Wow. I just read your headline, and I am so disappointed in you. This man is evil. He has threatened nuclear war with North Korea. What I assume is your false equivalency is harmful to the country. I have always respected your work and writing. I hope you reverse this opinion.
1
This commenter isn't pulling any punches:
"Sorry, we are now at war with Trump. He must be opposed completely."
And -- Kristof be damned, it appears -- opposing Trump means opposing any deal he might cut with North Korea.
Short-sighted. If Trump cuts a good deal with North Korea, we'll all be safer and Trump will deserve some credit for that. Moon and Kim also will deserve credit, but there will be plenty of credit to go around.
And if Trump doesn't cut a good deal with North Korea, he won't deserve any credit. Simple as that. As Trump might say: "We'll see what happens."
One thing that surely WON'T happen, though: The conditions in Schumer's letter won't be fulfilled; it's virtually certain that Kim won't agree to give up his nukes. I think Schumer knows that. But there's plenty of room for a useful deal that falls short of that. Trump will deserve credit if he can pull off a useful deal, regardless of whether it satisfies all of Schumer's conditions.
3
I will say this as an American "elder" on behalf of all Americans who want North Korea to become a democracy that rids itself of its present dictator while at the same time recognizing Donald Trump for the corrupt, self-congratulating treasonous person that he is: How dare you call us childish?
3
Right on the money!
This president is incapable of doing anything right. The other shoe will drop, from a great height. Consider me a childish democrat that opposes ANYTHING this fool tries to do.
2
Where were the Dems when Obama gave Iran everything but the kitchen sink?
4
Amen, amen, and amen.
1
0. The end does not justify the means!
1. If you dance on the devil's toes/You go where the devil goes.
2. The idea that Trump's good decisions can be teased out from his bad ones is just plain stupid. Regardless of what he decides about anything, the man is not to be dealt with except to be gotten rid of! Yes, and that goes for pardons of "innocent" persons too. Once people start lining up for handouts, which we will, TRUMP WILL BE KING! Throw the bum out! Don't deal with him! Block him! Stop him! Stand up to him! Say something that IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, PLEASANT, or POLITE!
4. No good CAN or WILL result from Trump's meeting with Kim because the two, separately, are idiots; scrambled together in a negotiation, they make a dripping undercooked idiot omelet, not a solution.
5. It is absolutely irresponsible of you to accept "hope" as the basis for nuclear negotiations. North Korea is not a training ground for ideologues!
6. Trump is a bully. You're the kid on the floor crying, not standing up, not fighting back, waiting for the teacher, someone, anyone.
1
Because we always negotiate with despots and horrific violators of human rights. Kristof needs to turn in his knee pads.
2
Childish? A better example of childish would be this column, with a baseless insult in its title. It's called 'click-bait' and seems to be Kristof's current highbar.
4
The bigot said he will not prepare for the meeting How does this end well
1
Here’s the problem.
If Trump succeeds on North Korea, the Democrats, led by Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Hillary, etc. just look more and more like your crazy aunt Edna that you invite to family affairs only because you have to. And you make sure there is plenty of wine.
3
Dear Nicholas Kristof, you are a good, honest man and a wild eyed optimist. North Korea is playing for time because their nuke testing site was badly damaged (that's why they were in a burning hurry to blow it up). Kim Jong Un played the USA under Clinton, that's what the Dems are reacting to.
"Trump's new found pragmatism" is who knows what. Does he want's a Nobel Peace Prize because Obama got one? Bolton screwed up the last meeting by promoting the Libya (give up your nukes and die) model and is still Trump's advisor. Trump definitely won't bother Kim Jong Un about junk like human rights abuses. Trump probably doesn't know anything about the Korean War. Kim wants US soldiers out of S Korea. Then they reunite? Think about it: two cons, one with vastly more power, malicious but needy, the other with more brains.
I must respectfully disagree. Trump is fumbling his way and somehow it still hasn't bit him on the butt. Today's stories about him doing NO preparation for the meeting and that he's still saying only complete de-nuclearization is an acceptable outcome of a meeting, is certain proof that if there is any success, no one can blame it on trump. He doesn't think a meeting with a rogue nuclear-armed power requires any preparation... think about that for a while.
I almost had hope this article would be non-partisan, but the writer sadly falls back on the usual never-give-Trump-credit-for-anything approach. So I suppose Kristof approved of Yassar Arafat getting the Nobel Peace prize, but he thinks Trump cannot have it? Also, he is making no sense on the Iran deal. It expires in, what, seven years? So eventually they will be doing it anyway. And if you actually read some of the provisions of the deal, they are ridiculous, like several weeks warning before an inspection. That's brilliant!
2
I bet Donald J. Trump can sing every word of the DPRK National Anthem (or Russian Federation anthem for that matter) even if he failed to recall the words to "God Bless America" - assuming he ever knew them in the first place.
Under this article appears "related coverage". The first link is a Nicholas Kristof column from May 24 titled, "Aboard Trump's Terrorizing North Korea Roller Coaster." Yet, here we are, two weeks later, reading criticisms of those who refuse to jump on the roller coaster. C'mon man.
1
your're wishing that " President Trump is actually doing something right." for the purpose of what? He claims that whatever he does with the 'Rocket Man' will result in binding agreements between ? nations, ratified by out Senate, resulting in de-nuking N. Korea, the end of the Korean War and any and all threats to the U.S. . Wishful thinking, for Surpreme Leader Kim knows the Don is a lamb duck Prez.
So, the lousy Democrats are insisting on “anywhere, anytime” inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites, as well as those linked to its chemical and biological warfare programs." Where were they when Obama removed all sanctions that had Iran ready to implode and gave them $billions to spend on terrorism around the globe in return for nothing like that in his so-called Iran nuclear deal.
2
After sacrificing much, the North Koreans now have a seat at the table (let's ignore for the moment who made them sacrifice). So what do they want now? Security, respect, and the ability to grow their economy. What do we want? I truly don't believe we need to worry about being attacked. I don't think Kim seeks world domination (a la Hitler, Putin, et. al.). No, our chief concern is that they export their technology. This is more likely if we cannot reach agreement and because, now that we have reneged on the Iran deal, Iran would be a ready market. Further, Iran can't help but notice Kim's success in getting to the table with the US by becoming a nuclear power. So let's stop the bluster and focus on what is most important.
1
All we are saying is give peace a chance. - John Lennon
1
Great article. What do you expect from the Dems? There is no way Pelosi or Schumer are going to give Trump credit for anything. Old as dinosaurs both of them have a child's temperament of a 3 year old.
2
This is funny. Back on May 8 Kristof wrote of the Kim-Trump meeting "a dangerous gamble and a bad idea." I.e. His knee initially jerked like other Democrats'. Glad he's coming to his senses, the obligatory dismissive jabs at Trump not withstanding.
Schumer has it right. Kim (the North Korean dictator) is evil, and the only way to deal with him is to disarm him or kill him.
Kristof doesn't admit that there are evil people. He should read a history book.
Nick Think Green Party: Peace People Planet.
We Democrats have no objection to peace and denuclearization in North Korea. But only a fool and this means you Nick would want Trump representing us on the most otiose issue let alone North Korea and Kim Jong-un.
1
Who's acting childishly? Surely not the one who says he doesn't even need to prepare for the summit and who's actions so far have only vacillated between petty name calling and threats, and undeserved praise of the man he's about to meet, largely based on nothing but his own feelings. Good grief.
1
Is it petulance to resist when Trump changes his mind by the day and might trade denuclearization (and the human rights of North Koreans) for a McDonald's in Pyongyang?
1
Let's see! As far as I remember, the Republicans did all they could to sabotage the Iran deal, even though that deal was based on lengthy diplomacy, global cooperation and a robust framework. Now Trump, desperate for a Nobel Prize, is willing to give away the store for a hastily arranged deal with a regime with a long history of deception. The Dems are right to be skeptical.
If Trump’s self-proclaimed prowess as a great ‘deal-maker’ should prove to be true in seeking a resolution to the 70 year-old cease-fire on the Korean Peninsula I would ‘eat crow’ to render my congratulations to him however reluctantly. I remain sceptical after his first 500 days of hollow bluster.
2
Well, Nicholas, you can characterize the Dems as being in "resistance" .... Or, you might view it as holding Trump's little tootsies to the fire.
Supposedly, by withdrawing the the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump was setting the [new?] "standards" for what a future deal -- be it with the Iranians, the North Koreans, or anyone else -- might look like. So from that viewpoint, the Dems aren't resisting -- theiy're merely asking Trump to walk that talk.
But, of course, we actually have no idea what Trump actually has in mind -- or might agree to. Therein lies the rest of the problem. Perhaps instead of viewing the Dems as resisting, we might just view them as "requesting" a clear statement of Trump's intent. [That, of course, is a totally futile request in the case of Trump .... for all we know, he'll propose to Kim that Mexico will pay for the whole cost of the NK nuclear disarmament .... or something equally preposterous...]
Or, maybe Trump has tipped you off about his plans. If so, please share with us exactly what he plans to do, Mr. Kristof. Then I'll ask my senator, Ms. Feinstein, to take her name off the letter. Until then -- it's "game on" for the Dems, as far as I'm concerned!
1
North Korea is playing a Con Game on Trump. They know Trump needs a victory much more than the North Koreans. He will give away everything, including the kitchen sink. Of course it is the taxpayers money and American citizens security that he is risking for his reward.
Sorry, Mr. Kristof. I'm a huge fan of yours, and usually agree with and support your views. Not this time. I assume that many of your readers, like me, recognize the fact that this president does not bother to prepare for this type of meeting (as he believes he already knows everything necessary for succeeding) and this president does not deal honestly with others. Ignorance and lies do not usually make for success.
1
I agree with the general thesis of this opinion piece. I am disgusted with Republicans who put party ahead of country and do not stand up to Trump, and I am equally disgusted with Democrats who also put party ahead of country. I have no idea how talks with NK will work out but I am of course hopeful for the best. We will see....
based on recent events kim will give up nothing,and trump will concede even further, perhaps cancelling all joint excercises with south korea and removing some us troops.
the democrats are simply pointing out what actual verifiable denuclearization means, something trump will never achieve because his 12 year old vocabulary doesnt have the words to even talk about "the nuclear" as he calls it.
its all posturing on both sides.
as a practical political matter nothing would benefit trumps stature more than a hot war with kim so trump could wrap himself in the flag as a wartime president immune from impeachment and imprisonment, for collusion extortion and money laundering.
2
Is it a coincidence that all of those top Dems signing that letter are old and, to my knowledge none is a veteran either. There's a reason that "knee jerk" and "liberal" are two words often paired. We need leaders who think independently and have some real life experience. In the 21st century that means military or international humanitarian service, given nearly two decades of endless war. The Democrats will lose again if they don't listen and to younger candidates, veterans of real wars not political ones.
1
On this issue we are, and must be, Americans - not just Republicans or Democrats, or Greens, or Peace and Freedom (!), or whatever else is out there.
I abhor what the Trump administration is doing to just about everything else in the world, but if he, South Korea, and China can get together with North Korea on a peace deal, let it happen.
I always come down on the side of peace. I'm a pacifist. I'm skeptical and worried. To first threaten nuclear annihilation and than offer protection and great wealth to one of the worlds true despots for nothing more than negotiating nuclear arms reduction seems reflexively wrong to me.
While I'm always against war, I'm also for US Presidents supporting democratic principles, freedom, concepts of universal justice, etc., etc., etc. I don't think these are mutually exclusive.
I don't think North Korea posses a nuclear threat to the US any more than the Soviet Union, India, Pakistan, China, etc. did. I do think the US President supporting despot dictators across the globe is a threat to humanity, the planet and US citizens.
I'm hopeful for nuclear arms reduction. I'm concerned that the US is going to back a true despot in return.
2
Trump represents our country until he leaves office. He loses, we lose. He wins, we win. That's why supporting him is the right thing to do.
The Republicans obstructed Obama and refused to support him in foreign affairs. It was a poor choice of actions because it undermined the President's authority in representing our interests. They betrayed our trust.
Let me posit a theory about dear Mr. Kim.
Here he is, a new age dude, educated in Switzerland, trapped in the family business.
H never wanted to be a two bit dictator, that was Daddy’s decision. He wanted to be a poet.
Dealing with the palace intrigue associated with running a brutal dictatorship is tiring.
I think he just wants a few billion Swiss francs and a nice chalet and a graceful way out that would also tremendously benefit his people.
The time is right.
1
The art of negotiation requires to keep the other party out of balance!!!
OK. Take a deep breath and slow down, Nick.
There seem to two motivaing factors in Trump's persistence on this N. Korean de-nuclearization initiative. One: Trump wants to stand out as "the only president to have achieved peace and stopping their nuclear program" in the past 65 years or so. That way, he can brag and further promote himself for future elections or legislation. Two: Trump stepped in it, do-do, by making grandiose promises about ending their program, saw his chances deteriorating with the tension and bluster, and saw a way out with the Moon proposals as a way to get back to the table.
If we are Trump supporters, we can say it was all "planned" and part of a "great negotiator's skill." If we are not, then it is saving face for failed bluster and threats. It doesn't seem like "newfound pragmatism" that Nick theorizes. It seems like fear of looking bad and fear of the US having to back down to the dictator.
Oh, one final motivatilon: Trump admires dictators. Whether it's his own quest for unlimited power, or his fear of a fellow authoritarian's strength, he likes dictators clearly better than democractically elected leaders. By giving Kim Jong-un his multiple chances, he is embracing a dictator - someone he truly admires and wishes to suck up to.
If he succeeds it doesn't matter why he did it. In another way, we have to be careful that Trump doesn't give away the farm (e.g., no inspections) to look good making a deal.
1
Why is it that liberals always expect liberals to gracious, to endlessly extend the hand that has been almost bitten off? Of course it will be wonderful if Trump makes real progress on North Korea. But Schumer would be a fool to preemptively accept any small accomplishment as a huge victory. No matter what happens short of nuclear war, we know the Republicans will tout it as Nobel worthy. If the Democrats preemptively stop reminding the GOP of what the GOP demanded where Iran was concerned, they might as well dissolve themselves as a party. The Democrats do not have the power to obstruct ANYTHING that Trump wishes to do where Korea is concerned. So their job is to be the loyal opposition, not the doormat party. If Trump makes a real breakthrough, Democrats should cheer. Until then, they should be tough. As a columnist, Kristoff has the luxury of ignoring everything that happened during the last 10 years, and ignoring the necessity for the Democrats to make smart and tough strategic moves in order to make up for their many errors in 2016. But those of us who would like to see progress on climate change, race relations, gun buy background checks, health care, multilateral trade agreements, the rule of law, etc., cannot ignore history--to say nothing of this week's tweets.
4
Ok--the basic question is--will the GOP let Trump's Korean deal be reviewed by the Senate. This is what they wanted for anything Obama did. Now the shoe is on the other foot. So, guess the GOP will be hypocritical as usual!!
Thank you for your piece. I did not vote for Trump and do not plan on voting for him next time around. That said, if he actually accomplishes something, it would be great. Is it likely, probably not. The Democrats seem far more demanding on what it would take for their support than they were with Iran. I doubt he will get very far, but if he does, we can give the devil his due. Ask yourself what would be a laudable improvement that is realistic. If he actually gets there, say thanks. If not, at least he tried. Seventy years of not meeting did not accomplish much. Maybe meeting will.
