
1
Trump actually does well when he talks in person to world leaders. He has a desire to be liked in person and I think that will hold with Kim. The US could build on a meeting by simply supplying the South Koreans the military equipment it needs to match the North and then the US needs to get out of Korea.
1
North Korea and Iran are not the same, and I don't mean geographically. North Korea does not have an enemy determined to destroy it by any means necessary with the enthusiasm of a religious zealot. Iran does. Iran is Shiite Muslim country in a sea of Sunni Muslims, the latter who consider the former heretics to be either "reformed" or destroyed. Shiite Muslims constitute less than 15% of Muslims worldwide, Sunni Muslims more than 85%. It's not a fair fight. For Iran, nuclear weapons are the difference between survival and eventual destruction. Yet, Iran was willing to suspend its nuclear weapons program, which is an amazing achievement considering the stakes for Iran. With North Korea, it has no similar nemesis, not even its neighbor to the south. For North Korea, nuclear weapons are not an insurance policy for the country against external enemies, but an insurance policy for the dictator against his own people. Can Trump see this difference? Douthat can't, so it's unlikely Trump can.
Kim Jong-un does not trust Donald Trump enough to bargain away his nuclear weapons. Those weapons are his hole card. Further it is obvious to everyone that America cannot be trusted to stick to every deal that any one president negotiates. Presidents are term limited and Donald Trump, The Republican President, and his Republican Party have shown that removing every vestige of a past president's achievements can become a priority when government changes hands. That may happen in less than three years.
Since we have not been told when and where a summit meeting will occur, we should consider that those "trivial" details have not been negotiated yet. Negotiating such "trivial" details with North Korea may take weeks if not months. Then there will be more "trivial" details to negotiate with North Korea. History has shown that no detail is too trivial in negotiations with communist regimes and North Korea in particular.
My take is that Kim Jong-un wants to be seen as a statesman and he has put forth an illusory offer to negotiate. Kim does not intend to sit down with Donald Trump and negotiate away North Korea's nuclear weapons. Kim wants to show that Trump is the obstacle to negotiations.
1
It's hard to understand how, on the one hand, we ascribe to Kim and Trump all the emotional stability of 6 year olds, yet on the other hand we contemplate their ability to discern complex geopolitical signals and strategies. This all seems so much simpler, and therefore dangerous...
Even 6 year olds are capable of understanding the hypocrisy of "Do what I say, not what I do," so whether Kim ever begins to approach a deeper understanding of what happened in Iraq or Libya, or that the U.S. can never itself denuclearize, we can expect that he views our nuclear weapons as having but one purpose: To destroy him. How "trust" enters into this equation is beyond me.
The U.S. remains in a position that toggles between the tolerance of a dog for a toddler pulling its ears and the impatient mendacity of political evangelicals who know what's best for the rest of the world, especially if they happen to have extensive oil reserves. Again, trust is the last thing on the list.
With Trump in office, the rest of the world faces the prospect of strategizing against a man who appears to bolt upright in bed and is as likely to rip off a tweet as to push his really big nuclear button. So, the answer to Mr Douthat's question is, No, North Korea cannot trust us, because we can't even trust us.
1
The answer in a word is no. Not when it comes to matters of war. I really don't know who can trust us. But having said that. N Korea isn't going to give up nuclear weapons. Would you? It would great for them to talk, personally I think they might hit it off. Why not? it gets us closer to the time when we can get Trump out of here, and restore some sanity.
1
I
When Trump took office, the North Korean nuclear program was a done fact. Nothing had been done to stop it. Sanctions were a failure. A little over a year into his presidency he is willing to meet Kim Jung-un who had said the program is on the table to end with no requirements that we discontinue military cooperation with South Korea. Now something that has been forreign to all political columnist and op-ed contributors is going to happen. Some have said the "don't like it or "it's a bad idea." The can't grasp the idea that someone might be able to reduce the threat of an nuclear exchange. Even more disturbing is that Trump might be the one to solve the threat. But I think it is a good idea and I like it. I was alive when we bombed Japan times two. The photographs and newsreels are horrifying. Google thos photos and find the films. Then tell us why an attempt to reduce a danger of that is not a good idea. Mr. Douthat concerns and hesidency would be the same for any potential meeting with Kim Jong-un. We can at least hope. So far no one's been able to stop North Korea from even pointing a BB gun at us
2
Sorry. But how is North Korea supposed to "trust us", when most of us don't even trust this president?
Just for the record. This administration isn't known for its ability to be diplomatic any more than Donald Trump is known for being stable, and with both men and their volatile temperaments only inches away from the nuclear button, it's hard to imagine a situation that's less trustful.
