Ending the Dead End in North Korea

Perhaps it is indicative of American arrogance and lack of imagination that our governments evidently have not seriously considered the idea that you might need to offer something to get someone to give up something. In this regard, Bolton’s recent public pitch for the so-called Libyan option is unbelievable. Whether he is just blundering along or intentionally trying to foreclose diplomatic options, his argument needs to be made internally, not in the media. He should either resign or be fired.

This "adaptation" is clear, concise, and gives an impression of pliability when it comes to influencing those who make policy. Perhaps that is not what it is supposed to do. The stated purpose of the intelligence community as per this editorial:"There is a sacred writ of intelligence officers never to get involved in creating policy. Our job is to present unbiased facts to reduce uncertainty for decision makers, whether they’re in the Oval Office, at the negotiating table or on the battlefield." gives the impression of impartiality when perhaps there are past instances which prove the converse. North Korea deeply resents the presence of U.S. Naval warships around the penninsula, especially nuclear armed ones. Will they budge if it continues? Probably not. It looks like war preparations are underway in the South China Sea. Asians are very wary, as they should be. The use of the "deracinated" Chagos Archipelago as a base for invasions and regime change is a model which they not only wish to avoid, but also are countering in that no such action occurs in the so-called disputed islands which China, North Korea's ally, has a legitimate claim to. "Rocket rattling" and tough talk don't really help the situation, especially when the latter is of a dictatorial type. So, the POTUS should be wary, if meetings with K-J-U take place, not to either rock or burden the boat. At least, that is my opinion.

Better yet, out at White Sands, NM, where we blasted A-bombs all the time, build a faux Capitol movie-like set for NK to aim at with their ICBM that has the disco ball on it, then they’re happy and can feel tough. Everyone’s own illusion of personal security is the real key to actual world security. Guns and religion, you know.

Anyone wishing for peace treaty to normalized North Korean relations without removing Kim Jung Eun's regime do not have any idea about the sufferings of the North Korean people. The common sense of morality must be abated when we deal with NK regime because they will lie, deceive, and threat to anyone trying to shake their foundation. Trump is in the position that no other previous presidents ever faced in the last 65 yrs: a chance to eliminate the regime by force. If anyone should care about the 20 million NK people's human rights, then protecting Kim's regime is like protecting Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. We can't afford to be that stupid.

What about the smallpox threat? They have it.

Pretty tough to ask a nation to trust us, when we have a known serial liar as our chief. One who gleefully admits deceiving our allies over major and minor things. With a history previously of betrayal, coups and invasions of sovereign nations, why should anyone trust us?! A country that has put a torturer in charge of its intelligence agency, while admitting to lying to its political leaders who are supposed to oversee them. Sure...trust us!!! Let N. Korea keep their security blanket. It helps them to feel safe against the great evil in the world. Just like our citizens who feel afraid of any and everything as they cling to their guns. What a cruddy way to live. But it does seem to be the chosen path of many humans.

Mr Clapper writes “[t]here is a sacred writ of intelligence officers never to get involved in creating policy” In the next paragraph he writes “[b]ut I told President Obama in private that our stance on North Korea was flawed.” Did Mr. Clapper realize that he was contradicting himself and violating a “sacred writ”?

Now we know why American policy on North Korea is such a feckless failure. Clapper is at peace with a nuclear North Korea and advises accordingly with his “hope” things will change. So we know we can count on good results from his well intentioned hopes. That is the take home message under all his blah blah blah. Evil.

The probability of denuclearizing N. Korea is smaller than the prospect of a massive wall down on our southern border. Why would Kim Jong Un give up his ace in the hole? It is his leverage. Remember that Trump in a conversation with the Mexican President wanted a public statement from him that Mexico would pay for the monster wall even if they didn't intend to. Would it be a reach for Trump to request something similar from Kim Jong In regards to the nukes? If you believe that the public's perception of Trump is the top priority to Trump, then it is concievable.