The chronology of North Korea's's weapons development has also dictated the timing of these talks. Not until North Korea could demonstrate a credible existential danger to the US by virtue of its ICBM flights and nascent thermonuclear detonation would the US have sufficient motivation to not only engage with North Korea but also to be willing to capitulate on more issues more readily in order to neutralize this existential danger. The fact that this point in North Korea's weapons development happened to occur on Trumps's watch is simply coincidence, and an unhappy one at that, since it is difficult to imagine an administration more unprepared to deal with this geopolitical juggling of North and South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.
2
Why would Trump agree to a deal with North Korea that would be essentially the same as the Iran deal that he rejected? It makes no sense.
4
New and shocking news as of the afternoon of June 7th sums up perfectly why Democrats "resist:"
Trump admitted today what Democrats and most sane and experienced diplomats have suspected all along. He has NO PLAN or Preparation for his meeting with Kim. None. He said he doesn't need one, and will go equipped with just his "attitude."
This against one of the most calculating team of strategists the world has seen in decades... Let this just sink in for a moment or two.
Trump has no plan, no interest in doing right by America. He's a warmongering autocrat, without much of a clue about the region, surrounded by people not much more experienced, or perceptiveness. Trump wants to "win" for Trump alone - with a Nobel Prize as his due, or he will walk away. He might threaten or directly bully, which will only make things far worse for the South Koreans and Japan in the long run.
Resist? Seriously? There's nothing to resist, except chaos. A bullying narcissist is going to go and meet his counterpart - except one will be clueless, and the other will be prepped to the max. We should all be terrified!
6
I have often questioned myself over my reaction to Trump and what he does and whether it may be overblown of hyperbolic. And then I remember W. and how all the fears I had over his policies came to be. I am not a great political genius, I just see things for the way they are and follow it to its logical conclusion. Trumps is far worse than W.
Trump is a know nothing bully who thinks he is God's gift to the world and (in his own words) the only one capable of making things right despite the fact that he has failed at many things he believes he knows.
In regards to NK, first, Trump chose to end the Iran Nuclear Deal - thereby proving to the world that agreements made by one president mean nothing after an election and so therefore hold little significance. Secondly, that deal was an attempt to say to Iran and the rest of the world that your country's life will be better if you do not pursue nuclear weapons. He then embraces NK after they have developed nuclear weapons and says if they get rid of them their life will be better. In effect he is telling the rest of the world that development of nuclear weapons is in their best interest and the best way to proceed. There is not a more ignorant stand than this but he is too stupid to recognize his actions.
5
I've been arguing this with my friends for weeks. Perhaps, just perhaps, Trump's schoolyard bullying braggadocio worked, since it was directed against another would-be schoolyard bully. Perhaps the diplomatic approach from former presidents only enabled a Korean dictator.
However it happened, Trump has finally gotten N.K. to play ball. Congress needs to root for the home team, regardless of (justifiable) dislike for the pitcher.
2
So when Trump tries to one-up NK with bluster, it's just fine, but when those darn liberals try the same approach, it's unacceptable.
2
Mr. Kristof:
There is this country called "South Korea." You can look it up.
When you do, you may notice that the very notion of a war with North Korea without the support of South Korea is beyond lunatic, possibly even beyond the lunacy of one DJ Trump, certainly beyond the lunacy of our military.
Trump's bluster incited a fake crisis of fake fire and fury, and now Kim will take advantage of his monster ego and play the US for all kinds of sanction relief.
It's a joke.
3
"Poppycock. North Korean leaders have been eager for decades to meet with an American president; it’s just that no previous president agreed for fear of legitimizing the regime."
Regime legitimization never stopped Washington from dealing with China, Pinochet's Chile, Samoza's Nicaragua, Marcos' Philippines etc.
The real reason that only a loose cannon like Trump would respond to North Korea's diplomatic overtures is money - namely military industrial complex profits.
On the day in which Kim and Moon Jae-in shook hands and embraced, while the broader stock market as measured by the S&P 500 index remained largely flat, the S&P Aerospace and Defense Select Industry Index fell roughly 1.3%. In other words, the U.S.’s five largest defense contractors shed about $10.2 billion in value.
That's a lot of money. If you can't see the connection linking the revolving door between the defense sector and the Pentagon, and the lobbying might of that sector and how it relates to Washington's military adventurism, then you're either blind or a member of the corporate-media.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/27/north-south-korea-nuclear-friendly-handsha...
Had Kristof even vaguely implied that it was money that kept a readily achievable peace on the Korean Peninsula from happening, his career would be over by tomorrow night, so instead he offers a reason that doesn't withstand a moment of scrutiny.
2
"It’s almost unimaginable that North Korea will allow such intrusive inspections..."
And yet, that's EXACTLY what Sec. of State Pompeo stated was the objective with NK. Kriistof's "anything is better than nothing" assertion is bunk. And it would seem, every day, that the traitor backs away, further and further, from clear definitions of strategic objectives (I realize I just went way over his head).
And he stated "I don't have to prepare."
Good god, Kristof! Did you really think Kim was about to nuke us? Really? He bought himself a seat at the Big Table, and he's going to play that, and the fake president, for all it's worth. We have a losing hand, and the traitor has already shown his cards to Kim.
This is no "summit", just the first of a string of meetings, that will somehow be timed and scheduled for a Big Announcement, just prior to the midterm elections.
You, sir, are naive.
6
Oh, I'm sorry. Get real. Trump already sold the farm from a diplomatic perspective. You don't have summits to start negotiations. A summit is the conclusion of a diplomatic agreement. Trump validated Kim's idea that having nuclear weapons and missiles will put him on equal footing with the President of the United States. Trump isn't going to talk human rights, he is going to make concessions, lift sanctions, and declare his photo op a success, while China, North Korea, and Russia move in to establish trade with a freed-up trading partner. The U.S. may even kick in billions, who knows. Maybe U.S. Forces will be withdrawn from the Pacific. But regardless of the magnitude of nothing-burger, Trump will give himself a big round of applause.
7
Mr. Kristof, I generally agree with you, but not this time. You are assuming that Trump genuinely wants to reach some sort of agreement with North Korea that will be to the benefit of the world. I do not believe that. All Trump wants is a nice and shiny Nobel Prize to hang on his wall--the one thing that Obama has that he cannot rescind or destroy.
I do not believe he cares one fig about the North Korean people or world peace--otherwise, why would he have reneged on the Iran deal, which was apparently working? All he wants is his prize, his win--and once he has it he will flush any agreement down the toilet in the blink of an eye...
2
Why would the Democrats resist Trump's efforts with NK? I mean he has praised, gotten cozy, and refused to criticize almost every single dictator in the world. He has refused to accept Russian and Chinese efforts to undermine elections and steal trade secrets. At the same time, he has insulted, levied tariffs, and acted to destroy relationships with countries that have been allies for decades. Why would Trump's efforts be of concern?
2
I'm totally on board with the U.S. - N. Korea summit. Yes, Kim's regime is a horrific authoritarian rule perpetrating truly awful human rights abuses. Yet their existence is sadly a fact of life and taking steps to reduce the existential conflict can only reduce the ability of the Kim regime to use the U.S. as the threat that justifies his policies. I say negotiate an end to the Korean Conflict, take steps to reduce potential for armed conflicts at the border, accept what deferrals of nuclear weapons development they're willing to offer and accept the fact that no one in their position would willingly give up what nuclear weapons they possess given how unpredictable the U.S. has been over the years.
The assumption underlying Mr Kristoffs column is the rational behavior of 2 pf the least trusted least rational beings on the planet
No dice
1
Yeah, I see that Trump may just stumble into a peace process and may just pull it off if he doesn't retreat into demanding too much too soon. This is not coming about because Trump was so "tough" on North Korea though, but because Kim has working nukes now which gives him a bargaining position with some leverage that he didn't have before. I hope this process continues to progress, but I'm betting whatever deal is struck will not be any more advantageous than the Iran Deal, and the clear hypocrisy and vindictiveness of Trump's ripping apart an Obama achievement "just because he can" will be glaringly obvious to the rest of us.
2
I am a progressive who would dearly love for my country to be at peace with NK. I am rooting for a lasting peace that could result from the skilled negotiation of a sensible & forward-thinking President with a clear vision of exactly what he wants to accomplish. A President who makes a strenuous effort to know his adversaries and to understand the ramifications of any agreement he might enter into, before he even starts negotiations. A President who knows when & how to compromise. A President who is surrounded by savvy, non-partisan & experienced advisers, and who heeds reliable sources of information, even if those sources offer insights he does not want to hear. A President who takes personal responsibility for his actions, who, like Harry Truman, lives by the motto "The Buck Stops Here."
Amy, be careful what you wish for --- old honest Harry haberdasher "the buck stops here" Truman was truly blind to what 'role' he had been selected to play (and by whom) after Henry Wallace was side-stepped for the predictably dying FRD.
Harry walked into letting the camel get its nose under the tent of democracy and become a "National Security State & Double Government" [Michael Glennon] from what the OSS had "learned on Hitler's dime" about the value of one vs. two Vichy Parties --- and thus on his watch in 1947:
"President Harry S Truman, more than any other President, is responsible for creating the nation’s “efficient” national security apparatus. 20 Under him, Congress enacted the National Security Act of 1947, which unified the military under a new secretary of defense, set up the CIA, created the modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, and established the National Security Council (NSC). 21 Truman also set up the National Security Agency, which was intended at the time to monitor communications abroad."
Glennon, Michael J.. National Security and Double Government (pp. 12-13). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
1
Sounds like President Xi Jinping of China.
The Democrats have really lost their way in so many ways. This is just another, and saddest, example. It use to be the party of peace, anti-war, demilitarization, unions, and the working class. It seems to have become basically Republican lite. This may explain why it has been wiped out at every level of government. I don't see things improving for them with their present leadership of Pelosi-"I don't think people want a new direction" and Schumer-"For every blue color voter we will lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two to three Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois, and Michigan." It appears the big-money donors have branched out from their traditional Republican recipients and bought another party.
2
North Korea has a population of around 25 million and a GDP less than half of Birmingham, AL. Can anyone seriously believe NK will waste it's limited resources on an utterly futile nuclear war with the US, only to be completely destroyed by our vastly superior firepower?
Wouldn't the President's time and attention be better spent creating a rational strategy to deal with China and our allies. He treats our post-WW II allies as if they don't matter.
2
“He treats our post-WW II allies as if they don't matter.“
Like the time Obama sent the bust of Churchill back. What message did that convey?
1
No President had, or should, legitimize a brutal murderous totalitarian dictator. Trump has already done so. In exchange for nothing, freedom, democracy and the good reputation of the United States has been squandered. But you thought this was a good idea because of fantasies about N. Korea giving up their one bargaining chip that forced the US into legitimizing them? Please.
5
Far too many policies have been carried out by the Trump Administration in our names where our opinions were neither sought not desired.
We're barely peacefully coexisting with our sister nation Canada. He's inviting Putin to the Oval Office and a state dinner yet we just had our elections hacked.
Effusive praise and an offer to golf might work well in real estate sales, but this is the big league. He embarks on foreign policy without historical perspective or planning.
He improvises. It's a joke.
He can barely string 2 sentences together.
P.S. It wasn't all that long ago he was threatening fire and fury while comparing the size of his nuclear button. That was done in our name and without our opinion as well.
2
The least of my worries is the childish democratic resistance.
Trump's brand new pragmatism is being smashed by his old friend and new lawyer Giuliani who is acting as Secretary of State and keeps proving that he is a bad lawyer and, not qualified for the top diplomatic job.
Going to the TV to say Kim Jong-un begged Trump on his knees and elbows will not help Trump but it may help Kim Jong-un to get the Peace Nobel Prize.
Believe it or not, everyone is conspiring against Trump.
US presidents until now, both Democrats and Republicans, would not lower themselves to the level of direct talks with the tin-pot dictator of North Korea (neither this one nor his predecessors). Doing so elevates him to the status of a serious statesman.
Had Obama attempted such negotiations, he would have been excoriated by the Republicans, and some of the Democrats, in Congress as well as the press. He was excoriated for merely suggesting talks with Iran.
I'm not saying that this was the correct attitude for us to take, but the double standard is stark.
I would be more comfortable if we were sending a serious statesman to the talks, and not someone so desperate for a victory or so inclined towards autocracy himself.
2
North Korea could nuke Japan during these talks and Trump would still claim victory.
I wish the best for the Korean peninsula but Trump's involvement is a joke.
2
Who has the concession on promotional/commemorative products for the summit?
2
That would be the United States Treasury Gift Shop. Visit their website now for a special limited offer!
1
I am so happy to see Mr. Kristof has regained his sense on the U.S.-North Korea summit. As Mr. Kristof states, what does really matter is solving the conflicts and tensions in the Korean Peninsula peacefully. The summit itself is a bold move that no previous U.S. presidents dared to make. Though I am not a fan of Trump, I would like to give him some credits and support for his diplomacy with North Korea.
It is disgusting to see how partisan politics can make Democrats siding with John Bolton. I have no choice but to call them with the same word Trump often use: Hypocrites!
1
The liberals in their abject hatred and ever compounding misery now turning to absolute panic over what awaits them in November will NEVER give this great and only real leader we have had since Eisenhower an ounce of credit for anything.
They cannot because it would completely unhinge them to admit the amazing successes of this man and the pure failure of all they have attempted and continue to attempt with a goal no less than the destruction of our great society.
2
A good example of what is wrong with the conservative base. They cannot see what is obviously in front of all of us: a corrupt, racist and pampered businessman, too old to even string a coherent sentence together. Seriously, have you seen his appearances and speeches or read any of the transcript? They do not make any sense. I do not care about what your political opinions are but the president so obviously has no idea what he is talking about most of the time. All he has done is to pass the conservative policies of his puppet masters who represent the worst elements of the GOP and broken every rule in the book while doing so. The economy might look good for now but, believe me, that will not last. When you put fools in charge, disaster ensues.
1
One cannot argue with "logic" like that.
1
Delusion must be bliss
1
Democrats placing petty partisan politics over the good of the country? How dare they act like Republicans!
Kristof's column largely echoes the analysis in RINOcracy.com. http://www.rinocracy.com/2018/06/03/blog-no-180-north-korea-and-trump-wh... "North Korea and Donald Trump: What Now?" Like Kristof, that site has seldom found reason for positive comment about Trump. But after considering the possible pitfalls of the scheduled summit, it concluded that Trump deserves a cautious and tentative nod of approval for his current approach: "Given the limited appeal of available alternatives, skeptics of Trump’s initiative should probably show some restraint in their criticism and try to support him to the extent possible."
RINOcracy.com also observed "That does not mean, it might be added, that Trump is entitled to support for his intention, reported in the Wall Street Journal, to hold a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin. There is no urgent need for such a meeting and, given Trump’s peculiar affection for the Russian leader, any such a meeting would be likely to produce more mischief than anything else."
He has openly said he does not need to prepare for this. If I thought he would actually accomplish something, I would be overjoyed. He is not fit for the office. Hopefully he will keep his mouth shut and let Pompeo handle it. Trump should just pose for pictures.
4
There is just about nothing Trump can do that will be applauded by the anti-Trump crowd. Even those who favor this process can't seem to find it within themselves to give Trump the credit for it. The atmosphere is poisoned almost beyond recovery.