In fact, trust might have far less to do with it, than being rational does. Because in the end, being rational just might be the only thing that will save us.
2
Your column makes me realize that Trump IS in a position that no previous President has been. Trump may truly find common ground with Kim-Jong Un because Trump has no commitment to human rights, rule of law, democracy and other western values that previous US Presidents have had, and consequently, feels no need to push Kim to conform. They may be able to relate to each other as fellow stable geniuses who know that they and they alone can save their nations from dangerous outsiders.
3
Douthat is utterly correct. Recent history like Iraq and Libya prove that Kim would have to be incredibly naive to trust the USA in this regard. Kim is not naive. Add Trump to the equation and us squashing Kim if he disarms is a slam dunk.
On the other hand, Kim is even worse than Trump. If he can dislodge US forces from South Korea, he will think (perhaps correctly) that his way is clear for conquest of the South.
1
Well life is, after all, a complicated mess. Who knew? Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation.
To my mind the choir of non-proliferation is always destined justly to be heard as the hypocrite chorus that it is inthe world generally: the US, the largest possessor and threatening user of nuclear weapons hectoring the rest of the world abouyt their danger - doesn't add up and never will.
There's something else at work here. Kim may be a madman, but he's not stupid. He made the initiative. Remember Trump's fascination and admiration for dictators. Kim will flatter him. Trump will proclaim something like while N. Korea has its faults, "it has some very good points." Trump will be eating out of Kim's hand.
1
NK and its ally, have sent the world a message, "Yes, we can trust President Trump". As they offer to abandon a nuclear missile program; which implies ceasing the threats of attack. The previous threats, it would seem safe to assume, were not a sign of trust. Why had American leadership -- that great old establishment, been threatened? Why is Donald Trump seen as trustworthy by the same people openly and defiantly hurling threats at the US establishment? Why did the American people electorally-reject that 'great old establishment'? Perhaps "warped, frustrated old man" is a better description of his reaction to being rejected. Desperately guarding his field; using his bank to control; framing dissenters as criminals.
"The stupidity of the Iraq and Libya interventions doesn’t automatically make the Iran deal a good idea, since it has encouraged both Iran and Saudi Arabia to escalate their non-nuclear struggle for regional power"
But then again a nuclear armed Iran could escalate their struggle for regional power as well.
Given Trump's inability to hold a coherent thought, pay attention to the thoughts of others and tendency to lie as often as he breathes, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. If a summit does occur, Kim obviously has a strategy in mind and will be as well prepared as Trump isn't.
3
Trump is not interested in Democracy propagation, just look at the leaders that he admires and maybe secretly he is at AWE of Kin Jung Un too. He routinely have military parade and that too good one showing off his nuclear arsenal and large rockets.
Trump's problem with DPRK comes only with our credibility re his change in policies of previous administration and US Congress's actions re our agreements with foreign powers. Our political leadership's propagation of 'Fake News' re agreements and its facts for their own points scoring and trying to undermine negotiated agreements to placate another country's interest.
I wish the President well and if we are able to come up with ending the Korean War and remove our and other forces from the Korean Peninsula, Trump shall be immortalized in the books of History, I for one is not holding my breath over it.
1
After claiming that having denuclearization is incompatible with (or at least pulls in the opposite direction from) advancing liberal values, Douthat proceeds to present very good evidence that in fact the only way to have denuclearization is to have advancing liberal values. What happened to conclusions following from evidence, Ross?
1
There is a theme that runs through Mr. Douthat's columns that is visible again here. He tries to hide it with a wincing knowingness but still there it lies--the dream that all people, nations, and institutions will be rational and perfectly motivated by the clearest, if not the best, motives. Coupled with that fantasy is his purchasing at great price the Trumpster's self-promotion as a great negotiator. The evidence for the latter is non-existent save in DJT's own febrile mind. His history is of bloviating, intimidating, threatening, and making deals that are marginal at best, like all those casinos. This 'skill' is matched with little knowledge of the world as it is and a set of useless slogans.
'If you don't have steel you don't have a country.' There's a slogan to live by since he drives this over the cliff by taking the position that we should sacrifice the country to have the steel.
But, back to the nuclear world: DJT wishes to believe that there is a 'solution' to the issue and only he can achieve it. It could be, and likely is, that none of us know what the best outcome is, rather that there may be a process of sequence of actions from which we all learn to ready ourselves for the next sequence of events.
There is a set of issues known as 'wicked' problems which are intractable because at the base they are issues of people and relationships which shift and change as conditions, including 'solutions', change. These require constant attention, care and fortitude.