Mr. Kim isn't a fool. His demand is that the U.S. reciprocate and dismantle our nuclear arms. Trump and his minions counted their chickens before they hatched, with atta boys and recommended Trump for the peace prize. Oops. Quote from Time. North Korea on Wednesday threatened to scrap a historic summit next month between its leader, Kim Jong Un, and U.S. President Donald Trump, saying it has no interest in a “one-sided” affair meant to pressure Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons. He criticized recent comments by Trump’s top security adviser, John Bolton, and other U.S. officials who have said the North should follow the “Libyan model” of nuclear disarmament and provide a “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement.” He also took issue with U.S. views that the North should fully relinquish its biological and chemical weapons. Some analysts say bringing up Libya, which dismantled its rudimentary nuclear program in the 2000s in exchange for sanctions relief, jeopardizes progress in negotiations with the North. Kim Jong Un took power weeks after former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s gruesome death at the hands of rebel forces amid a popular uprising in October 2011. The North has frequently used Gadhafi’s death to justify its own nuclear development in the face of perceived U.S. threats.

How would a "physical presence" in Pyongyang be anything more than an invitation for the North Koreans to take American hostages at will?

Saddam Hussein was ambiguous about having WMDs. He didn't and was captured and executed. Khadaffi agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons. He was deposed and killed. Do you think Kim would give up nuclear weapons?

"...We should set aside for a minute our demand that they disarm before any other negotiation. We should meet their demand to sign a peace treaty, and establish a physical presence in Pyongyang, an office staffed by Americans who can interact with North Korean citizens. ...." The above is something that will be very difficult to achieve. Point one, it is doubtful that Trump and his minions will agree to solid negotiations before disarming. North Korea may just be taking advantage of Trump's impatience. Plus, anything that does not directly involve China will be very unlikely to viable.

So let me get this right. We allow NK to keep it's nuclear arsenal, help them establish inroads into the world economy and set up an "interests section" in Pyongyang. Kim would see that we're really good people, not out to get him and will, of his free accord at sometime in indeterminate future, dismantle them or not. How does this strategy make the world a safer place?

Clapper's idea make good sense so they are probably doa.

Mr. Clapper proposes to adopt an appeasement strategy in the hope the North Koreans will won't threaten the most powerful nation on earth. For once, I agree with his former boss, the revered Obama, to insist on denuclearization, or elimination.

A thoughtful piece which probably won't be considered by the current administration.

Let's just ignore this week's Chinese deployment of nuclear capable bombers to the Spratlys - with a range of striking Guam - and pretend that when the so-called president DOESN'T get what he wants, nothing will happen.

As someone observed, even paranoids have real enemies.

We don't know what will happen in June but in the last few years, the one American who met with Kim is Dennis Rodman. His opinion is that Kim is probably a madman. One of our problems is in the past, someone stuck in the face of the Korean leaders sheets of demands before negotiations could begin. Kim is probably as surprised as anyone that Trump said "Sure. I'll meet with him." Kim then stopped at least part of the nuclear weapon program on his own accord. So who is in a corner? If he goes back on making progress, then everyone will say, Rodman may have got it right. But it is not just the nukes. It is formally ending a war. So he has a huge amount to gain. He will still run his country and economic doors open Trump has broken another rule, as one NYT contributor labeled him doing, which is meeting personally with Kim without a lot of pre existing demands. If he succeeds, he has lifted a huge burden off of us and the rest of the world. If nothing comes of it, what did anyone expect. He is dealing with a "madman"

If the South Koreans, who have far greater means than the North Koreans, had arms parity -- rather than freeloading on the US, then we could exit and no longer be involved. Everyon would benefit!

No one in Kim's position with at least two working grey cells would consider giving up their biggest chess piece as a condition to negotiate with the Americans. Any one in America with a brain worth its name knows that an invasion,or war would be unwinnable without killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans. Perhaps involving Japan and Kim's neighbors China and Russia. Time to deal with the world as it is rather than the one we wish it to be. Our generals need to be ready,but it is our diplomats who must win this one for us.