Senator Ron Wyden said Gina Haspel wasn't the ONLY qualified woman who could run the CIA. I hope not; but she was probably the MOST qualified, but he couldn't bring himself to vote to confirm. The poisoned atmosphere!
The NYTimes keeps its "Trump fact checker" busy by constantly going through Trump's comments - and taking them literally, word for word. By this time, most Americans know that doesn't work. Reasonable people take him at his meaning. Here's a trivial, but telling example: Trump claimed he was the first "businessman" elected President. Most people understood him to mean a person whose career was in business, never having held elected office. Not the fact checker! It ran nonsense examples of several Presidents who were farmers (!) and therefore they were "businessmen! When does this end? Voters see through this - and not just his base. If you add in an excellent economy, we can expect 8 years of Trump. All this venom produces too much heartburn - enough already!!
2
"Reasonable people take him at his meaning. "
These reasonable people you refer to, how in god's name can you believe (that's what it takes!) they all "take" the same meaning, when it's by words alone he uses to communicate. His actions speak much louder than his confused and confusing words: He pulls out of agreements this country has made with our allies, giving no reasons, appoints incompetent crooks to cabinet positions, refuses to disassociate himself from his business interests, lies incessantly, and has shown himself to be woefully ignorant of history and the Constitution itself, which he swore to defend. People that accept this BEHAVIOR are not "reasonable", they've been swindled.
2
Mr Kristof, you are both a good man and an optimist which means that you have a tendency to believe that Donald cares about something besides himself and can somehow be trusted to do the right thing for the United States. That is being childish. We might get lucky and have Donald's political interests and the security of our country coincide, but that is really trusting in luck, something that we should not be prepared to do.
The narrative that North Korea is a nuclear threat to the United States is a false one. The despicable north Korean dictator is not crazy. If the worst happens, it will be because our semi literate very stable genius causes it.
3
Trump today: “I think I’m very well prepared. I don’t think I have to prepare very much. It’s about the attitude,”
That might work for a job interview, though the person may not last long in the company, but not for complex discussion on the fate of the Korean peninsula. Frankly "childish" describes Trump's attitude.
2
This commenter is exactly right:
"I myself prefer talks to no talks and hope for the best. But until we see the results, it seems premature to praise this summit too much."
Talks indeed are better than no talks. But talks that don't result in a useful deal are worse than no talks. The outcome of the Trump/Kim meeting is still anyone's guess. But I have no doubt that a Clinton/Kim meeting wouldn't even have happened.
It would have been just more of the same had Hillary Clinton won. Kim would have worked out the remaining bugs in NK's ICBMs, and then would have tapped the US on the shoulder and said: "In case you haven't noticed, NK can now drop nuclear bombs on US cities. We'd like to talk. Interested?"
1
Mr. Kristof, for once I must disagree with you. Democrats (and I hope many others) are right to be concerned about what Mr. Trump is doing and will do on June 12 when he meets with Mr. Kim.
NPR News today reported that Mr. Trump is not doing a "lot of preparation" for this meeting. He apparently believes he can rely on his personality alone to negotiate with Mr. Kim.
This boggles the mind. No other president would behave this way, let alone announce it.
As an example, today I met with hospital representatives about a too-large bill from their ED. I prepared for the meeting, listing what went wrong, why I think the bill is too large and what I want them to do about it.
Mr. Trump is meeting with a country that could destroy a large part of the world on a whim. Yet he sees no reason to work on preparation before his meeting.
I wish Mr. Trump great success in this meeting even though I am not a fan of his. I really do. But I fear little will come of a meeting in which there is no preparation for success.
2
It's simple. If an agreement is reached that is not as comprehensive in verified inspections as the Iran agreement, then it's a failure.
3
Mr. Kristof should wait before drawing his conclusions. We do not know how this going to play out and other countries hold all the cards. This is how the current situation appears to me: military intervention or any pre-emptive strike on North Korea is impossible. China will oppose it, Russia will oppose it, South Korea will not facilitate it and the size of the North's military implies horrendous casualties in a war on both sides. As a result, there is no real pressure on North Korea apart from sanctions. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. No side is seriously contemplating any kind of military action. That option only exists in feverish media speculations, mostly in the US. What is happening now is that, for some reason, the Trump administration really wants to settle with North Korea. Between the lines, the administration is asking North Korea, South Korea and China for a graceful exit: just give us something that allows us to claim "victory" at home. South Korea will play ball and North Korea as well as China have a lot to gain from this, unless they fail to resist the temptation to try and exploit the perceived weakness in the US administration and push it too far.
1
True, but Mr. Kristof was criticising Democrats' unconditional resistance, not predicting the outcome of the NK talk. In truth, Mr. Kristof was the childish one here, for speaking taboo. The backlash is immediate. Poor Mr. Kristof.
This commenter says we all worry too much:
"Kim has no desire to see his country wiped off the map and he knows he has neither the fire power, the resources or funding to engage in any military expedition."
I think we all agree that the US, not North Korea, would win any "battle of the nukes." Just the same, many of us who live on the West Coast would prefer that a nuke war not happen, regardless of which side ends up winning it.
Previous administrations, and Hillary Clinton, decided that ignoring the issue, or appeasing North Korea, was the best way to prevent a nuclear war with North Korea. Trump decided this wasn't the best way -- better, he thought, to force the issue.
Maybe Trump's approach is wrong; maybe it's right. That remains to be seen. I tend to think he's right to force the issue now.
1
I'll admit it: I'd feel better -- at this point -- if Hillary Clinton, not Trump, were meeting with Kim. But I very seriously doubt we'd have reached "this point" if Hillary Clinton were President. We'd still be muddling along with the previous administrations' (Obama, Bush the Younger, and Bill Clinton) appeasement policies, and North Korea would be working out the remaining kinks in its ICBM program.
For better or worse, we can't separate the two. We reached "this point" only because Trump rattled his sword (which Clinton wouldn't have done), and so now Trump (and not Clinton) gets to negotiate with Kim.
1
"We" reached this point because NK, with the assistance of China, russia, possibly Pakistan and others, developed ICBMs and thermonuclear warheads. This had always been their stated goal, and when it obvious they'd accomplished this, in spite of sanctions, there was/is no choice but to deal with them as member of the nuclear club. It had nothing to do with whichever president we had/have. Our fake president, with his childish saber rattling and name calling, did nothing to improve the situation. ANY U.S. president would have been FORCED to negotiate with NK, as we are now.
2
As someone who has been working for a peaceful world for most of his life, I wish Mr. Trump much success in his upcoming negotiation with North Korea. But, given Mr. Trump's erratic behavior, I also applaud the Democrats for pressuring him not to turn the meeting into a reality show, giving away the store on the hope of receiving the Peace Noble Prize.
Mr. Trump recklessly withdrew the US from Iran's nuclear agreement, labeling it "The worst deal in American history". And by doing that, he implicitly set a standard for such agreements. Now, any agreement reached by his administration with North Korea MUST be many times better than the one that P5+1 reached with Iran.
To have a sliver of hope that the Iran's nuclear agreement could survives Mr. Trump, it is important that Trump and the US public will be repeatedly reminded of this standard. And I believe that is exactly what the Democrats' letter is trying to accomplish.
2
"Trump is finally investing in the kind of diplomatic engagement that he used to denounce, and that we should all applaud."
If only that were true. To my eyes, he is simply programming an installment of a reality TV series searching for ratings. Watch for the subsequent blustery exchanges and the explosive final episode.
3
Nick, it could readily be the right thing if this flaky man (and I don't mean Kim) could be trusted to sit across the table from a well-prepared adversary. On far lesser matters of snap judgment, and of preparedness to deal with issues, 45 has abjectly failed us as a nation. Is the approach to Kim the right thing if this task is completely over 45's head??
1
There's good chance that Trump is childishly playing along with North Korea's lead that could, if history is any guide (it always it, as Mr Kristof should know), very well likely collapse with NK getting the life support it needs to keep its brutal dictatorship.
With the sanctions finally bringing NK to the table, US had a chance to pressure NK to do what really needs to be done, a complete disarmament of WMDs and a sincere change of system. Instead, they're being promised with Skyscrapers and 'prosperity' that, if it were showered with the money to build one, NK would never be able to manage under its sham of a governance anyway, with a 'gradual change' that turned out to be a nothingburger many times over.
Why expect anything different? Is it because of Trump? If anything, Mr Trump will harm its allies because that's what comes easy to him.
The democrats for once put a very necessary pressure. Don't call them childish for doing the right thing. Fretting because it doesn't fit one's unrealistic dreams looks more childish to me.
2
And, realistically, he might get a deal about as good as the Iran nuclear deal (was).
1
Talks with North Korea could yield beneficial results. Indeed, given Trump's bellicose rhetoric against N.K. earlier, the toning down of that rhetoric is welcome. But it's not clear that these negotiations will yield beneficial results. Since these negotiations implicate South Korea, China and Japan, those powers may prefer to work with North Korea whatever the United States chooses to do. They might wish to trade with N. Korea and thus relieve sanctions and thereby a pressure point on that country. And that might not require N.K. to do very much with respect to destroying its nuclear arsenal. So while the temperature might go down in this controversy, the result might not amount to what the U.S. finds desirable.
Now, to the question of the Democrats' hypocrisy: Trump is often accused of trolling the media and his enemies. The Democrats' position on this issue trolls the Republicans and Trump. They have taken up the positions long trumpeted by Republicans, which points out the hypocrisy of the Republicans who may now drastically reduce their 'demands' on North Korea. Republican opposition in the past prevented those sorts of imperfect compromises.
I myself prefer talks to no talks and hope for the best. But until we see the results, it seems premature to praise this summit too much.
It is great to read an article from NYtimes that has fair points on the North Korean issue, which are based on the factual information not emotions.
Thanks for the article!
1
What is wrong with Democrats in the Senate acting in their constitutional role to advise the president? Why is this childish?
At least the Democrats are not sending a letter signed by the entire Senate caucus behind Trump's back directly to Kim advising him NOT to sign anything with Trump since the next president could reverse it.
The way the entire senate GOP caucus sent a letter to the ayatollahs of Iran telling them the same about Obama's nuclear deal.
Democrats, statesmen and patriots, negotiate with OUR president.
Republicans putiing party before country negotiate with OUR enemies.
I will bookmark this article. It is in contention for my "false equivalency of the year" award.
5
In order to "give peace a chance," we need to at least give Trump a chance..
2
The Democrats are wrong to act upon on Trumps expected failure to come to any sort of arms control agreement with North Korea during the Don and Kim photo op before he fails. Seems like politics 101, if your opponent is defeating themselves, let them.
Excellent column! I have long thought that the Democrats' white hot hatred of Trump would eventually hurt them by blinding them to reality in all its nuance. Should we risk nuclear war so that they can take more jabs at the horrible Trump? Or should we swallow our pride and admit that Trump accomplished something pretty great? Like so many people, I was terrified when Trump was elected. But the Korea breakthrough is a huge relief that gives me renewed faith that we will get through these times. It would be great if Schumer and the other Democrats could take the same approach and appreciate something that is positive for all of humanity.
2
I don't think we are against talking. It's more a matter that win-win solutions require that both sides are able to compromise, which is questionable with both sides.
There is also the fact that Kim Yong Choi is smart enough to promote North Korean hackers to be a major threat to worldwide Internet connections. Do we have anyone as smart on our side that Trump has not fired?
2
If Trump manages some good things internationally, I will be pleased. I was pleased when Nixon ended the Viet Nam war and opened relations with China. Those things didn’t change the fact that he needed to be removed from office, but they were still good things. I’m hoping for the best on the Korean Peninsula. May not happen, but I’m hoping. Whatever happens, I will vote for democrats in the fall to get a congress that can constrain Trump and, if it turns out to be legally emergent, remove him from office.
2
As has been the case since Teddy Roosevelt blessed the treaty of Portsmouth to end the Russo-Japanese war thereby handing Korea over to Japanese colonial rule and more than a century of misery, four great powers have been responsible for the division and suffering on the Korean peninsula: the U.S., Japan, Russia, and China.
I despise the Trump Presidency. But if the President can be moved to support an effort to end the Korean War, I support the effort. The four major powers responsible for the mess need to negotiate an agreement supporting an independent, non-aligned, neutral Korea; a Switzerland for Asia. Senator Schumer and the Democrats need to encourage and support the effort and keep the focus on making a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and freeing it once and for all from outside interference. Peace now and forever. Hands off Korea.
1
The real threat of a nuclear war is the USA with a rogue president like Trump and his cohorts.
Trump wants the publicity, nothing else.
If the nation would really deal honestly with NK the American government would offer NK a non-aggression treaty and an end of sanctions. But even then, would NK even trust the US? The Iranians could not, even with other nations co-signing the agreement, Trump walked away without any thought of consequences.
Whatever criticism Democrats have, it is for home use only and makes really no difference. The whole meeting is nothing but a publicity stunt for the midterm elections.
More worrisome will be the 2020 presidential election, we may be at war in Iran if it will help Trump to win the election. The rogue nation is now the USA. The nation has a huge military budget while not one nation in the world is about to invade the US, and all the jingoism has been turned up too.
4
Maybe this is why the Democrats are unhappy: Trump says he doesn't need to prepare for North Korea summit: 'It's about attitude'
4
If anything good could come from these talks, Trump will manage to obliterate it. He is simply desperate for a victory for himself, even the most diaphanous appearance of one, anything ... anything beyond tax cuts for the uber-wealthy and the imminent indictment from Mueller. China, ever cognizant of Trump's myriad weaknesses, is skillfully playing him with North Korea as the proxy.
"We'll see," as Trump likes to say. I could not agree more -- not about any useful deal with North Korea -- but about his guilt and the ensuing election results in November.
3
Yes, it's possible Trump will obliterate the progress made, and end up with nothing. That disappointing outcome would put him in the same company as Obama, both Bushes and Clinton. But unlike them, there's a chance he could do better.
1
" But unlike them, there's a chance he could do better. "
Only because he's currently holding that office and "chance" always refers to future events.
Speculation is just that.
I find the headline to this column totally offensive. The Democratic Senate leadership stated its conditions for supporting a deal with North Korea. Unlike Republicans, who in a similar situation sent their letter not to President Obama but to Iran's leadership, the Democrats' action is appropriate and responsible. I happen to think their conditions are too hard line, but they are clearly thinking that they have to influence two erratic leaders, one of whom is our own. Blaring that their strategy is "childish" creates a false equivalency that blows the mind.
2
Maybe Democrats think that Trump will do the opposite of what they suggest, no matter what it is. I also hope that we can spend the next two years talking or negotiating, or talking about talking, or anything but threatening , or having, nuclear war. The question is how to manage an impulsive, narcissistic, not very capable president to accomplish that end. Mentioning the possibility of a peace prize was a stroke of genius in its appeal to Trump's vanity, but I'm not sure similar moves would be effective if they came from Democrats.
Both North Korea and Trump broke every agreement they ever made. If there weren't so much at stake it would be amusing to see each of them try to stab the other in the back.
1
Mr. Kristof, you recognize that the meeting is a _concession_, not an _accomplishment_, and that the concession was essentially without preconditions. So what are the costs & benefits of this massive, unconditional concession? It's sort of obvious that a concession will temporarily ease tensions, sort of like handing the mugger your wallet also eases tensions. In this spirit, was allowing Hitler to annex the Sudetenland a step towards peace?