I've long supported talks, but only intelligently and with proper preparation. Con Man vs. Missile Man doesn't fit this criterion.
That aside, any question as to whether or not North Korea can trust "us" surely must be rhetorical. In this case the "us" is Trump, and nobody can trust Trump, nobody in North Korea, the US, or the rest of the world. Thus, it's difficult to believe that Kim, himself a massive question mark, would trust an ever-lying, ethically challenged Trump.
For the record, I wouldn't trust either of them, either in a negotiation process or in living up to any "deal". Unfortunately, I suspect the North Koreans have studied the matter, and have well thought-out plans and goals. It's evident that Trump has done neither. Of course, the consummation of any get-together is still uncertain. There's much to be worked out (e.g. the size of the table?)
Nonetheless, however much against the odds, I suppose we can hope that two wrongs can somehow make a right.
It is indeed unlikely in the extreme that any denuclearization deal could work out favorably for the Kim regime. The road to that ending was cut off by North Korea itself, at the moment when they detonated their first nuclear bomb.
At that moment, the Kim regime signed its own death warrant. All that remains is for it to pick its poison, and choose its own ending. Do they want to go down in a blaze of glory, taking South Korea, Japan, and a few major U.S. cities with them? Or do they want to denuclearize and: 1) remain an independent state with indefinite and highly intrusive international monitoring of their military (which probably precludes continuing rule for the Kim regime), 2) reunify with the South, or 3) become a semi-autonomous province of China?
That is what these negotiations (if they happen at all) are really going to be about, and there is no point in pretending otherwise.
1
If securing his regime is Kim's goal, then he is negotiating with the wrong country. He should be negotiating with China and Russia to be included under their nuclear umbrella.
1
"Can North Korea trust us?" the headline asks.
Well, no, and we cannot trust North Korea either. We simply have no goals that are common with North Korea's, and they have none with us. Kim needs the weapons to keep an upper hand as his primary business is blackmail, and supplying weapons and technology to rogue nations. And he has the family dictator business to run, which has no intersecting interest the US.
Our primary goal is to keep our presence and ties to the pacific rim markets and to keep a relative regional stability. We are in conflict with China over North Korea, as China prefers to have Kim share the 800 mile border than some westernized competitor. And China prefers to keep North Korea sufficiently stable so that they can minimize the numbers of refugees they receive from that border.
None of that swirl of conflicting interest leads us to believe that we have common ground for negotiations. Add to it the Trump administration's incredible lack of foreign policy skill and talent - there is no deep well to draw from at the State Department - and you have all the makings of a circus. With Kim as ringmaster.
24
Ross, evangelicalism is truly a plague upon humanity. It matters not if the evangelical is of the religious or geopolitical variety.
Little good had been done by the US's various military interventions in the name of capitalism since the end of the Korean War.
Furthermore, the unintentional message that we sent via our most recent interventions in Iraq and Libya was that if a despot wanted a measure of respect from Uncle Sam, they better get a nuke. North Korea was always a bigger hellhole than either Iraq or Libya - and the intelligence forces of Pakistan were directly implicated in 9/11 - but even Dubya knew better than to mess with nuclear states.
Trump has significantly changed the equation in his presidency, inasmuch as he hasn't paid attention to anything but his bank account, libido, and press clippings for decades - and is proud of it. Maybe some good will come of his total ignorance of the precedents of the past - but I doubt it.
So could a denuclearized North Korea trust us? Probably not. Sooner or later, a more traditional style evangelical interventionist will replace Trump in the White House - and the drum beat for regime change would again be heard.
IMHO, the best thing that we can to do to further the cause of democracy across the planet is to get our own house in order - and become again the shining city on the hill that other nations long to emulate.
39
On balance, evangelical Christianity has done more good than harm over time. It It has been the leading edge for individual inalienable rights, fighting to end slavery across the Western world and civil rights and human rights everywhere.
1
What a bizarre use of the word "evangelicalism." You're either unfamiliar with the definition of the word, or unfamiliar with more accurate terms such as "expansionist," or unfamiliar with history, in which propogation of one's own influence, power, and ideas has been the norm and will always continue to be the norm. You likely support exactly this, just in the pursuit of other goals. Either way, for someone not so firmly seated in the liberal, secular bubble -- which is plenty "evangelical" in its own right -- your misuse of the word seems like bigotry just looking for an outlet.
1
When the internationally backed Iran nuclear deal could be disowned by Trump, what remains to be trusted in case the same is forced on the North Korea, specially when both Kim and Trump are always suspicious of the 'other', and under perpetual fear.