Food for thought. North Korea would be crazy to abandon it's nuclear power, however flawed, as it assumes that denuclearizing is akin to regime challenge and even change, as mutual assurance is likely flawed on the U.S. side as well. In brief, how can it be trusted in the time of Trumpist lack of credibility? Unless we think Kim Jong-un is a crazy loon so desperate for attention that he would sacrifice power for a blissful fall from grace...and sent to rot away, he will remain a 'tough cookie' for an arrogant Trump, the latter still a believer in nonsense and demagoguery as his letter of introduction.

How profoundly tragic for the nation and the world that the wisdom, logic, and common sense so compellingly expressed by General Clapper will never penetrate the inexperienced, incoherent, and chaotic mind of our Fake President.

Our troops should leave South Korea, Okinawa and Japan immediately. Remove all American nuclear weapons from Asia. Stop "lending" them to our allies globally. Enough. South Korea and Japan can take care of themselves. We can use the money to rebuild infrastructure.

Clapper is the voice of wisdom and experience here.

U.S. will be morally wrong if we do not remove Kim Jung Eun regime, by force if necessary. US should not only deal with denuclearization but also with 20 million NK people suffering under human right violation of the iron clad dictator. So many people look at North Korea with sympathy, but for knowing their dictator system's cruelty with countless human right's violation for over 60 years, it will be like making a peace with Bin Laden after 9/11. We are at a historic moment away from possibly dismantling the evil regime, and my heart goes to over 20 million blind folded starving North Korean people's freedom. Too many people from outside of NK are fascinated by NK and naively think NK can become a normal country, but that will never happen with current regime in place. Remember, in North Korea, "Kim = Nuclear Weapon". One cannot exist without the other. This is why US must denuclearize the NK and free it's people from tyrannical regime.

I am very happy that Trump virtualy slapped Bolton in the face in public during a recent comment on TV. There is only one way to solve this intricate, complicated situation, through good will, trust and immediate and long term benefits to both Political organizations. Do we have anyone, anyone who can understand how th negotiate a real deal and not just make ridiculous, impossible demands before the peace process even begins? This reminds me of Vietnam and Middle East talks where everyone is arguing about the size and shape of the table and not the facts of the situation. Against all odds, I am hopeful that this can be accomplished.

Mr. Clapper analysis and recommendations are reasonable and helpful on three counts: first, he doesn’t repeat the old twisted-news spin on North Korea cheating on the previous agreements. Being quite aware of the fact that both sides brought the largely functional “Agreed Framework” down by a mixture of cunning (NK) and swagger triumphalism (US), he lets the issue go and thus open the road for a new negotiations’ “map”. Second, Clapper makes the necessary distinction between NK’s nuclear threat (perceptional or real) and it’s very real conventional power of destruction. This kind of prudent analysis is necessary to bring forward the notion that Washington and Seoul have a lot to gain from negotiating with Pyongyang even when NK full denuclearization is not the sole issue on the table. Three, emphasizing that as the US is the “bigger partner” the mission to “change the narrative” is mainly on America’s leadership. However, the relevant audience is the President and his foreign affairs and security entourage – as always, Mr. Trump will act on whatever seems to his peculiar way of reasoning as to be advantageous to his personal interests (mainly of electability and fame); and his wild bunch of advisers will dedicate their efforts to manipulate him to take the confrontational option, even with the risk of war. Indeed, not all is lost yet, but the expectations even for another “Agreed Framework” shouldn’t be overly optimistic.

I never agree with Trump, except his questioning of our troop levels in SK. That war has been over for decades. In all that time SK hasn't been able to supply troops to replace ours? We need to get out of these places when our presence for decades has given us zero return on an expensive investment.

Much as I respect Clapper for his courageous patriotism, especially in the face of Trump first stonewalling, then actively attacking the Mueller investigation into Russia's (and possibly some American collaborators') cyberwar on the U.S., he needs to ask himself this question: if he were a NK negotiator, would he be open to Bolton's super-hawk boast about following the "Libya model," in which Khadafi was "regime-changed" by being murdered on his own street? Bolton has raised the issue of Kim's survival, not the policy differences between us.