I agree it would be unrealistic for a deal to require anytime, anywhere inspections. What would be realistic is a deal similar to the Iran deal that Trump just tore up -- because "it wasn't tough enough".
Finally, remember that Trump himself helped foment the momentum towards military confrontation with his demented provocation-by-tweet.
There's no coherence to this foreign policy. There is not even a "policy". The negotiating pattern of our dear leader reveals not a desire for peace, but narcissism. Michelle Goldberg put it well:
"Even a casual newspaper reader — which, of course, Trump is not — knows that when North Korea talks about “denuclearization,” it doesn’t mean unilaterally giving up all its nuclear weapons. A hastily arranged meeting between two bellicose egomaniacs, premised on a basic misunderstanding, is unlikely to resolve one of the world’s most intractable geopolitical conflicts; a flimsy agreement that roughly preserves the status quo seems like a best-case scenario. "
I can only see three or four possible outcomes:
1. Nothing gets done, and Trump brags about his success.
2. Some symbolic things get done, and then hopefully Trump declares Total Victory, then forgets the whole thing and grownups build on the lmited success.
3. The whole thing blows up, and I mean that literally.
4. Trump sells out South Korea and Japan more or less openly, Kim's power grows, China expands even more, Asian countries cut deals with both of them since they cannot trust us, and about twenty years down the road, we end up in a war.
1
The crux of the argument is, "he's awful but not as bad as a nuclear holocaust". Really compelling straw-man argument.
Trump blew up the Iranian treaty like a six year old repairing a watch with a power-drill. Now we're supposed to say we're behind his "efforts"?
Yet the Democrats are "a problem".
We have had our fill of magical thinking.
2
It is true that Democrats should be happy that Trump is willing to negotiate with NK. Any deal that is acceptable to South Korea should be acceptable to the US. But Trump should not be allowed to be so inconsistent in his approach to Iran and NK. He is letting NK keep its missiles and bombs, but wants to sanction Iran for sticking with the deal already signed - Congress, especially Democrats, need to demand an explanation.
5
Thank you. That needed to be said
1
If the citizens of this nation cannot or will not see what a danger Trump and his Republican enablers represent to the future of our nation, then truly all is lost. Mr. Kristof is not helping define the battle lines that have been drawn under a one-party Republican Congress, Supreme Court and White House - the latter being filled with Trump and his cronies. "Fair and balanced" is a useless waste in the face of these dangers. The more relevant question is: Which side are you on?
3
Childish behavior and pettiness is what Republican are and have been for the last ten years. You are barking up the wrong tree.
3
Please Democrats don’t ruin this opportunity to prove that we can work for a system of governance that is beneficial for the country. You played a part in creating this boil. Digging in and stigmatizing those who are looking for choices they can live with is not the way. Don’t dig in your heals. Don’t you realize that simple answers come from simple questions.
3
I'm not sure how discussing facts is "stigmatizing," anybody; does this work like Newt Gingrich's plaint that the media was lying about him by quoting him correctly?
1
Kristoff is taking about the usual gang of Democratic politicians who can't be trusted — although Sherrod Brown is a surprise.
But to me it has nothing to do with whether Trump can be trusted. We know from his past performance that he can't. Look how his last round of behavior sabotaged the projected talks.
Remember, the demands he stated before as prerequisites were not just the dismantling of the DPRK's test sites, but the complete elimination of their nukes.
Now it seems like those inane Democrats are taking that hard-line position. (Maybe it's a reverse strategy, knowing that because they're Democrats Trump will do the opposite.)
Sorry, Mr. Kristoff, but even if Trump pulls this off he'll still be leagues away from deserving anything but scorn because of all the other garbage he's pulled.
I'm wondering: Did you forgive Nixon all his transgressions because he opened up China?
2
Instead if playing Trump as the villain, Kim could just as easily play him for what he really is...the fool.
2
I don’t think that’s exactly correct. It seems to me that Democrats in Congress have little faith in Trump’s ability to secure a deal. Why?
A. They fear Donald Trump will be woefully unprepared when he sits down with Kim Jong-un, who will be prepared to discuss everything.
B. Many of them know the history of US/NK efforts to establish peace (failure after failure] and think Trump has already given away too much leverage.
C. Kim Jong-un has played his role quite brilliantly and is getting what his father & grandfather couldn’t: a face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States.
One other thing to remember (and I’m sure Trump has no idea): The first chapter in any North Korean history book is the US attack that destroyed much of the country and killed thousands of civilians but ended in the stalemate we still live with today. They really have every right to see us as enemy #1.
I think it’s quite wise for Democrats to sit back and see how this plays out before praising Trump. The chances are decent that this will go nowhere, or that Trump will accept something negligible and call it a day. Or, even worse, their Dear Leader will insult our Dear Leader and John Bolton will get his war.
1
If Trump reneged on the Iran deal, why would anyone trust him on a North Korea deal? Why would any nation believe our agreements are worth the paper they're written on?
Please enlighten me, Mr. Kristof.
www.newyorkgritty.net
6
No, Democrats and anyone with a brain merely point out the downside of granting Kim status on the world stage, and at best getting an agreement that will require long term monitoring of actions for verification... exactly like the one with Iran that Trump just negated on a campaign promise whim. Makes....no.....sense. But then that is Trump in a nutshell.
1
Trump is actually doing something right??? There are multiple reports that his staff cannot get him to prepare himself for this summit. His encyclopedic familiarity with history was borne out by his recent telephone call to Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. I presume Mr. Kristof thinks his grasp of far eastern history and politics is at least as great. By all means, let the village idiot do the brain surgery--its always possible that he might cure the patient.
1
I admire Kristoff for his 'big hearted' approach to many of the world's problems. But from time to time, I wonder if he is all that smart after all.
Yes, Democrats are objecting to Trump's proposed get-together with the second Kim partly to tell him that his party, the GOP, opposed almost everything the Democrats wanted to get done when they were in power, apparently simply because the proposals did not originate from the GOP.
But beyond that, isn't there a good reason to worry that this president is somewhat of an ignoramus and is too vainglorious and can easily succumb to the other Kim's guile too?
Kristoff thinks it is childish to worry about that?
I am wondering whether reports that Russia is assuring that N Korea will be supportive of an agreement with the USA is true?
Normally that would be favorable to international politics except that it seems to be intended as a political boost for Trump. I am surprised that our diplomatic team is not questioning anything that might be signed but later after the mid term elections be discarded.
This meeting has been so rushed with an advisary who has never kept their word in prior agreements. We will see how much of this will be actionable before the mid terms and how much is only worth the paper it is written on.
Putin is a master strategist and I suspect he is playing us with his pawn Trump.
While watching comments from Donald Trump about K.J.U. during his presidential campaign, it was interesting to see the similarities in speech patterns and behavior of the two men.
I suspect the reason D.T. is able to bridge the divide with KJU where most other presidents have not, is because he understands how his mind functions. He understands that because he IS that.
I don't disagree that the Democrats' recent letter to the President presented unrealistic and frankly unreasonable positions - though they basically mirror Trumps' critiques of the Iran deal when he torpedoed it - that were most likely politically motivated. That said, even though I want to believe that a lasting peace with North Korea is possible, I certainly understand the skepticism.
Trump has already granted significant concessions to Kim and his regime. As Kristof notes, it certainly appears he is getting played. North Korea is either trying to extract sanctions relief without committing to anything, or sees an opportunity to win support in the international community and portray Trump as the villain of the piece when it inevitably falls apart - a fairly incredible but not unreasonable proposition at this point.
Based on past experience with this President, if he feels he is going out of his way to be "nice," and is then rebuffed or manipulated, he will almost certainly lash out when he realizes it. I fear that this summit will ultimately push the country much closer to war.
I am appalled at the number of commenters who still think this is a all about Democrats and Republicans. It is not. We are facing a fierce struggle for the survival of our democracy. Those who have not taken this reality in are living in a fantasy world and represent a danger to the future of our nation.
3
Let's face it Schumer et al are a bunch of old ninnies with the collective imagination of peanuts. Trump is to be commended for his innovative approach and admonished for his total lack of any apparent foreign policy strategy. The Japanese are and should be rightly concerned.
3
Whenever I read reactions to anything potentially positive coming out of the Trump administration, I am reminded of Nobel Prize-winning author Doris Lessing, who submitted a manuscript to her longtime publisher under a pseudonym as an experiment. She was rejected. If Obama's name were attached to this effort with North Korea, would we feel differently? Last week the NYT featured the story of Keith Mumphery, whose NFL career was ended and life ruined because of a travesty of justice. Betsy DeVos reversed the Obama-era "Dear Colleague" campus sexual assault policy that made this travesty possible, saying it "lacked basic elements of fairness," yet at the time, the knee-jerk reaction was Obama good, DeVos bad. We have lost all pretense of objectivity. It seems the only thing worse than nuclear war would be to attribute something positive to Trump.
7
Mumphrey's case is apparently a miscarriage of justice and I hope he wins his lawsuit.
But the overwhelming miscarriages of justice have been against women who have been raped. DeVos's relaxing of standards does nothing to help them.
And does nothing to solve the problem, which is one of criminal justice and should not be dependent upon college authorities to sort out.
DeVos already has piled up a dismal record heading Education. She doesn't deserve to be praised for one possibly positive act amid a ton of mindless and destructive ones.
Kristof is too quick to give Trump credit and accuse the Democrats of ill-advised obduracy on North Korea. We have yet to see that anything will come out of the Trump-Kim dance of grand-standing egos with weird hair choices other than self-congratulatory declarations. N. Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear capacity. Both Kim and Trump want a PR victory. Yes, the president of S. Korea has worked hard and deserves credit. And we should all be glad that Trump isn't threatening to nuke Korea. It's doubtful that Kim would actually have ever used his weapons, other than for his current purpose - to negotiate funding and access for N. Korea. So to claim that Trump is removing the threat of nuclear conflict with N. Korea is a stretch of the imagination.
It is interesting to me that Mr. Kristof mentioned that Bill Clinton offered inside information to the author of the new book "The President is Missing" . The fact that there is a tunnel that leads from the White House to a "Treasure Room" creates an unavoidable realization that it would be where you could find the bound and fettered president - somewhat like a page out of a tenth century novel. Instead of a president, however, would have been a Magdalene Queen of Christiandom forever now missing from history.
Childishly. Are you kidding me ??? The Toddler in Chief is occupying the Oval Office, spouting gibberish, scheming and scamming. Do better.
3
If you can believe a Trump advisor, he stated on NOR that this would result in a Treaty approved by the senate. I think he is going to learn quickly his preferences for executive orders.
Nonsense.
Kim Jong -Un rationally and reasonably wants to remain alive and in power by any means necessary. Mr. Kim has more experience and talent governing a nation state than Donald John Trump, his Cabinet and White House staff combined. Trump is terminally ignorant, immature, intemperate and insecure at 71 years old.
But for nuclear weapons and missiles a tiny isolated nation of 25 million would not have the President of the United States coming bowing and scrapping as a summit supplicant. North Korea has the 4th largest military and the highest per capita number of people in military uniform on Earth. As long as nuclear weapons rogues like Israel, India and Pakistan stay nuke, so will North Korea.
1
No President has wanted to give a NK tyrant a seat at the same table? Why not? Because it accomplishes one of the primary goals that Kim has, to be as an equal to a US POTUS. It is likely all that will come out of talks. If the purpose was to initial bilateral talks, this should have happened at a much lower level with the olive branch of offering direct President-to-president talks, provided there was sufficient progress. Instead, Trump has given Kim what he really wants, a stage and international recognition. Bad and dangerous idea.
1
The President of NK and the President of the US are both leaders of sovereign nations. No, NK is not as big and powerful as the US, but is that a reason to treat their president as inferior? If so, than Mr. Trump's treatment of Ms Merkel is wholly justified, since her nation is even weaker that NK.
1
You seem to be missing the point. trump is abusing our allies and getting friendly with our enemies. We aren't wrong to oppose him.
5
I don't think it is a good idea to compliment Trump on anything that he does. All sort of evil national leaders of the past did some good things; build the autoban, made the railroads run on time. You don't complement those past 'leaders' and you should not compliment Trump. He is a person with a narcisistic personality disorder. He is a, hopefully, a temporary disorder in our country who will soon go away. I think what would better is to remind us what a plague this country is suffering with Trump's presence, as does Mr. Blow, rather that this evil person has some good qualities.
3
Come on.
Congressional Democrats have expressed cautious support. You say Trump’s "newfound pragmatism is infinitely preferable to the threat of nuclear war..."
**Newfound.**
He has yet to impose Russian sanctions that both Democrats and Republicans enacted as law last October.
He's blaming everything on Democrats but the weather.
Constant propaganda. If he could, he'd be jailing us.
5
I get more than a few chuckles reading the comments on Mr. Kristof's musing.
I agree with him with his assessment that the Democrats are articulating conditions for their acceptance that are most unlikely to be part of any agreement with the North Koreans. But, other than being a starting place for negotiations and an attempt to move the needle on the discussions, their insistence is neither helpful or politically advantageous. In that, the Democrats have achieved a certain level of stupidity.
What makes me laugh are all of the assumptions that Kristoff and the ever-liberal commenters make without having a clue as to exactly what preparation President Trump has done or the outline of a possible negotiation.
It has been standard procedure since Kennedy was dismissed as a lightweight by Khrushchev that "summits" never occurred unless it was a pro-forma rubber-stamping of what the back-room diplomats have worked out.
Reagan broke with that tradition in his Iceland talks with Gorbachev and breakthroughs were made. The Bushes, Clinton and Obama all went back, unfortunately to the smarmy charades of formal meetings of heads of state.
Whether Trump reveals himself as a good negotiator is yet to be seen. He does have experience in the craft, so it might be premature to dismiss what he can achieve.
Unlike many of the rest of you, I will wait to see any "deal" actually says. And I won't believe any claims that there are no side deal.
When all is known, I form an opinion.
3
Actually, we know rather a lot.
We know Trump's history: of stiffing workers and suppliers, of endless lawsuits when the other side won't kowtow, of bankruptcies, of swindles.
We know how he treats people; badly.
We know how well he understands history, and how well he prepares: he doesn't.
We know that he's already told the planet that he wants to leave Korea on its own, and Japan as well. We know he blew up TPP.
We know that he's attacked NATO and most of our allies, while praising dictators.
We know that he trashed the Iran Accord without knowing anything about them.
We know plenty. Now maybe all this'll work out; but an argument that boils down to, "Maybe he's just the right sort of fool to deal with Kim..."
5
@The Owl
Your opinion is no more valid than someone else who disagrees with you. We are all the same spot of the great unknown. He seems to do a lot of caving, while piling on undeserved praise.
It's good the US and NK are talking and not nuking each other. What scares me is Trump has this knack for telling people what they want to hear then running away from commitments. He totally lacks sincerity in anything he does. If I was Kim i'd not trust one thing he says.
2
It's as though Nicholas Kristof has become a Trump normalizer, apologist and promoter of false equivalency rolled into one strange journalist.
The resistance referred to is far from being childish considering the past behavior and performances of Donald Trump. Congress is not undermining Donald Trump when it requires a thoughtful, well-informed and knowledgeable approach to such an important undertaking.
Bravo to those Democrats for pointing out these requirements. Nicholas Kristof would do well to demand the same from Trump who has never shown an iota of the above.