11
I wish Mr. Douthat and other pundits that use the term “liberal”, be a little more specific as to what they mean by that word.
I’m liberal. I’m a 75 year old white man, served in the military, worked for 35 years in the construction business, and believe every human being is equal to the other. I am strong supporter of a central government, a military that can safely defend our country, but no more than that. Our federal and state governments should have programs in place to take care of the less fortunate, and our taxes should be adjusted (raised) in order to do so. A quality public education is paramount to the future success of our democracy, and we should see to it that “all” have the opportunity to receive one. I vote Democrat because that party comes closest to my beliefs.
So Mr. Douthat, if that’s what you mean by liberal, I’m one of them. If not, further explanation of what a liberal means to you would be helpful to this reader.
178
"Liberal" in the way Douthat is using it doesn't mean liberal politically. It refers to a political philosophy that places the individual, and the individual's goals, at the center of importance for the state. It includes the idea of democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, respect for individual property rights etc. and is contrasted with authoritarian governments that reduce the individual to a token to be used to advance state power and the interest of the ruling elite.
In that sense it could be interpreted as either liberal or conservative as the terms are generally used politically in this country. A conservative is a supporter of a "liberal" state because he or she wants to reduce the size of government, believes in the enabling power of free markets and capitalism or supports the goal of the individual to be free of coercion by rules or laws imposed by the central government.
A liberal on the other hand may believe a liberal state can be of great assistance in helping citizens obtain full empowerment through such mechanisms as enforcing rules that prevent social discrimination and limiting the economic abuse of individuals by unfettered capitalism.
13
Wow - this is almost me exactly:
"I’m liberal. I’m a 75 year old white man, served in the military, worked for 35 years in the construction business, and believe every human being is equal to the other. I am strong supporter of a central government, a military that can safely defend our country, but no more than that. "
Only difference is instead of 35 years in the construction business, I only worked for about 4 or 5 years in that business (freeway construction in California). The rest of the time was flying for the U.S. Navy and a major airline. Living in California and also the Chicago area contributed to my liberal tendencies.
what about revision of the 2d amendment?;after all it is only an amendment.
The only thing I agree with the current president about is that he called W Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 “the single worst decision ever made.”
But, you and Mr. Brooks and Mr. Stephens and the rest of your fellow Republican pundits can keep blaming everything on liberals, Mr. Douthat.
Whatever makes you feel better about this dumpster fire, formally known as the Trump administration, you know a Republican administration, led by a man who is the head of your Republican Party.
But, go ahead and blame this disaster slowly unfolding in front of us on liberals.
P.s. I love that snide slide of the line, "W.M.D. that mostly did not exist." Yeah, right. How do you even have the temerity to write something like that?
136
The term "liberal" is often used as a political epithet, but in this case the author is using the term in its more traditional sense, I believe, meaning belief in the principles of self government, human rights, and the rule of law.
V
Chipper up, I have met a Republican who blames the mess we are in on J.F.K. long before he was born, and should ever asked what Party I am affiliated with, this American will reply 'Globalist'.
George Will bowed out early of the presidential nominations. This was an indicator that something unpleasant was going to happen. Naturally, the whole crew of Republican pundits and supporters are doing a back-peddle because they have not gone crazy yet.
Poor W. Bush probably listened to Dick Cheney about taking us to Iraq on a mission to put an end to weapons of mass destruction. There was even some triumphant wave-flagging on the part of 'America' when we got there. In the meantime, let us remember our brave troops protecting our welfare here, there and everywhere.
This is not the time for us to feel bitter that we allowed ourselves to be mislaid and blindfolded by the machinations of our Government but let us keep the focus on 'Fake News'.
The Leader of North Korea is not able to tell the People he represents that we are not a land of felons and barbarians; not when under the thumb of Trump, who seems intent on throwing us into a clump of vipers, stirring a political hornet's nest, keeping us distracted and in a state of 'Chaos', to quote Mr. Blow earlier this week.
How all this is going to pan out is another matter for our Country and our People, a believer in Democracy and I am a capitalist who wishes to make a profit.
Best regards to you in L.A. on The Ides of March.
1
V. Some folks have "la petoche" when writing to the Comments section, and for no good reason. Hence we see tags like "V "or "metrojournalist."Do they fear that if they write their full names,the "dangerous disappointed will descend upon them in their pick up trucks, Confederate flags flying, knock at their door and demand explanations? Unlikely, and besides , those folks do not as a rule read the papers. They do not even write letters for the most part.For your edification, UN Inspectors David Kay and Scott Ritter did find evidence of some w,m,d. stockpiles, but not enough to justify an invasion.Finally, what disiaste are you referring to. Country is on the right track, employment and market are up, sanctuary cities are being shut down, "ojala,"and 61 million of us who voted for The Donald are "staying the course!"