It might be more effective for both the North Korean and Chinese leaders to understand that the alternative to removing North Korean nuclear weapons is for South Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons of their own -- totally independent from US control.

What are the realities that will dictate the outcome of future US - North Korean negotiations? First, North Korea's survival means preventing our launching an attack against it, so Kim must maintain a nuclear deterrence and will NEVER denuclearize. Second, Kim and his regime want to survive and they know that launching an attack on us or any of our allies would mean the end for North Korea. Kim might be murderous but he is not suicidal. Therefore, North Korea's getting rid of its nuclear weapons cannot nor should not be a prerequisite for negotiations to proceed nor should we expect it to ever be an outcome from negotiations.

What happens to this dead end if China, through North Korea, demands that the United States rejoin the Iranian nuclear agreement? China may use its influence over North Korea to help its friend Iran. In addition, in doing so, China may gain favor with U.S. allies while, at the same time, embarrassing the U.S. But might all parties gain something? North Korea has nothing to lose by this outcome and may get a deal to its liking with the West. Trump's ego may be so far into getting agreement with North Korea that he wouldn't turn back — meaning, to its substantial benefit, the U.S. would rejoin the Iranian nuclear agreement and, in addition, get a deal with North Korea. In short, China may, for it's considerable advantage, try to link the Iranian nuclear and the North Korean deals, which, in turn, might just benefit everyone.

The Donald, as usual, has no idea as to what would be significant. He's flying by the seat of his pants, listening to no one. Where's the analysis, discussion, and preparations accompanied by a clear agenda? By now Trump's known worldwide as insecure and not a scholar. It's as if he's merely playing the Monopoly Game with grandchildren. He's never going to grow into this job! What concessions would Kim make? Would he withdraw military forces from South Korea? Does Kim even need the U.S. since he is talking substantially with South Korea? Kim isn't going to instantly denuclearize. And Trump's “fire and fury” rhetoric was absurdly juvenile. As such, whatever goes wrong in these meetings will be Trump's fault.

On the assumption that whenever we’re physically present somewhere those in charge of the “somewhere” benefit immensely by a direct connection to us and to OUR connections, and our own strategic interests are furthered because the “somewhere” becomes more stable, less defensive and therefore less likely to be disruptive. So, I like Mr. Clapper’s suggestion that we establish mutual “interests sections” in Pyongyang and Washington, staffed by cadres not ENTIRELY consisting of spies. And as a general matter, I like his overall ideas, but I see a basic disconnect. Mr. Clapper still thinks he’s working for Barack Obama, the ultimate half-a-toe-in-the-water, let’s not be getting our hopes up too high kinda president. This is largely why Obama’s foreign policy ventures, from North Korea to Ukraine to Syria to Iran to even the Israeli-Palestinian mess never amounted to a hill of beans. EVERY meaningful option was just TOO risky. But that’s not Donald Trump, who may see here an opportunity to leap-frog traditional limitations in dealing with North Korea and by alternating offers of riches beyond Kim’s wildest dreams with images of mushroom clouds over every administrative and military center, in a classically Trumpian exercise in brinkmanship. It was advisable to go with the flow as regard the instincts of Obama when working for Obama, and it’s INadvisable for Trump to go against HIS own instincts. Those instincts may stop a LOT of cans from being kicked bootlessly and eternally.

NK is in a pickle. More than Libya, they are haunted by the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event that can be attributed to a population that naturally seeks unity, recognizes the illegitimacy of the smaller, less economically successful entity, and realizes the weariness of the neighboring patron of power. However, China is not the USSR and has not yet reconciled itself to accepting a unified free, capitalist Korea. NK is a nuisance to them, but a bigger one for us, and that suits them just fine.

It’s scary that apparently Trump is saying to North Korea make a deal or else be prepared to end up like Libya. That seems to be a very blunt way to start a complex and potentially nuanced negotiations.