3
I disagree with Mr. Kristof's characterization. Would he hire somebody who didn't know the first thing about plumbing, and had no interest in learning, to re-plumb his natural gas furnace? Even if that person were well meaning, curious, and intelligent, I believe Kristof would not hire them. In that light, I simply don't want the corrupt, dishonest and inept Mr. Trump to go anywhere near the moving parts of government. The evidence so far vis-a-vis North Korea tells us that this is the correct approach. Trump has given away the store without getting anything real in return. He has already repackaged the meeting as a "greet and meet," which tells us he is likely obtain nothing, give away the store, and betray our allies--all the while promoting the untruth that it is a great victory--even if nothing at all has been done to reduce the recent increase in the likelihood of nuclear war.
5
Mr. Kristof, I do not believe any Socially Conscious person - democrat, independent, progressive and/or republican - are resisting The Con Don's supposed "efforts".
We resist him treating OUR United States as if he can be a dictator and ignore "process".
President Obama could have made the same "deal". He could have made a better one - a lasting one. But he, and nearly every one of his presidential predecessors, worked with the processes that have been in place since FDR and WW2.
The Con Don is just that. He is making "deals" for himself and his Robber Baron brethren. He thinks WE THE PEOPLE will take it sitting down.
He is wrong.
6
So many still long for the days of NK lobbing missiles over Japan, testing nuclear bombs and threatening western cities and SK with annihilation on Obama's watch.
It could be that the rocket-man is is just blowing smoke to get some economic relief, or it could be he feels Trump is crazy enough to put NK under his heel and crush them. There is an endless amount of "could be".
What we do know is that while the future is uncertain, the reality is relations with NK is the best it's been in decades and the quality of Democratic critique is petty. As the saying goes sometimes best to say nothing.
2
Trump didn't scare Kim into stopping his nuclear program. Trump's comments were answered with a missile or bomb test until he got a credible nuclear program. BTW, under Trump, Kim launched a missile over Japan. So Trump's is no more successful than his predecessors at stopping or scaring Kim. If relations are the "best it's ever been in decades" it has nothing to do with Trump's bombast but simply PDRK is in the best bargaining position ever.
Trump has already made concessions. He kept China's ZTE in business when we shut it down for trading with PDRK. He gave PDRK numerous photo ops including a giant envelope with Kim's letter. I think Democrats have pretty much remained silent on foreign affairs but they are correct in reminding Trump about the importance of verification.
You write, "...sometimes best to say nothing." That applies far more to Trump and his staff than Democrats. Pence and Bolton's saying "Libyan model" and now Giuliana saying Trump put Kim on his "hands and knees" are far more damagaing and indicative of Trump's failure to control his own people.
Applaud ergo validate his childish on again off again antics??? I approach this with the proud democratic skepticisms of my ever questioning generation. Enough with the shaming. Let's steer towards a more sane path.
2
Mr. Kristof - This opinion piece is downright silly.
If there is not a lot of enthusiasm for these "peace talks", it is because these on again off again talks are between two very unreliable and egocentric people who have puffed their chests at one another and called each other names like children. Their actions to inspire confidence. Who knows, maybe it will happen - but I can certainly understand why many people are skeptical.
2
When Donald Trump first decided to run for president, many people laughed. They thought he was a buffoon, who would get nowhere near the Oval Office. They were wrong.
Now many people think Donald Trump has no idea what he is doing negotiating with the North Koreans. They think he will blow it -- giving up lots and getting little in return.
Are they wrong this time too? I think so. But it's too early to tell. We'll see (as Donald Trump always says) what happens.
3
Our president has a lot at stake in this meeting and I believe he will do and say anything to make it happen. But, consider these two things. 1) One of Trump's lawyers publicly announced that Mr. Kim got on his knees and begged to make this meeting happen. 2) Another top official announced that the U.S. should deal with Mr. Kim in the same way we handled the leader of Lybia (ie Gaddafi was eventually hanged and it was recorded and played on national TV. Gosh, that's like inviting the North Korean leader to participate AND telling him not to come. Talk about crazy! If anyone thinks Trump should get a Nobel Peace prize for this, they are crazy too.
I am actually dreading this meeting (if it happens). Both leaders are hot heads and if they feel offended, how far will they go to make the other pay for the offence? I plan to turn off my TV, Radio, and not read any articles from the NYT on the day of this meeting. Don't worry, I won't need national news to tell me if a nuclear bomb is detonated. In the mean time, I will pray for my country and pray that our leaders return to traditional AND respectful ways of interacting with other world leaders.
1
Believing that Trump "will do something right" in negotiations with Kim is akin to believing Republicans would control him or Ivanka would influence him or Kelly could keep him from doing bad things. It's foolish.
Trump is now talking about a second day of talks with Kim to BE SURE he gets his promised headlines. Trump will sell out every ally in Asia, all U.S. interests, and ignore security concerns (see ZTE) to get a phony promise out of Kim and his Chinese allies. Kim et al will get the U.S. out of Asia and probably lifted sanctions, too.
Quit being a chump, Kristof.
1
Kristof has gone stark raving mad! Call the insane asylum. Have them send out a team with a strait-jacket and a muzzle. Only a crazed lunatic would even tepidly endorse the tiniest iota of anything the Evil One did/does/will do - especially in The New York Times. And, even crazier, Nick faults the infallible Democrats for setting standards so high that not even #44 could achieve them. Let's all hope that Nick recovers quickly from this insidious lapse in sanity [Putin probably poisoned him with something]. We all look forward to his return to the old reliable NEVER TRUMP we adore. Maybe another backpack trip on the Pacific Coast Trail will help clear out the demons. During Nick's recovery, let's all join hands and will the Evil One to abject and total failure in his misbegotten attempts to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. Democracy can only succeed when Trump fails.
1
Yeh, Nick, you really missed the boat here. I don't see any actual "efforts" here by Trump.
2
As long as Trump is for it, they will be against it, no matter what the matter is or what his position is. The next thing you know the Dems will be defending MS-13 gang members.
3
Yes. The issue Kristof addresses is not whether Trump knows what he is doing, etc., etc. Of course he doesn't; this is not his milieu, and he doesn't seem to get that the rules and the consequences are different here. But the issue is whether the Democratic leadership should be speaking out in this manner about a negotiation that has not happened yet. I tend to agree with Kristof. Whatever comes to the Senate for ratification can be discussed when the time comes;whatever other agreements are made will be acted upon by other countries in the region as they deem appropriate. There will probably be a seismic shift, no matter what happens. Trump is not really in control of the narrative, but something has got to happen after all these years and all these changes, and he is probably the right man to lead the US retreat from the world.
With Trump, all that counts, virtually, is whether something makes him “look good”. [We heard that, repeatedly, in the transcript of the first official call he took as president, with the president of Mexico.] And he likes to hector the person he is speaking with, telling them, “Look, it’s us, you and me, against the world”.
That’s what is representing the United States at the so-called “summit”.
1
Politico reports Trump's National Security Council has not even had ONE cabinet level meeting on Korea, or on anything, since Bolton took over. Trump is playing to Fox News and his base, and it's THE JOB of the opposition Party to highlight objectives for negotiations, beyond the likelihood of Trump merely screaming I did it...."Historical WIN!"
3
Trust needs to be earned. So far Trump has done nothing but destroy hard fought for agreements. It is not childish to doubt what this liar and manipulator what Trump may do in this situation with a wily and dangerous man like Un especially with Trump's history. Sometimes we may give a person the benefit of the doubt , but watching Trump's machinations through his campaign and presidency it becomes almost impossible. Its the same old question. Can you turn a sows ear into a silk purse and does Trump even care to try?
Peace takes work and Trump playing golf most days and sitting around in his bathrobe watching FOX does not qualify.
1
Sorry Nick, I come not to bury Trump, but to throw some cold hard truth your way.
I can find no conceivable reason to believe Trump has this nation and the world's best interests at heart. It's all about Trump, always was, always will be until he gasps his final breath. He has not a smidgen of compassion, decency, any sense of doing something good simply for simply the sake of doing what is right. Unless he can hog all the credit if things work out, and cast all the blame near and far if things literally blow up in his orange face.
We're talking about someone who ridicules a dying war hero, who attacks a Gold Star family, who forgets to remember D-Day, the anniversary of the assassination of Robert Francis Kennedy, and accuse Canada of burning down the White House.
Please spare me, Nick. I don't believe Trump can comprehend right from wrong. Having known him for four decades, I cannot find one, I repeat, one, redeeming quality. He is the most odious, hideous individual I have ever met in my seven plus decades, period.
He may luck out with North Korea, but I wouldn't count on it. In fact, even with all the luck in the world, Trump is such an incapable anti-intellectual nitwit he could as easily abandon and sabotage a good deal if he doesn't get enough, which means all, the credit.
Trump is the proverbial unhinged loose cannon. Yes I despise Trump, with good reasons. Trump has never ever done anything for anybody. Why start now?
DD
Manhattan
1
Look, I hope this thing works out. I just don't buy the glitzy promotion of the reality TV star.
First, there is a great distance between Donald Trump and good faith. Second, there is scant record of the U.S. adhering to recent agreements: Paris Accords, TPP, NAFTA, etc. Third, I'm not convinced Donald knows where the pitfalls are or is interested in learning about the many ways this can go wrong.
Finally, while I agree that the meeting already gives Donald and Kim some great exposure -- because popularity is all that counts -- we need to be solicitous of our allies and other regional powers.
Are we willing to bring in China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and others into an agreement to demilitarize the peninsula? What happens to our mutual defense agreements with our allies.
There are many complicates issues to be worked out. I have seen no evidence that Donald Trump it up to the task.
I strongly agree an idealistic promise that Trump and Kim could sit down, reach an impasse, shake hands and agree to disagree and continue with future negotiations and CIVIL discourse. That is a real step towards peace.
But I don't believe in Santa Clause or the Great Pumpkin.
Trump's motivation? WINNING the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one. Trump worked to destroy everything Obama did and needs to equal or surpass every accomplishment of a black president born in Kenya. And yes he is just that superficial and pathologically narcissistic.
So? ... I don't trust Trump to pursue the security of the nation or the world and I do trust that Kim will do what is necessary to guarantee his survival and improve his economy. In his quest for the Nobel, I fear that Trump will sell his soul to a clever negotiator, with highly experienced advisers, who greatly outclass Trump, who doesn't trust advisers, and whose experience is that of a New York real estate liar and thug. (Threatening people to achieve business or political goals makes one a thug.)
I am in favor of an agreement that will be a step towards denuclearize and peace and I neither trust Trump (or Bolton) nor Kim to have that accomplishment as their primary goal. If that is taken as raining on Mr. Trump's parade, so be it.
2
Trump will get far less reduction of strategic weapons in North Korea than did Obama with Iran but Trump and the Republicans will hail it as the greatest deal in American history. The Democrats are trying to make it clear what Trump must insist upon to make a good deal. Now even though Trump is a pure narcissist and hates to break a sweat to do anything, Kim wants to reduce the distress in his country to assure better longevity for himself and his regime, so maybe improvements of relations with respect to North Korea are possible. We should give Trump a chance. But expect only a little good and a lot of bragging about it.
No, Kristof, DJT does not get a pass. No he doesn't get credit for anything he does with North Korea. He's getting played. After killing the Iranian deal, he gets no kudos. Why would the Koreans believe any deal would have any standing knowing that DJT just illustrated that a future president could simply kill the deal? DJT has destroyed the USA's credibility for all future generations.
1
So far Kim has returned american prisoners, and given several other concessions while Trump has given up.....err.... nothing. To those of us living in the 85% of the counties that voted for him, this looks like a pretty good deal so far. To those living in the 15% of the counties that voted for Hillary, their liberal bubble views are a never ending source of entertainment. I can only imagine their apoplectic response when the Korean war is ended, north and south reunite, and nuclear stockpiles destroyed. They will likely give the Nobel prize to Rocket man.
3
Based on the responses to Kristoff's column, there sure are a lot of pessimists around here!
What drives this? Is it caused by a string of failures in life, like not getting paid your due, divorces, a lack of children, low status, and poor health?
Or is it merely associated with such things? Or does this deep pessimism and cynicism create some sort of feedback loop, where it leads to a profusion of the kind of failures, which then reinforce the sad outlook?
Whatever it is, surely i'm not the only one who sees this, right? I mean, progressives just seem really, really down - and this came before the election. Consider the suicides, the depression. Consider the protests, and the anger. Consider the numbers - at Oberlin, one in four students are now claiming mental illness. It's one in five at Smith. That these are bastions of progressivism is indisputable, but what do these data points mean? Is it a ploy to get longer test taking times, or are young progressives even crazier and more depressed on the whole than their parents and older progressives have been?
3
There is only one reason that Trump is in some way engaged with North Korea, after he found out that some top followers first were suggesting that Trump needs to be given the Nobel Price when he succeeds.
This was immediately picked up by his base who went crazy.
Trump will only do something when there is something in it for himself, nothing else will do.
It wasn’t that long ago that Trump came up with the insane idea to start making smaller Atomic bombs that could be used more actively.
Sorry Kristof, you cannot have it both ways.
What about dealing with Israels nuclear wepaons?
Rudy Giuliani's comments in Israel regarding Kim Jeong Un crawling on his knees back to Donald Trump to restart the negotiations are a clear reason why the Democrats should be reluctant to get optimistic about the issue. Obviously Rudy is doing his best John Bolton impression on this issue. he is not the adult in the room!
2
I usually respect Kristoff thought and writing but not on this one. "Democrats childishly resist Trump's NK efforts" is a dangerously misleading title. The Democrats's letter is nothing but a statement of position which they have a duty to offer to the POTUS prior to such a pivotal meeting, even knowing that he may not even bother to read it. Where is their resistance? Also, previous POTUS have turned down such a meeting with Kim because they did not want to legitimize his government and his policy without getting some good faith concessions from him in return. DJT, on the other hand, is giving away American's long held and rightful position for mainly a grandiose photo and limelight opportunity, perhaps a chance for a Nobel peace prize. He is ill prepared for any serious negotiations with anybody, let alone such an old fox like Kim and Xi (who, as we all know, is the one really behind this hasty rendezvous). Yes, it is true: exchanging handshake is much preferable than missiles, but DJT was the one who created such a state of emergency, not Kim who has been crying wolves for years. I am disappointed in Kristoff's unwitting alignment with DJT on this matter.
1
Mr. Kristoff, your notion that Trump will negotiate a meaningful deal with North Korea is so delusional that it defies belief. You've compromised yourself.
1
SK's Moon is currenty planning massive "economic cooperation" projects with NK, including investments in rail, gas, tourism, reforestation, and energy. But none of them is possible until US and UN sanctions are lifted, nor will SKoreans allow such largesse until CVID is achieved. Newsflash: most Koreans want CVID. Moon has been careful to assure Koreans denuclearization will happen (even as he refuses to specify what that means) for this reason.
This trick has been played twice before: Kims threaten war, scaring SKoreans. A leftist SKorean president "makes peace", and so gets popular enough to hand NK the keys to the barn. This is just round three, except this time sanctions are getting in the way. If sanctions are lifted, NK will enjoy a massive cash windfall, while SK will get entangled in China's Silk Road scheme and Putin's gas-powered extortion diplomacy.