Foreign policy requires thought and planning. Donald Trump lacks the attention span for all of that. What he understands though far better than most pundits and Democrats in power as well, is that the American public lacks the attention span for foreign policy too. Any meeting with Kim will be a marketing coup for DT, full of boasts and dishonesty that right wing media will hail as the work of a great statesman. Kim gives no appearance of being a fool and may offer token concessions. Huge numbers of Americans won't know the difference. Actual U.S. military force would be a disaster for poll approval numbers. What else matters in the reality show world of Donald Trump, President of the United States?
34
"We have failed to strike a lasting deal with the North Koreans because they are duplicitous and wicked, certainly." Duplicitous and wicked are just the words I would use to describe Donald Trump. To answer your question can North Korea trust us, in a word: "NO". No one can. Do you trust Trump Mr. Douthat? How can you trust a man (I use that term loosely) who makes an assertion about policy one minute and the next minute negates that assertion? Apparently the decision to meet with the North Korean leader was made precipitously, with no thought to consequences, like most of Mr. Trump's decisions.
Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump are two very dangerous world leaders. This is a game with very high stakes Trump is playing. The world will be watching and worrying along with most of us here in this country if this meeting goes forward.
61
Many of us are agreeing with direst talks but we have no confidence in Trump being involved. He is dangerous to most complex problems with his ignorance, anger and ego.
1
I am so tired of reading about how North Korea is “duplicitous and wicked” and keeps breaking its agreements. On October 21, 1992, The US and North Korea signed an "Agreed Framework." North Korea agreed to end its nuclear program and the US agreed to establish diplomatic relations, build a "safe" nuclear power plant, and provide fuel oil to power North Korea while the new plant was being built.
In December, 2002, George W. Bush declared that North Korea had restarted its nuclear program, despite the fact that no evidence of such a violation was detected by UN inspectors on the ground or anybody else. After 10 years, diplomatic relations were never established,, no new power plants were built, and all fuel shipments were halted. (Remember, this is the same President who started a war with Iraq over fabricated allegations of WMD.)
One month after the US had violated every provision of the "Agreed Framework", North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and restarted its nuclear weapons program. Whose fault is that?
156
Well this American likes our Korean Community, a fine contribution to our Country, industrious and caring. Some of us are mistrustful of this presidency where the leader is incapable of releasing his tax statements.
It would be of interest to know how Reagan and Trump would have got along. The former, with more aplomb, might have said 'there you go again' in his jovial tone.
5
To answer first and explain later. NO! Donald Trump has shown a complete lack of any ability to come close to "The Art of the Deal." This is not surprising since he didn't write the book and probably has never read it. All we know is he hates any deal he's not been involved with from NAFTA to TPP to the Iran Nuclear Deal. So far he's shown no ability to compromise which is at the heart of any deal, but, as with DACA has insisted on including poison pills (aka "pillars") in them. So, I don't trust Donald Trump, and certainly wouldn't expect Kim Jong-un to. But, we don't even know if Kim even wants a deal. He's welched on two previous such deals with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush landing him on the infamous "axis of evil" and then Barack Obama. Many speculate he just wants the photo op showing him on equal terms and equal status to the U.S. This is a major reason why such a top-down diplomatic approach has never happened. You need to build the trust by laying the groundwork for an agreement through tedious negotiations. If these two very volatile leaders meet and the highly probable diplomatic fiasco follows, both are painted into a very, very dangerous corner. And that is why given all the nuclear saber-rattling, I'm not only skeptical, but fearful, of Donald Trump's impetuous acceptance to rush into a face-to-face meeting with Kim.
13
You describe the North Koreans as “duplicitous and wicked, certainly...” after describing all the tyrants who disarmed only to be overthrown, and the fear of the same fate by the North Koreans as paranoia. Even Trump understood the parable of the kind stranger who brought a viper home so it wouldn’t be cold. What do we want to give the Kim Jong Un government in return for their unilateral nuclear disarmament? A continuation of the Kim Jong Un dynasty? Fewer sanctions? End of the technical state of war? Trump may not fear a nuclear war, but any nation dependent on the sea life for food in the Pacific Ocean will suffer from underwater nuclear contamination in that war.