"But I sincerely hope our president will surprise me." Clapper may want to qualify that remark, narrow it down. Trump appears to be full of surprises, not all of them constructive. Most of Trump's surprises in fact arise out of the unmet expectations of observers that some sort of rational, orderly process will be pursued. Trump's actual behavior, on the other hand, is predictably illogical. He is intellectually lazy, profoundly ignorant, enamored of his own hunches, and impulsive enough to act on those hunches without subjecting them to cautionary scrutiny. The main opportunity for real surprise lies in the precise content of the hunch being pursued, which often manifests as half-digested or whimsical. It seems a chance tidbit of information or a recent casual conversation can lodge in Trump's brain and begin to expand geometrically before suddenly bursting forth on Twitter as policy. It's hard to see much resulting from the Singapore spectacle beyond offering Trump a major media opportunity to strut on the world stage and play at being some sort of peacemaker, basking in the praise of conservative political pundits and bolstering his domestic approval rating. Trump's desire for a positive media event will give Kim, and Xi in the shadows, leverage to obtain concessions. A main obstacle to a happy ending is the presence as a primary adviser to Trump of John Bolton, a harsh, rigid, uncompromising fanatic. If the show is truly the thing, how long can he survive?

Excellent read. Trump is likely my least favorite human being, but if he can accomplish what is presented here, a treaty not a truce, and an office staffed by state department personnel in NK and vice versa for NK in the U.S., I'll say he's on the right path with NK. One qualifier, I will never vote for him or any Republican ever again. Their party is a disgrace to our American values.

Unacceptable to me that the US subsidize NK's disasterous choice of a communist economy and poor situation with a family-based dictatorship. To pay them off for getting rid of nuclear weapons smacks of blackmail. The US has already lost billions in lost concessions to China in order to get China to put pressure on NK. We probably should try to force the two Koreas into a permanent peace treaty, then guarantee by permament treaty that if they don't invade anyone else, then the US will never invade them, but the price of this guarantee is nuclear disarmament.

China, Russia, I suspect want no substantial deal so American leadership can continue to be fractured and leverage can be eternally imposed.

A pertinent question here is who will be sent to NK to negotiate terms? Based on the past performance of the current regime, where the least competent person is selected to fill every position, it will either be Jared or Rudy.

From the NK perspective, America DOES present an existential threat. First, there is the little issue of war atrocities carried out by USA against them in the Korean War. Why should they forget? That was followed by 70 years of war games, staged directly on their border, that are always conducted at a time of maximum inconvenience. Most recently, there is the precedent of Libya; a country that voluntarily gave up their nukes and WMD. That didn't work out so well for them. It DID give Hillary Clinton something to chuckle about though... And John Bolton something to use as as an 'incentive'. Simply put, when viewed through the lens of history (as opposed to US propaganda), America is the bully in this situation. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are more interested in buying into the divisive 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' narrative than achieving any kind of objectivity on this issue (and many others).

North Korea will never give up their nukes. No one ever gives up their nukes. Period. If we are to begin negotiations with the hermit kingdom, we will have to acknowledge their strength and go from there. Kim will never reduce his strength no matter what he tells the fool in the White House. I went to a rough school. The way you deal with thugs peaceably is to first admit that they can hurt you. If you don't they will go ahead and hurt you to convince you that they can hurt you. So they do. That doesn't mean you stand their and let yourself get pummeled. But, there is this kind of honor code where their brutality must be acknowledged or they will be more than happy to demonstrate it. This is where we are with Kim. We have to acknowledge his strength. Then he will begin to negotiate to terms that are to his advantage, and hopefully ours too. There can be no preconditions. Kim wants a seat at the table. A seat of equality. Nothing happens without that. This isn't a game of let's make a deal. This is the real world.