The sanctions must stay in place until CVID is achieved. Anything less is a massive victory for NK, China, and Russia that undermines US influence and SK autonomy. The Democrats are just making sure Trump can't mess this up horribly. If Trump produces a good deal that make Dems look foolish, good for him. But as a South Korean, I couldn't help but be enormously relieved by Schumer's letter.
As a businessman, did Trump ever actually fully complete any contract or agreement as he had agreed? What makes anyone think a President Trump will keep his word?
Will a Kim/Trump agreement end up like the Trudeau/Trump NAFTA talks that blew up when Trump had Pence add a little "Oh, by the way, it's only good if ..."?
Kim has already won his recognition as an equal to Trump on the world stage. Kim is talking with the leaders of China and Russia, as well as South Korea. Trump is coming in a distant fourth when it comes to dialogue with the NK leader.
Kim-Jong-un is as good at reality tv as Donald Trump. Maybe better.
No one is against a decent deal with NK.
But who with a brain thinks Trump has the knowledge, negotiating ability, or character to bring off that result?
We're sending a toddler to a hugely important negotiation. One who wants a cookie for himself and doesn't have the intellect to understand anything in depth about the real needs here.
1
That's right, the Dems aren't complicit in this reality TV show featuring two Russian puppets pretending they're great deal makers, contending for a shared Nobel Peace Prize. Has there been any indication that DT has anyone competent working in his administration who could make this more than a reality TV show?
1
I'm glad to read someone who points out the hypocrisy in the Schumer/Menendez letter to the president. I'm a progressive, anti-Trump Democrat and I cringed when I first heard Chuck Schumer stating his "demands" on the radio. A summit between Trump and Kim is the brightest spot on the foreign policy horizon and deals with one of our most dire threats to our country's and the world's safety. John Bolton just showed us that presenting Kim with demands that seem unreasonable (and giving up all of one's leverage - i.e his total nuclear program - as a condition for starting to remove sanctions really is unreasonable), is a nonstarter as far as the North Korean leader is concerned. Now we have the Senate Democrats parroting Bolton's rhetoric and saying they will not approve any reduction in sanctions if Trump doesn't achieve this goal. Their position is unproductive and totally political, aimed at being able to claim that whatever Trump achieves is a failure. An accord with Kim will be achieved by rewarding baby steps and slowly bringing him and his country into the broader world of economically developing nations, so he sees that his future lies with cooperation, not threats of war. Democrats need to support this. Stooping to the level of sending a message that is designed only to throw a monkey wrench into the president's attempt to deal with Kim is short-sighted and counterproductive and demeans the stature of the party.
3
It's very difficult for people to get along, and for peace to come about. There was an episode in the original Star Trek series where an evil force, represented by a little spinning pinwheel, was acting to cause the Enterprise and the Clingons to go to war. It would instigate one side or the other to act belligerently, in order to further its own desire for conflict, because it fed on conflict. You can see the parallels. Usually it's the Republicans who allow themselves to be used to sow conflict and block peace. Now it's the Democrats who are playing that role. In the show, once both sides realized that they were being used this way, that it wasn't really their desires but something else acting through them, they could choose not to serve the malevolent force, and in the end they, both sides, simply laughed at it. I wonder if humanity will ever arrive at this level of insight and freedom.
1
This ain't Kim's uncle's North Korea. By blowing away his uncle and like minded parts of Pyongyang's nomenklatura, Kim Jong un solidified power against an eventual Chinese sponsored coup. A recent dismissal of several senior military suggests Kim retired (or worse) folks who feared he would give away the nuclear store.
Phased denuclearization, with reciprocal U.S./ROK steps is possible. The template is the Iran nuclear accord (JCPOA). The greatest danger: Trump will give away the deterrent store, undermining alliances with South Korea and Japan.
The problem with the Democratic Senators, as Kristoff said, is their mimicry of Trump's wrong headed arguments against JCPOA. They, and most of the media, adopted the conventional wisdom of Asia watchers who think nothing ever changes. Had the Senators listened to another Democrat, Bill Richardson (who knows a lot about North Korea) they would have written to encourage a phased approach and caution against trashing alliances in the narcissistic euphoria which surrounds the summit.
2
If this was any other rational Republican President I might agree somewhat with some of the statements made here. However, it's Trump. He knows full well Kim is not going to agree to immediate disarmament of his nuclear weapons. (In actuality someone has finally gotten it into his thick skull this won't happen), In fact Trump has pulled back on his original statements that Kim must do so or no treaty will be reached. At this stage the best that can be done is another Iran treaty which Trump withdrew from saying it was disasterous.
Trump's true motive from the beginning is to grandstand by meeting Kim in person. Please let's do a reality check here.
1
Although I cannot stand Trump, I will have no problem if he can work out a good deal with North Korea. However the feeling that I have with him (or anyone in his “administration”) negotiating is similar to handing the keys to the car to some truant sixteen year old. He just doesn’t have the judgment or maturity to get to the end of the drive without a great deal of luck.
I agree. I don't care who makes peace, Trump or someone else, if we can end the Korean War it should be done. Peace is what we need and, unfortunately, both of our major political parties are ultimately captives of the military industrial complex. Aside from that, it is not only childish, but irresponsible to oppose peace in the name of partisanship.
1
I understand that Senators playing their constitutionally enumerated role of advising the president on foreign policy seems strange, but calling it "childishly resisting" seems to be a bit of stretch.
1
China is controlling the debate on North Korea, they understandably want the United States out of the region or at the very least, substantially reduce its footprint in the area. Trump wants photo opts and a grand spectacle, he doesn't care about the substance of an agreement, he wants a back drop to his charade of accomplishment.
Talking of any kind is much better than not talking. We should all look at this little get together play day as an opportunity and not a solution. By now we all know what Trump is, we should accept his game and play along, as long as it is just play.
I would really like to believe that Kristof's right; certainly, what's currently going on is a whale of a lot better than a year ago.
For that matter, I'd like to believe that Trump really is the genius negotiator he says he is, or at least that somebody really, really smart in whatever's left at State is organizing Kim's actions and Trump's smarter rhetoric.
Prob is, I don't. I think that our guy started out saying that he wants us out of SE Asia, has been undercutting our own side like crazy, trashed TPP and the chance to restrain China, and then there's ZTE.
And I think that at best, we end up with one-tenth of the Iran Accords, Trump declares victory, and Kim starts leaning on South Korea. And twenty years down the line...
Hope I am wrong.
Democrats are trying to warn against Trump and Kim just putting on a 'show' that they will use as propaganda.
Trump wants the talks to give him a 'win' and something to brag about, even if it gets us no closer to peace and denuclearization. Failed talks could do exactly the opposite, which some people are rightfully concerned about. If Trump is going to take the risk with these talks, we should at least have a good chance of getting something more out of it than a something for him to brag about.
Kim wants the talk to legitimize his presidency. He has indicated that there is no way he will give up his nukes.
So, are these talks going to do anything more than boost the egos of the two men, and give them some propaganda material ? I find it highly unlikely.
1
It's not so much a role reversal - it's consistent, at least for Senator Schumer, who also opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
Democrats are simply pointing out that Trump promised a great denuclearization, while the deal is obviously heading toward the complete normalization of North Korea as a nuclear state.
While Trump is looking erratic and giving up a presidential meeting with no North Korean commitments, China, Russia, South Korea and on are waiting in the wings to fully remove sanctions and accept North Korea, no matter what "deal" Trump makes.
Trump has made no deal of any consequence (a deal that required negotiation with some sort of opposing party) during his whole presidency, there is no reason to think it is going to start here.
All that said, it doesn't seem that there was any alternative to a normalized nuclear North Korea because they were so committed to it, just that Trump is yet again over selling and failing to accomplish anything special. Noting that is not childish.
“Half steps toward peace are better than full steps toward war.”
While this may normally be true, I don’t think even Neville Chamberlin would agree that this is always true. (Such as when you are facing a foe whose long-term strategy includes your annihilation.)
Second, the only reason Trump has made progress is because he has threatened to destroy Kim and his regime. Given the human costs of miscalculation with this strategy, previous presidents have decided it was too dangerous to play this game of chicken.
I have long felt that it is entirely possible that Trump scores a major foreign policy victory with North Korea. It is also possible that he creates a crisis of unimaginable proportions.
But based on Trumps desperate political and legal situation and his need to hold onto Congress, it now appears the most likely outcome is a deal that will give Trump the ability to claim some measure of success, while in reality not being in America’s best long-term interests. Just as surely as our current economic situation will inevitably suffer from deregulation and the cost of “tax reform,” a bad deal may be far worse than no deal.
Democrats aren't resisting efforts to improve relations with North Korea - they're rightly concerned that Trump will make things worse.
The danger is that Trump, who has done almost zero preparation for this meeting, will conclude an agreement that seriously compromises U.S. interests and those of S. Korea and Japan, just to get an agreement he can crow about. Or that Trump will blow up the negotiations in fit of pique and send us back to the brinkmanship of a few months back, and possibly get us into a shooting war.
These are complex issues that presidents and their highly skilled and knowledgeable advisors have tried to solve for over half a century - and Trump is preparing to go in there and just wing it. Democrats and even many Republicans are right to be alarmed.
1
Trump is no negotiator. He can schmooze when it suits him, but he's really a bully. Trump's highest praise has come when he reads his scripts correctly.
This visit to North Korea may be unprecedented among U.S. Presidents, but that's why Trump's doing it -- for the attention, not the diplomacy.
This is the guy who unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Iran Nuclear arms accord, without a vote from Congress -- or more accurately, Congress refused to vote on withdrawal because Iran was in compliance -- leaving Trump the freedom to do what he wanted. Iran said they'd "shred" the accord if the U.S. quit, and so they have.
Perhaps the Dems are concerned that there are no able U.S. negotiators to handle this situation. Trump and Bolton can't do it, each would certainly explode at some point and make excessive demands.
It does seem bizarre that the Dems are making such forceful demands, especially when the multi-party, negotiated Iran accord was going so well -- until Trump withdrew. I can think of three reasons for their stance:
1) they have no confidence in Trump's deal-making ability, which he's proven;
2) they want to make America seem rabidly anti-North Korean to undermine Trump's talks;
or more realistically,
3) the U.S. is in striking distance of North Korea.
1
"Deep in the Desert, Iran Quietly Advances Missile Technology" NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/world/middleeast/iran-missiles.html
Satellite photos from 2016 show that what you describe as "the multi-party, negotiated Iran accord was going so well" wasn't going so well. Actually, it wasn't going well at all.
Read the May 23 article - it's descriptive of the secret nuclear missile research and production that Iran was doing at least as early as 2016, and shows that Iran has been moving forward on ICBM's - intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The USA and other parties to the agreement have been played.......by Iran.
2
@Azalea Lover -- thanks for the link... I missed the article. The nuclear deal did not cover missiles, and Iran was permitted to make a small quantity of non-weapons grade plutonium. They were in compliance with the deal for all inspections.
Trump's withdrawal from the accord, which followed the Paris climate accord withdrawal, and numerous insults of allies, while befriending enemy states, is what has made the world lose confidence in us. And he has a Congress that seems to have forgotten they're supposed to check him, not give him a pass.
Did you know they were supposed to vote on getting out of the Iran nuclear deal, but no one wanted to vote against it because Iran was in compliance.
So they let the vote date pass, leaving the decision to Trump.
His withdrawal left us with no moral high ground, as we had broken our word.
Who wants to trade or sign an accord with a mercurial bully who changes his mind daily?
I think the Dems are being more hard core about North Korea than Iran because their program is more advanced and the U.S. is within striking distance.
What happened to Kristof's brain? He is parroting the Republican Party talking points without thought. How is it a diplomatic victory to give a third world dictator credibility on the world stage while getting nothing in exchange? Repeating the list of "maybes" does not make them so. Kim will give up nothing, not his nuclear program, not his intercontinental ballistic missiles, but Trump is ready to withdraw troops from the demilitarized zone and lift sanctions on North Korea. In effect, he has already conceded to Kim's demands before talks start. Try to spin it as he might, Kristof can't point to a single tangible concession from Kim at this point, and there will be none in the future. Democrats aren't trying to undermine a real diplomatic achievement, they're just trying to ensure there will be actual concessions from Kim. Don't aid Trump in undermining American power and diplomacy,
Say anything you want about Trump; the bottom line is I trust him and his administration to negotiate with the North Koreans from strength instead of weakness. As opposed to the "legacy and desperation deal" with Iran.
2
North Korea is going to be dealing with a man that thinks the Canadians burned done the White House in 1812. Can Trump even find North Korea on a map?
Donald proves on a daily basis what an extraordinarily ignorant and clueless man he is. He's the laughing stock of the entire world. He needs to stay home.
1
I believe they call this "bothsidesism". Paleeze, Kristof
1
Wake up Kristof. As usual Trump has not done anything yet - it's all talk and bluster. When he gets a deal that is better the, "worst deal ever", Iran deal, then you can talk about him getting it right. Until then you've fallen into Donald's imaginary world (best brain, largest crowds, greatest President,...). He's just a con man and you are his latest victim.
2
wait......although I agree w your last sentence and overall assessment.......shouldn't any agreement w N Korea be judged on how it compares to the Iran agreement that Trump hates!?
will the verification process be as stringent as the Iran agreement? because if it is any less, then Trump would be a bad dealmaker as well as a hypocrit........oh, wait!
I couldn't disagree more. While his cronies may have thoughts on the purpose of this so-called summit, trump clearly has no strategy. He's just down with whatever distracts the news cycle from the prosecutor's steady progress. It's that simple with him. Now we get to watch him parade around with KJU posing for photos and spewing empty words. A waste of time for everyone except trump, as he will accomplish little yet claim huge success. Let's hope he doesn't embarrass us too bigly.
1
It takes simple flattery to get Trump to sign over anything -- and Kim of Pyongyang knows this very well. Somebody has already been played and will be played again -- for a fool.
2
If someone is shooting a series of difficult free throws with a blindfold on, it is possible that eventually they might make a shot. But only a fool would bet on any one particular shot that people without blindfolds haven’t been able to make.
Balderdash. Trump never negotiates in good faith and is impossibly venal, narcissistic, and mercurial in every situation. Working to support his efforts would require that he has a goal and considered strategy. Other than self-promotion and lining his pockets, he has none. Few Republicans in the House or Senate do anything substantial to check his excesses. I say block him at every turn, take back Congress...and then the White House.
1
I've said it once and I will say it again. Kim, for all his faults, is neither suicidal nor stupid. Not being suicidal he will not dare use his nuclear weapons against us or our allies unless attacked. Not being stupid he will never give up his nuclear weapons because he saw what happened to Gaddafi.
Let the negotiations begin mindful of those two realities.
Some Senate Democrats sent Trump a letter outlining what they would consider sufficient conditions for an agreement with North Korea. You consider that childish? Subverting Trump? They don't trust Trump and neither should you. Why don't you write a more balanced opinion next time?
1
Democrats must have picked up Republican habits in their childish treatment of Obama, "If Obama's for it, we're against it", party before country.
SHAME!
1
If Trump blindly stumbles into a decent N. Korea deal, then great. But please don't attribute strategy or intention to him and his actions. He is phenomenally dumb, and is motivated only by anger and applause. The idea that he understands the nuances of geopolitics is ridiculous.
Not getting nuked by N Korea would be swell. But if Trump gets us there it will be because he was maneuvered into it, not because he is a mastermind.