6
We know that Kim, his father, and his grandfather have had the same objective:to make sure that their regime is secure, that it remains safe from attack by South Korea, Japan, and the United States. They believe that only a full-fledged nuclear arsenal with intercontinental missiles can assure this
Hence they are playing for time so they attain this level of strength. They are not concerned that the United States and Korea will attack them, because they are certain they can obliterate South Korea and destroy several American cities and population centers, such as Washington, D.C. or New York.
The best tactics to deal with them would be to continue and strengthen sanctions, to continue to pressure China to cut off supplying fuel, food, and other essential consumption goods, and, as a last resort, institute a naval blockade.
North Korea should trust us to to be firm and demanding.
3
No one seems to have the first clue here about how terrible things are going in North Korea since the trade sanctions have taken hold. Even the nomenclature of NoKo government are suffering. You'll note that this tyrant never goes on foreign visits - because people get deposed while away in the 3rd world.
"Where denuclearization has happened successfully"
That is a myth, and a dangerous one when we are pushing North Korea for it.
No place really denuclearized. None.
South Africa had bombs. They'd tested one in the Indian Ocean. However, they did not really give them up. They kept the bomb parts, but took them apart and stored them in separate places. They stopped making more, but they still had the ability. They did not have any actual functioning bombs where before they had tested one and had six more on hand. But that is not the same as denuclearizing.
The other places never had bombs. They'd never tested. They had only programs in early stages. And they did not give up the gains of those programs. Brazil for example recently planned on making its own enriched uranium reactors and fuel for submarines and other uses.
The US would never accept from North Korea what it got from South Africa, Brazil, or Argentina.
As for Ukraine, those were Soviet bombs. They were not made in Ukraine, and Ukraine did not have the codes or other ability to use them. Letting them go was not denuclearizing in the same sense as North Korea giving up 60 home made bombs and the ability ever to make any more.
What we want from North Korea is unique. It has not ever been done before. The myth that it has is misleading, and encourages serious misunderstanding.
74
"One is his belief, which may give us new steel tariffs, that America is a big loser from the international trade system."
For many years, the American economy was so large and strong relative to others that our foreign relations could grant unequal access as a bargaining chip, with little cost to ourselves and much advantage to those so offered. It was unequal, they were bad deals on economic terms, but the benefits outweighed the slight real costs.
It isn't that way anymore. Our trade ideas have not changed to keep up with reality.
Take the example of China. Until recently, it was not a market for anybody, they were too poor. They reinvested what little they had and built for a future. Doing that helped them a lot more than it cost us. Now China is the world's largest single national economy, and more than half of our trade deficit, and it is become a real problem. Things have changed, but our trade relations have not changed.
The TPP was like that. It gave away economics unequally for alleged geo-political advantage of "leadership" and a reach for hegemony. The reach exceeded our grasp, and we were likely to fall on our faces. It is good that it failed. It was old thinking in a new time.
No, Trump's simple nostrums don't answer any real needs, because they are not even complete ideas. However, he is correct to reject the old ideas. It is a start. Now we need actual new ideas. We won't find them at donor dinners where the rich buy private favoritism from politicians.
25
How's this for a new idea: we let Kim build his nukes and feed them to his subjects. Virtually every other country in the world either has a nuclear arsenal or has a defense treaty with another country that has one, so why worry over-much about Kim's preoccupation with acquiring one? He's not stupid enough to actually use them and see his nation reduced to ashes within minutes. If he really wants the respect of the world (i.e., the U.S.) he can try opening his country to the international community and closing down his gulags. Otherwise, what is there to talk about apart from our own feckless leader's mystifying infatuation with strongmen like...him?
7
Kim Jong Un knows very well that Donald Trump is not trustworthy. The whole world knows that Trump is inconsistent and will change his position from day to day. Kim Jong Un will trust his nukes more than Donald Trump. North Korea is not is going to dismantle its large and very sophisticated weapons program for Donald trump's assurances. Kim Jong Un knows very well what happened to Qaddafi.
17
Then they are a good pair and should understand each other well on a basic level. Neither will have any illusions about the other being an honorable guy who just wouldn't do some bad thing or another.
5
Historically, there is no clear 'yes' or 'no' answer to Mr. Douthat's title question.
In Post-World War II era, US has stuck by its poorly-chosen allies, such as in the Philippines and South Vietnam. But US carries a stain of infamy after having betrayed its faithful ally of Independence War, the French King Louis XVI and his family. Despite the unsuccessful efforts of Thomas Paine and Gouverneur Morris, the French royal family was abandoned in the murderous hands of the Jacobins.
As to North Korea, Trump's eccentricity and unpredictability are somewhat constrained by he Congress, but the North Korean regime is a one-man absolute rule.