I agree with everything that Director Clapper says here, but I would also respectfully point out that his role and mission in our government leads him to a limited point of view in this column. What's happening now with North Korea not only involves us. It also involves China, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam. If I was Japan or Vietnam and had a neighbor with missiles tipped with nuclear bombs capable of hitting me, would I --should I--depend on US goodwill to keep me safe? Would I also not want to have missiles with nuclear bombs capable of hitting NK? How long would these and other such countries sit back, existentially exposed, while the process of normalization continued and maybe eventually reached a point where NK denuclearized? And would anyone ever be sure that NK does not have nuclear bombs secreted underground? If I was Japan or Vietnam, I'd remember the obverse of what Director Clapper points out. Countries have no permanent enemies, true enough, but they also don't have permanent friends either--only permanent self interests. Is what Director Clapper calls for here in the interest of our Asian friends?

Mr. Clapper has it right. There can be no preconditions to the summit meeting next month. That was in essence what North Korea demanded in its most recent announcement or denouncement of National Security Adviser John Bolton who is a strong proponent of that precondition. President Trump has failed to clarify his comment about the timing in wanting "denuclearization" and that may yet determine the success or failure of the summit. With China strongly backing North Korea, as it has since the Korean War, the U.S. is in no position to make that demand nor believe that "maximum pressure" on sanctions will be effective. Mr.Clapper has a realistic view of what the process must be if there's to be peace on the Korean peninsula.

It is likely that Trump will surprise us all. But it is how he surprises that worries me.

I don't believe Trump has ever said North Korea would need to disarm before negotiations could begin. Clapper set up a straw man and then knocked it down. Another example of partisanship, and not serious thinking.

We don't yet know whether North Korea is acting in good faith. But we should give successful negotiations every opportunity to play out. That means real dialogue, in which Trump and other Americans listen, rather than dictate the terms. What North Korea wants may or may not be acceptable, but if we are to have even the chance of a breakthrough, their positions have to at least be put on the table. Speaking of less talking, Trump and his associates need to button up about the talks, too. When Bolton foolishly goes on TV and cites Libya as a model, North Koreans are bound to get up in arms. And when Trump goes to rallies and says that he has everything to do with getting this close to peace, or soaks up Nobel references, he gives North Korea an upper hand by tempting them to watch Trump's hopes get crushed. Let's give peace every prospect of being achieved. The PR can wait until then.

this is an article what I want. I've always wondered if the United States (Democratic or Republican) is demanding the North Korea to capitulate. Particularly John Bolton seems to have nothing in mind but a 'surrender', humiliating and abusive condition for a nation that has 70 years of history, to envision a new relationship between the US and North. Isn't it a basic manner not to infuriate an adversary who has desperately interested in one's onw security issues? 'Libya Model' will always be reminiscent of only deaths, disasters, and extreme chaos for the North Koreans as expressed by them so many times. I'm wary if Mr. Bolton is really wanting that situation already unfolded in the Middle East. North Korea is a nation of world class level self-respect. I admit that it is really hard to deal with them. If other nations (mainly the South, US, Japan) hurt their pride a scrap, they turn harshly stubborn and not willing to do what they WILL if not. The regime, nevertheless, has already embarked on destroying the nuclear facilities, inviting journalists from five countries including the US, and confirmed that they would re-participate in non-proliferation cooperation in Geneva. It is that they want to disarm honorably. so what is clear? : We need to induce them, not press. Kneeling is not their option, at all. Mr. Bolton and Neo con-leaning hawks in the US have to see WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING than WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.

I don't know if I could agree with Mr. Clapper on anything else but this article is dead on correct. North Korea will never agree to give up their nuclear arsenal and missiles and follow the Libyan model of having their leaders killed and nation destabilized. As far as I know they are not suicidal. We need to open the doors with North Korea and reward good behavior with more access to our markets. Maybe we should move some of our textile factories from China to N. Korea if China doesn't want to allow free speech and fair trade?

Get the North to the table to negotiate an end to the war and then open borders and improved trade. Once they are agreeable to more openness and can demonstrate their sincerity to make it work, then and only then negotiate nukes reduction for entire peninsula. To go in with high demands that threaten NK is counterproductive. Most humans are receptive to kindness and respect. Why would NK be any different? They are afraid of us and mistrust, and we are the same toward them. One side has to be the first to lay down weapons and show some sincerity. Why can't it be the US?