2
I agree. Trump's idiocy seems to be working, so let's see where it goes, and laugh when an agreement weaker than Iran is supported by the GOP.
1
Mr Kristof, thee's optimism, and then there's stupid optimism. You've fallen victim to the latter. The Democrats have every right to point out that Trump doesn't know what he's doing.
1
Childish? Call me childish then because I do not trust Donald Trump. Call you naïve, should I, Mr. Kristoff?
3
Democrats are reacting as humans.
My concern is that we're sending someone totally unqualified into a poker match with a shark. He needs a win, and is vulnerable to flattery and self dealing. His attention span is no better than a gnat. Kim knows this. I'm afraid he's (we're) going end up returning without his watch, his wallet, and his shoes, and wonder what just happened.
2
I suggest that you study negotiation. This is a vanity project. Trump never does the homework. Yesterday, it came out that he and Bolton are not doing anything to prepare and specifically are not seeking expertise. So, forgive those of us who are not swooning over Trump "doing something good," as you put it. Give me a break. This is not "Let's Make a Deal" or "Celebrity Apprentice." This is high level diplomacy. I am actually shocked that you wrote this column. It's downright stupid.
5
Let's just hope and pray that the Koreans unite and put an end to the madness that has prevailed there for so many decades. I don't care if Trump is President when it happens. Reagan was a moron and happily took credit for Germany reuniting but really had little to do with it. South Korea and Kim can create a great nation; one Korea. Let them do it. Even if they end up with a few nukes, too bad, the cat's out of the bag. Pakistan has around 200, India, China, Israel, and on and on. It is more of the same. And of course, our defense industry needs enemies and wants to keep this one around to justify their existence. Keep Trump busy with this until we can replace him.
1
Wrong, wrong, wrong. When Trump negotiates a deal that gives North Korea massive economic aid in return for a drawn-out process that may or may not (and probably won't) result in actual de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the Democrats need to play back those recordings of Trump going on and on about the "worst deal in history," and point out that the Iran deal was actually far better than what he'll likely have agreed to in North Korea. Hoist him on his own petard, again and again.
We don't need a deal anyway. We have highly credible and effective nuclear deterrence. That was also true of Iran.
3
I agree that Democrats have an overly anti-trump response on a number of issues, and can/should be more supportive on this one, but giving trump free rein on an issue this complex would itself be irresponsible.
4
You can praise the fake president, but if you are trying to say that a man who speaks at a third grade level can impress me with his words, then you a big meaniehead dumdum.
6
Fake president? The election result is consistent with the U. S. Constitution. Get over it.......and go on to real issues.
1
I'm guessing Bolton is having a good laugh. When talks fail and Trump starts talking about war with North Korea again, he can say to the Democrats, "I thought you guys wanted me to take a tougher stance."
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for putting the quest for peaceful resolution on the Korean peninsula on a higher priorty than partisan score-keeping.
5
Well, Nick, you lost me on this one. There's no way that I'm applauding an arrogant, egomaniacal dolt as he blunders his way blindly to this meeting of erratic minds. Since when can any of us ever count on the buffoon-in-chief to do anything well, with restraint and intelligence?
8
Everything that president Obama initiates will bevigorously opposed from every angle including programs that might be beneficial to society and the world at large. Oh wait, he's not the president any more.
Not to say that it's a good idea to give back what was dished out but there it is.
If President Trump saves the world from this otherwise sure nuclear holocaust then he will deserve credit.
3
Do you actually think there will be a plausible deal? If you do, you know something about this pair that hasn't been evident since I've been aware of them.
He'll probably decide to give N. Korea Manhattan Island to get even with the meanies who spurned him.
Exactly what "efforts" is The Big Fool making, other than another ludicrous exercise in self-aggrandizement? No knowledge, no preparation, no plan...other than building a tasteless skyscraper with someone else's money? Do not normalise this idiot for one single second. And do not be taken in. Do you think this person has the slightest interest in resolving these issues other than thinking somehow he can bloat his ego even more? It is Trump who is the "unstable madman" - and not a "very stable genius"! Sad that you have allowed yourself to be taken in, Nick!
6
If you presume that these talks will actually lead to denuclearization or at all reduce the risk of nuclear war with North Korea I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
North Korea is not going to give up its nuclear weapons or its ability to reach the United States with them. Donald is a moron who is totally unprepared for this type of high level negotiation which will require a keen understanding of the issues as well as the particulars of nuclear technology. Since when has Donald bothered to read his intelligence briefings let alone done actual research on what a practical compromise that the U.S. can live with might look like here?
This is a disaster waiting to happen. There is no good outcome that can come from it. If it was a different president, maybe it could be a good thing, but Donald is in no way shape or form prepared for this and its going to bite America hard.
5
Mr Kristof...... I have a deep regard for you but, sadly, your headline threw red meat to Fox News & Trump.... who are truly the childish ones in this narrative by always blaming others... as for comparing us to warmongers that is truly a stretch... what has happened to you?
7
Every citizen in this country, and that includes Mr.Kristof, needs to be ready for the upcoming con. Fraud is the only thing that this mongrel can do right and do consistently. Why should democrats or anyone else give trump the benefit of the doubt? Not only are they not "childishly resisting", they're not resisting and criticizing enough. It's an impossibility for this complete and total moron to reach any legitimate peace deal with NK. Impossible. So please stop with the idea of giving this dangerous dimwit, who happens to be the president at the moment, credit for anything. It's impossible.
5
He can't practice a modicum of "soft power" in negotiating with the Philadelphia Eagles--and you're expecting deft diplomacy with North Korea? You must be delusional Nick.
6
Or, perhaps the democrats are right and Kristoff is wrong. Douglas Macarthur underestimated NK's relationship with China and thousands of Marines paid the ultimate price when 60,000 Chinese came over the Yalu River and overwhelmed the badly outnumbered US forces. Macarthur spread his forces too thin and fought a conventional war by hugging to the only road available whereas the NK & Chinese used the mountains and valleys and drove the US out of NK. A complete rout was avoided only by sheer determination by a handful of my fellow Marines.
Trump, whose demonstrated a refusal to study history & driven only by his gut, is being sucked into a diplomatic abyss by a much smarter and capable Kim.
Trump represents the most glaring management selection failure in US history. Worse yet, his own party refuses to stop him.
God Save the USA from Trump.
6
He is climbing in the polls little by little as the Left continues to waste time chasing down all the little tweets he sends out. Meanwhile there is no one yet that might be able to go toe-to-toe against Trump in the next election. Things are moving in the “right” direction to many people, including me, except for a few topics I hold dear as a swing voter.
Those whom call him stupid or a buffoon must have no idea what it really took to get to the place he is at, President of the United States by way of one of the biggest election upset in history. Mrs Clinton didn’t lose that race, it was Mr Trump who won it.
Call him what you want, but while your coming up with witty adjectives President Trump is slowly securing 4 more years.
Smarten up Dems, you’re looking downright foolish right about now, and it’s not totally of your own doing but every time you say that North Korea is “playing” Trump it’s really Trump whom is playing you.
I’m not saying he is a great guy or that I agree with all his decisions but the guy is winning right now so beware for one hell of an upcoming election because whoever gets nominated to step into the ring against Trump better be more than ready for the fight of their political life against a proven brawler who can get away with fighting dirty.
Stop the school yard name calling and start acting professional, sharp, and with a concrete message if you want to win against him.
3
Okay, let's ask Japan, South Korea and Taiwan if the US president or Bolton are the best guys to negotiate peace on the Korean Peninsula. It's doubtful that the North has the capability hit the lower 48 but they can sure hit Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and any of the Pacific Rim countries in Asia with a nuclear device. It would be good to have some talks with China and Russia. China holds the leash on North Korea. What would they be willing to support? Or, are we just gonna wing it and to hell with our Asian allies? Or, we could let North and South work out their differences. Kim has done a real good job in insulating the summit from other outside influences and we are helping him along.
This Democrat/GOP stuff is for domestic consumption, running up and down the halls banging on their shields.
I completely agree with Kristof, this is not a smart battle to pick. If Trump succeeds this country and the world can benefit depending upon what is agreed to and what concessions are given by both sides. There will be plenty of time to asses the success or failure of this meeting. To paraphrase an old saying " a smart fighter picks his fight". Democrats, this is not a smart fight to pick.
2
As usual, past behavior is one of our best predictors of current and future behavior. Why would I want to count on Trump for anything? We are still waiting for the Trump pivot. Trust of this president has eroded too far and you can count on him screwing this deal up. Yes, we all can get lucky, but let's not play into the gamblers fallacy; especially a deal as complex and nuanced as this.
4
It is certainly true that Democrats conflate everything Trump does with their abhorrence of the man himself, just as Republicans did when Obama was President. What Kristof misses is the reality TV aspect of the North Korea story. The master of this medium knows he can create a thrilling drama with multiple episodes which will keep Americans on tenterhooks but give the overall gestalt of success as we go through the mid-terms. Episode 1," we bonded, he is a great guy, we want what's best for both countries, details to follow".Episode 2 "The teams are meeting to flesh out the details, we are insisting on total denuclearization and the North Koreans will agree, at a price to be determined ".Episode 3," we are close but no cigar as yet" etc.
5
While I give Trump some credit for at least trying to address the N. Korean threat (something that the last 3 presidents punted on), it's hard to see him succeeding without a major assist from China and S. Korea AND the emergence of a true statesman to QB the negotiations. Maybe Sec. Pompeo can fill that role, but it's a tall order. We need a Warren Christopher, Charles Schultz, James Baker, or even Condy Rice for a truly successful deal to emerge. I do agree with Mr. Kristof that gratuitous conditions and criticism from Dems isn't helpful to the process. It just points again to the fact that we need an experienced diplomat in charge of the process, someone who can dialogue with the Dems and even share some of the credit, if there's any. As for Nobels, that's the last thing anyone should be thinking about.
3
Oops! Looks like Nick must have bumped his head. Being skeptical of Trump is one of the very few approaches that promises to be right 100% of the time.
3
This headline is something we should expect of Fox and Fiends, not the New York Times. "Childishly" is grossly inappropriate here and echoes the sort of tribalism that is already tearing America apart. Moreover, if you've paid any attention to the Trump administration you would know that nothing is to be trusted, nothing is likely to go as planned, and that the more probable outcome will be bluster, nonsense, and disaster. The Democrats are not doing anything "childishly;" they know very well that the lunacy that got us to this point will probably continue. It is Mr. Kristof who is writing childishly in this moment. Stop doing it.
1
The premise of this column is premature. Judging NK engagement on its outcome remains in the future. Judging it on its motivation--one-upping, grandstanding, ego-fueling, prize-pandering--affixes its originator in the negative column.
2
Nick, Congress has to work with the deck they are given. Trumpian or not, if the task at hand can be met then Nancy & Chuck should belly up to the bar.
1
“...half-steps toward peace are better than full strides toward war.”
Half-steps toward peace are better than ANY steps toward war!!
3
Me Kristoff is slowly coming to his senses on this issue. Though peppered with the obligatory snarky smirks toward Trump, this article concedes the obvious point that the President has taken the right stance v. North Korea. Time to be realistic when so many Democrats sink to knee jerk, partisan resistance.
1
You're honestly calling the Democrats childish because they want to make sure the "deal" Trump is hoping to pull off in N Korea is actually one which will provide us some benefits, not just some "made for TV win" Trump and his lemmings can hold up?
Does the author not recall 8 years of non-stop obstruction by the GOP of anything Obama wanted to do. Does the author not hear and see the "childish" tweets coming out from our "mature" president?!
Now Trump is sending in Denis Rodman....gimme a a break.
1
Numerous commenters respond in ways that merely establish Kristof's point:
"Poppycock to this article ...I suspect the main reason ... [is that it] ... feeds his narcissism. ... I'll be happy the day Trump does *anything* that is driven by [noble motives] ... but fear I will be waiting a long time ..."
Frankly, most of us couldn't care less about Trump's motives. If he moves the ball forward, that -- as Martha Stewart used to say -- would be a "good thing," however crass or noble his motives may be.
3
/this is "right"? no prep, no plan, already sanctions thoroughly undermined, not a peep about NK doing business (nuclear no doubt) with Syria, standing by while NK divides US from allies Japan & SK not to mention China trade war position there too undermined ... & you think this is right??
2
I'm sorry but being present doesn't qualify Trump for a Nobel Prize.
Also "childish"? Really? Are we maybe "projecting" a bit? Maybe if you stamp your feet and call us some more names we'll be convinced.
I want to see Trump succeed with NK. Then I'd like to see him tarred, feathered and ridden out of the White House on a rail.
2
Nick, "circular firing squad", Kristof. The PRNK show is just that. Going from childish comments about the size of their missiles to their man-date in Singapore. Why would YOU believe anything will come of it? Where are the details? You give Trump a victory for this? For agreeing to talk? I thought the American strategy was not to talk directly to PRNK? It will be a show and you all will cheerlead. Just like you did for Trump all the way to the White House. The Liberal media penned more stories anti-Hillary than anti-Trump. If we cannot trust you to be more equitable to our Liberal Democracy, we cannot trust you.
2
If this were happening during The Obama Administration Democrats would be calling it a triumph. They would be certain that a second Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded.
1
Leave it to Schumer to stick his nose into this issue and play the wrong side... You have Trump wanting to prop up the Coal industry with taxpayer money. You have Europe wanting to do business with Iran and the Iran deal itself. You have the Trump government tearing children away from their parents at the border. You have the ridiculous tariffs against Canada & Mexico. Any of these could be a winner and positive thing for the Democrats. But does the leadership speak out, put up a fight, articulate an argument, anything? No ... Schumer, not only a fool but worse than useless. And irritating to boot.
4
We have to be careful about slogans.
“No deal is better than a bad deal.”
We have to be careful about confusing ideology with national security.
“Sitting down with a murderous dictator legitimizes that dictator, abandons the people living in cruel prisons under his regime and damages the reputation of America.”
We have to be careful about entering into agreements which we cannot enforce and, then, making matters worse by thinking we are safer than before we had the agreement.
“If we cannot verify an ongoing compliance by the other side with a nuclear agreement, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.”
* * * * * *
I quickly typed the quoted sentences and simply assume that something similar was said by John Bolton regarding any number of agreements contemplated by various presidents of either party
I don’t know if Republicans said similar things about deals made by Democratic presidents. I don’t know if Democrats have said or are saying such things about a Republican administration.
Let’s stop hyperventilating about any agreement Donald Trump may be considering with North Korea or about what Trump’s critics are saying.
Particularly with this president, it is good that he has dropped the childish threats in favor of diplomacy and good that everyone continues to be leery of him.
Sorry Nick but the North Korea nuke deal is just another PR scam. No, the Democrats shouldn’t have made these ridiculous demands, but only because it means some of them have taken Trump’s meeting seriously.
There is no “nuclear deal” to be had here and there never will be. Does anyone really think Kim is stupid enough to give up his advantage? Would you do anything based on a promise from Trump?
So, given that North Korea isn’t going to give an inch on the nuclear deal, what exactly is the point of all this? Oh! Trump’s name all over the headlines again/still/forever (thanks NYT). Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize! Trump for smartest peace negotiator the world has ever seen! Trump defies warmongering Democrats and seeks peace and safety in the world!
In the meantime maybe Kim will let a few Korean families reunite, Hosanna! Trump’s a saint!