Perhaps Tuvw Xyz would care to explain what the US could have done in the 1790s to rescue Louis from his own folly? We lacked military resources capable of intervening in Europe. The country was so divided over the Revolution, moreover, that had Washington been foolish enough to intervene, our fragile national unity might have collapsed. Even Jefferson, possibly the strongest supporter of the Revolution among prominent Americans, opposed taking sides.
2
@ James Lee Arlington, Texas
US could certainly not have intervened military in France in 1792, to save Louis XVI and his family. But it could have exerted a greateer diplomatic and economic pressure: there were US payments being made of the French royal'government's loans and deliveries of wheat. A threat to step them might have changed the course of history.
If that's what keeps you up at night, I wish I had your life.
Attempts to normalize Trump's behavior and pronouncements are misconceived. Why pretend a meeting with Kim will occur? Trump went from threatening to nuke North Korea to giving Kim the gift of a face-to-face meeting in a few months. How many weeks or months until he sees it in his interest to threaten nuclear war again? His entire life's history proves that nothing Trump says can be trusted, nothing should be taken at face value.
52
the article was cogent and illuminating, whether one agreed with all of it or not,but
whoever chose the title needs a talking to.
it matters nothing at all to me whether one
of the most vicious, if not the most vicious,
tyrants in the world, trusts America or not.
I am no admirer of Mr.Trump, as I always say,
but if he gets a good deal with this moral
monster,I will give him credit. I am not at all
concerned with what the dictator thinks about America at all.
3
Exactly what disastrous result will the American troop withdrawal bring to the region? The American troops in the South, along with the North's nukes, has been the stumbling block for Korean intercourse. With both gone, the North and South can start dialogue and cooperation that can eventually lead to the unification. As for the US, it's an opportunity to save money and get rid of the nuke threat at the same time. Unless we are insisting on the circle-China policy and a cold-war style adversarial relationship.
The peaceful Korean peninsula, however, will be disastrous to Japanese rightwingers who need North Korea to stay in power, I agree. Likewise for the Korean rightwingers who are out of the power at the moment. That, however, is their internal affairs, not our business.
Trading the troop withdrawal and the relationship normalization for the denuclearization is an exellent deal for peace and Trump should go for it.
5
Silly wabbit, the question is moot. They don’t need to trust us.
North Korea has absolutely nothing we want, not merely enough to trick them into becoming vulnerable to our rapacious and predatory desires … but at all. First, with over 23,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, China would not tolerate a more pervasive U.S. presence in the immediate region. Then, ANY exploitation of North Korea by us would raise serious and extended regional geopolitical issues with China unless 1) ALL U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula were recalled, and 2) China got a serious cut of the exploitation. However, the Chinese are smart enough to know that there’s nothing actually valuable enough to bother with exploiting in NK.
That NK has enough of anything we might covet, other than a nuclear-weapon-free status, is a fiction invented out of whole cloth solely by the North Koreans to sustain an even more entertaining fiction that they’re a player in the world – except for a nuclear pirate’s possession of canon with which to extort booty. If the question is can we be trusted to feed them and perpetuate their failed society under Kim ad infinitum, ad nauseam, amen, then why would a pirate believe that we would EVER obligate ourselves to do that? A pirate really has only one thing properly to expect: swinging from a yardarm on a noose. We don’t even need to go to that effort.
1
To unite the Koreas, dominated by the South with an ironclad affinity for the U.S.? Nonsense. If the Koreas ever again are united, it’s FAR more likely that their affinities will be for China, in whose immediate backyard they sit and on which a large part of the overall Korean population remains largely dependent, rather than as a 51st state of ours.
No, the reason Kim is willing to talk is that Trump’s brinkmanship, materially consisting of his unwillingness to budge on a pirate’s challenge to drop anchor and await boarding, and his inexorable machinations to strangle Kim’s small-bore trade, caused NK to realize that this wasn’t going to get easier so long as it possessed ICBMs and nukes. What he can expect by way of return for verifiably dismantling his nuclear weapons capacity is for the crippling sanctions to cease with Kim still in power, and possibly some aid bones that we have never before been the first to stop throwing their way.
Trust? We (and they) don’t need no stinkin’ TRUST.
1
If one can't trust the other side to comply with an agreement, why make an agreement? It's like making a deal with Darth Vader:
Lando "I thought we had a deal!"
Vader "I have altered the deal - pray I don't alter it any further."
The US has been less than trustworthy in its dealings with North Korea - and Mr. Trump's reputation for breaching contracts whenever it suits him makes it impossible for the US to make any deals with anyone, ally or opponent - least the other side replace Neville Chamberlain's speech praising the Treaty of Munich as an example of wishful thinking and monumentally foolish behavior.
21
They have absolutely nothing we want, not merely enough to trick them into becoming vulnerable to our desires … but at all. However, they are smart enough to know that there’s nothing actually valuable enough to bother with exploiting.
That they have enough of anything we might covet is a fiction invented out of whole cloth to sustain an even more entertaining fiction, A pirate really has only one thing properly to expect, We don’t even need to go to that effort. . What he can expect by way of return is possibly some aid bones that we have never before been the first to stop throwing their way.
*************
A linguist’s dream – an ongoing smorgasbord of word salad providing such a rich treasure trove illustrating the effects of a wide variety of neurological deficits. Such selfless offerings in service of science.
6
Hard to know how a meeting between Trump and Kim would work out, but just by showing Kim some respect tensions might be eased and the likelihood of miscommunication reduced.
Ironically it is Trump's lack of propriety, unpredictability, and willingness to shift his position that make him a more formidable negotiator than any lower ranking US official could possibly be.
Plus, by going into their back yard and talking directly to Kim Trump will undercut the Chinese and Russians and definitely get their attention.
4
It is pretty clear to everyone by now that whatever the logistics of deposing a leader, successfully filling the power vacuum is incalculably harder. The world has paid a terrible price for regime change in Iraq. As contemptible as Assad is, there is no sign that a better figure is waiting in the wings.
So while we can't remake world leaders, we can try to contain the risks to everyone else. North Korea's ruling family seems to operate on fears of being overtaken, either from inside or from the outside. They are ruthless with their citizens and have been menacing to outside nations. We can show them that we are not looking to remove the rulers from power but we need to ensure that they don't threaten anyone. This is what can and must be controlled. South Koreans are very pragmatic and we should be, too.
North Korea's government may ultimately fall to pressures from within. Let's make sure that nuclear weapons don't change hands, or get used in the meantime.
18
Yeah, those pesky liberal values keep screwing things up. But it didn’t take thermonuclear war to put them in their place. All it took was the election of a nincompoop, and the ushering in of a conservative Congress and Supreme Court that ought to put the kibosh on liberal values for a long time to come.
But who knows? Kim Jong-un, a practiced homicidal maniac, might find the U.S. and its leader kindred spirits, given that slaughtering school children can’t even motivate us to restrict assault weapons. But I digress.
Putin ate the president for lunch, and yet he thought Putin was his pal. How might Kim Jong-un use this coifed doofus, who thinks he’s tough because he’s a negotiator? Our fearless leader will be talking to a guy who killed members of his own family. Sometimes it’s a bullet in the head. Sometimes it’s nerve poison. Sometimes he likes to play with his food before he eats it.
North Korea is essentially a prison colony led by a deified psychopath. Expecting its leader to behave rationally, or abide by treaties or respect human life are very iffy propositions. The idea that they have, or will have, nuclear weapons is an existential problem for the rest of the world.
Dealing with Kim Jong-un is more like defusing a ticking thermonuclear time bomb than negotiating in good faith. With the president holding the wire cutters, somehow I don’t feel safe.
113
Previous policies haven't saved us from the brink? In response to The Donald's prediction that nuclear war would ultimately happen (despite the "stupidity" of the naysayers), the fact remains that, nearly 30 years after he delivered it, nuclear conflict has NOT taken place. Why is that? Could it be that the principle of mutually-assured destruction, as recognized by world leaders of relatively becalmed temperaments, has prevented such lunacy from blowing out the globe. Is it any wonder that the fiercest combat the world has witnessed over the past 50 years or so has transpired between Ethiopia and Eritrea (two non-nuclear nations) and amongst the component parts of the former, non-nuclear Yugoslavia? Yeah, it would be great if no country other than the U.S. possessed a nuclear arsenal, Still, that hasn't happened and it's no more likely that Donald Trump can persuade the North Koreans to give up their WMDs than it would have been for a succession of more rational and even-keeled predecessors to get their Soviet/Russian counterparts to do the same. Nukes are no be-all-and-end-all in any case: if Li'l Kim really wants to be treated as an equal amongst world-leaders he should be advised to open up his nation to social media and his prison system to U.N. inspectors and then, perhaps, the U.S. will see fit to discard its sanctions. Too bad that Trump isn't at all concerned with such things. For him, denuclearization and a Nobel Peace Prize are, in the end, all that matter.
26
@ sti freeman - documentation of your assertion that Eritrea-Ethiopia produced fiercest combat?
Larry L.