4
And in the meantime, Russia, and China, both allies of North Korea sit in the background quietly waiting for the US with a temper tantrum-prone 'leader' to do something stupid in the eyes of the world.
As a newscast noted, Mr. Moon has noticed that Trump loves flattery and flattery will get one to do anything, especially Trump.
1
here’s a rule of thumb: When you find yourself on the same side as Bolton, go back and re-examine your position.
Wiser words have never been spoken.
At the very least one can say as long they are talking they are not throwing bombs. I believe the VERY best we can hope for is a deal similar to the Iran deal. Who knows, perhaps that latter gets legitimized, too.
I am not hopeful that Trump will pull it off, but what is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. I don't think anyone of us would want to go there. The containment strategy has not worked, and Trump, regardless of what an Idiot he is otherwise, might actually pull it off, and perhaps only because he is just as crazy as Kim Jung-Un
OK, when he gives away the farm to feed his ego, please be sure to come back and eat crow.
1
Sorry, we are now at war with Trump. He must be opposed completely. Sorry, no more making nice. Obama showed what nice gets you.
2
Nicholas, dear, we know you're trying to appear "fair and balanced," but you're way off base here. You'll see.
4
Yes, Democrats are crowing about the legality of attacking North Korea, just like Bolton. You certainly nailed it.
It is very hard to trust a con man who has very thin skin. He could as easily start a war as make some concessions. It is nerve wracking to have this unbalanced individual dealing with the status of N. Korea.
2
Trump empathizes with Kim, he wants the dictator's son to have a McDonald's franchise in the north. He wants to see Kim modernized into a present-day oligarchic strongman. Kim is to Trump what the plight of regular North Koreans is to us (as perverse as that is, it's the sad truth). This is Trump's golden moment in diplomacy -- even if he ends up contradicting his earlier criticisms of Obama-era statecraft. It won't ever be what he ever says it it is, but it'll be one thing more to brag about. In the meantime, kudos to Moon for seizing the moment.
1
A progressive arrangement with North Korea is surely an appealing thought. The problem I have with Trump making a deal with North Korea is the same problem I have with nearly every deal he makes with anybody for any reason. It is that the only beneficiary Trump envisions is himself. Does the same hold true with North Korea? Trump, apparently lacking any in depth understanding of the subject and so prone to doing or saying anything that provides a photo-op and justification for his out of control ego should not be the deal maker. How is it possible to trust that he will somehow make a deal that is good for the country or that if he were to make a bad deal that Congress will somehow check his ill advised actions? The political response from some prominent Democrats may be purely political and adolescent for sure. Practically however their actions may be well conceived and prescient.
This commenter doesn't "get" Kristof's point, with which I agree:
"I fail to grasp how Democrats giving advice that is certain to be ignored can be construed as a is failure to support the president."
The Shumer letter, for example, isn't just "advice." It's a definition of "success" (and the flip side: "failure"). It's announcing, in advance, that Trump shouldn't bother even to darken our doorways with a deal that falls short of what the letter defines as success.
I can't imagine that Trump will strike a deal that calls for Kim just to give up his nukes, but that doesn't mean that steps in the right direction -- that direction -- won't be welcome.
North Korea and its nukes are a serious world problem and have been for quite a while. If Trump (or Moon, or Kim, or anyone else) can do something meaningful to make it less of a problem, I'm all for that.
Let us be clear, whatever he does will need to result in North Korea eventually having no nuclear weapons or production capability. This means that even if it takes a few years, inspections have to be very intrusive. North Korea can ever be trusted never to use or sell a nuclear weapon, anyone paying attention for the past fifty years knows this to be in debatably true. Millions of lives around the globe depend on us all clearly understanding this stark reality.
1
Dear Mr. Kristof,
Surely you have heard the saying, "Live by the sword, die by the sword".
So, you want to cut Mr. Trump some slack???
Nope, that's not how it works. He slashes and burns our country's most fundamental principles, fights for every idiotic inch, and you want to cut him some slack? And you want democrats to cut him some slack?
You want to hold democrats to a long-ago-Trump-smashed principle that "Politics stop at the border of our country"?
Nope. We are in a new era, called "Fight fire with fire".
Democrats should cede nothing to Mr. Trump, and we certainly don't need you as an apologist for this thoroughly despicable president.
The situation that the citizens of our country find ourselves in is way more than a foodfight.
It is a deadly serious fight, and Trump has brought a gun to it. Please have the wisdom to not ask democrats or anyone else to make do with a knife or a curtsy.
You can't change the reality that "Politics is a blood sport", and now it is abundantly clear that Mr. Trump has raised it to high art as well.
3
I agree with you 100%, now I want Trump to end his ridiculous stance on Cuba.
Nick: Wishful thinking, as this column posits, will not get a nuclear agreement wit North Korea. Neither will our knowledge-averse #45 and his incompetent cohorts. Good luck with that!
1
If Trump was serious about working to avoid nuclear war, he wouldn't have torn up the Iran Deal just because he thought it was one more way to stick it to President Obama. The whole world is now more dangerous because of that.
Trump wants what's good for Trump and the rest of us can go blow. Everybody knows that. If he does anything useful at the summit, it will be by accident.
Meanwhile our closest allies in Canada, Germany, Australia and Britain are disgusted with Trump. I'd love to hear what they say about him behind closed doors....
3
1. Remember Republican behavior. They actually wrote a letter to the Ayatollah behind Obama's back, to block the Iran deal. Not to mention the GOPs willingness to break that deal. That's just a taste of their "party before country" behavior. Should Dem's follow suit? No, but do not play dumb, either. Make Republicans sweat, and maybe they'll learn a lesson.
2. Why is Kristof so foolish about Kim (and China) rolling Trump? Trump will promise things he can't deliver. But it's not like "the wall". Int'l affairs are dangerous. He'll have to walk back his promises to Kim once the details are explained. Which will infuriate N. Korea, and humiliate Trump. We have a President who's a con man. The easiest person to con is a con man, because he assumes everyone else is earnest.
3. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Bolton is a nasty fraud, but his attempts to derail this meeting place him in the realist camp, instead of where he usually is, with the NeoCons.
2
All Kim has to utter is "Mr Trump you will receive the Noble Peace Prize just like Mr Obama" and there will be no deal too bad for Trump to accept. The Democrats do not object to the meeting, they object to sending a man-child with an easily manipulated fragile ego and a penchant for strong-man dictators. What could go wrong?
2
I think this may well be either the most ridiculous or incomprehensible opinion piece I've read in the New York Times. Trump has not extracted a single substantial offer from North Korea but acts as if he is about to make the most incredible, most significant, most historical diplomatic breakthrough that any American President has ever made in all of total history. And Nicholas Kristof buys it. And argues that the Democrats, who keep insisting that any deal should include "actual" or "real" concessions are spoil-sports. This is all a red herring anyway: the truth is that North Korea is a tiny tin-pot dictatorship with no real intention of using it's nuclear arsenal on anyone because even Kim Jong-An knows it would result in the total destruction of his regime. The world should stop giving both of these big babies the attention they do not deserve and start sending a few journalists to Yemen to write about a real tragedy-- that we are at least partly responsible for.
3
Why would anyone get nervous about a child skateboarding on the freeway? It’s much less dangerous than a low intelligence President meeting with a dangerous foreign leader.
3
This piece could have been headlined: "Democrats act like Republicans"
1
Oh for God's sake. Really, Mr. Kristof? It's called well-founded, adult skepticism. Not childish resistance.
3
Anyone who thinks Trump’s purpose IS serving America’s, and the world’s, best interests is an extremely poor judge of character and probably wouldn’t notice if someone stole the gold out of his teeth.
3
Who cares if Democrats behave childishly about a treaty that’s not going to happen? Isn’t that sort of beside the point? Much more important, they’re behaving childishly by ignoring that an autocrat has taken over the republic and is crushing it. Please write a column telling them to start paying attention. While you’re at it, maybe you could tell the same thing to the New York Times.
The Dems would rather see this fail than have Trump get the credit.
They're petty, shortsighted and on the wrong side of history.
1
I vote Democratic always.
But IF the Dems resist Trump's NoKo effort, THEN I will vote against the Dems this year and in 2020.
All the Democratic Presidents: Obama, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy,... did nothing to make permanent change in the peninsula. They were either cowards or complacent only interested in the status quo. The Democrats better not be the cowardly obstructionists now. Support the NoKo effort!
1
I didn't trust Iran, but I trusted Obama. Who do we trust here?
4
The problem is that it is the liar in chief Trump who is in the driver's seat of the clown car. Any "deal" he makes will be immediately suspect and most likely fraudulent. Expect it to include a Trump Tower in Pyongyang, and side deals for Ivanka.
2
Sorry Nicholas, you took the bait and swallowed it whole.
Our dear leaders motives are nefarious.
2
Childishness applies to one person in our current political climate.
I honestly don't know his true political affiliation, but I can guarantee you, he's not a Democrat.
You're right. Bernie is a Socialist. Sometimes an Independent. Very seldom a "Democrat" when he wants money from the DNC - which didn't give him any.
This concept of passive aggression that children play at so well seems as close as I can get to understanding the Democratic Party's current national approach to politics. Just say no is not enough. For better or worse we have in this President someone who upsets the old political apple carts to see what is underneath and most of the time it's just "well that's the way we've always done it". So for the Republicans get used to it and make something happen. Same for the Democrats. You individually are not important and can all be replaced easily. The American people ARE important. Politicians are just tools and need to remember that - not royalty and not individually of any particular importance. Come together to make something happen or quit and get a real job in the real world. Sincerely Mike
2
So childish! I wish the Democrats would respect Trump as much as Republicans respected Obama. Republicans were nothing but supportive of Obama's foreign policy initiatives. They were constructive in their input and always put partisan concerns aside. They were truly statesmen who put American interests first. It was Mitch McConnell who said "our goal is to help Obama succeed as president" at the time of inauguration. The tea party offered constructive, fact-based, and not-at-all racist ideas to the body politic. We are all better off with Republican support for domestic issues that the Heritage Foundation introduced (insurance exchanges and individual mandate), Cap and Trade, the bailout, and other Obama-era policies that Republicans had once supported and continued to support. Such intellectual consistency! And let's not forget the fair and judicious confirmation hearings for Justice Merrick Garland! If only Democrats would behave in such dignified ways and would reflect the thoughtful and not-at-all puerile attitude of Republicans and our erudite president, emperor Trump!
7
If the Democrats weren't so clueless we would not be living in an idiocracy. This said, if Trump succeeds in opening serious discussions, perhaps the Democrats can suggest he might do that with our allies and push on that. I'm getting tired of the blame game and talking heads.
Trumps successes are looking an awful lot like Reagan’s, who Democrats resisted and then we’re shocked to see the Cold War end and whose policies Gave us a roaring economy.
Democrats foolishly tried to minimize his achievements with little else to offer, right up until the time he won a 49 State landslide and turned millions of baby boomer liberals into Conservatives.
2
What can go wrong, Trump built Trump University, Kim jong un completed a legitimate nuclear threat to the world.
Trump is a legend in his own mind, mostly just a franchiser selling his name, and this is his chance to become legit, but it is Kim who wants this meeting even more than Trump, yet Kim is not going to unwind 55 years of work, no matter what Trump claims.........even Senate approval along party lines says what?
2
I do not care if trump is deceived and we withdraw US troops from South Korea and North Korea keeps its nuclear weapons and missiles and intimidates South Korea into bad situations.
Japan will quickly go nuclear and increase the deterrent power of its armed forces since they can no longer count on us.
Trump will get a useless document to sign with all the publicity his psyche desires and Bolton will start making plans for a limited "bloody nose" attack on North Korea.
1
Tough situation, this one where Trump self-congratulates at every turn, on empty promises. How can you take an irresponsible narcissist seriously when, up to now, has been demagoging all issues to his whims? Not that democrats oppose a sound peace prospect with North Korea's scurrilous despot, but reality will sink in soon enough to show the near impossibility of guaranteeing a credible nuclear disarmament, the basis of any diplomatic solution. Kim Jong-un is playing Trump for what he is, a terrible 'artist' of a deal he is clueless about, and where unpredictability reins supreme. If I were you, wouldn't give any slack to our most incompetent, and corrupt, charlatan in the Oval Office. He is not to be trusted; and in this, his graft is alike with Kim Jong-un's game.
Dear Mr. Kristof
It may be that Democrats are not so childish as you think. Consider that Trump has proven himself to be both corrupt and incompetent and is currently under investigation by a special counsel. Why would any sane citizen want this wreck of a human to be representing our nation in such fraught negotiations? I wouldn't want him to represent me in even the most trivial circumstance. If all goes terribly wrong, which is a real probability, who would we have to blame but ourselves? He could bring disaster without things ever getting to the senate for consideration. Don't underestimate his incompetence!
Perhaps the White House could get as far as to fix on one acronym and have some publicly stated goal that’s clear before we start cheering.
1
Nick, I would gently suggest that your column is some months premature. And if there is success in this effort, please consider that it is the end result of multiple entities acting in concert, not merely this man-child in the oval office who thinks Canada burned down the White House. Perhaps these childish Democrqts, as you call them, would be more positive about the chances of success if the effort weren't being represented on this end by the likes of DJT and John Bolton.
If Trump can't get at least as good a deal with North Korea as the one with Iran that he "tore up" then he is . . . well, we always knew he was that, didn't we?
I am all for diplomacy. This president is not serious. He can't be bothered to learn the history of the region & has gutted the State Dept. of experts who could help him. He is going to take Dennis Rodman with him. He thinks he can just "wing it" like he did with real estate. Forgive me for not being able to take this clown show seriously!
1
What a shame Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) rushed to judge this arrangement. It's almost like his vote to confirm Ben Carson.
Always the regrettable mea culpa from the Left.
Never apologize, never explain. As I wrote last week, Trump may well be our most successful president at causing things that weren't his intention.
His overt racism may drag that national disgrace into the sunlight. His genuflecting to the gun lobby may doom his party (if not more children). And, finally, his bellicose nuttiness may be perceived as a genuine threat by another lunatic--Kim Jong-un, who wants to make sure a madman doesn't turn 4,000 years of Korean culture (North and South) into glass with the push of a button.
This doesn't make Trump a good president or a good person. As my grandfather used to say, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." Trump, and his party, is a clock that stopped in 1949 with the McCarthy era. They are racists. They are xenophobes. They believe they're doing God's work. They are dangerous--but--but--they might still be right, if not twice, maybe--if we're lucky--once a day.
You are wrong, no one, not Democrats or the rest of the world thinks that a US president meeting the leader of North Korea is a bad idea. What we do think is a terrible idea is this president meeting the leader of North Korea. Trump is an appalling deal maker, if he came back saying he had made a deal to buy ice from the Eskimos you would have to check the fine print that it wasn't the Saudis. And if he decides he doesn't like the half an hour later he will just renege on it.
Kudos! Do you know why Democrats lost the last election and may well lose this next one? It’s called “misdirection”. I like to call it NO DIRECTION. Want a perfect world? I think they call that Heaven, and most of us will have to wait for a long time to enter that realm.
The ideal political system tries to keep the ball rolling in a positive direction and then make corrections when it goes off course. If you stop the ball, it usually starts rolling backwards. Let’s give credit when the ball is doing the right things, even if 99% of the time it’s off course. I’m 79. Almost all of my adult life, we’ve been in a stalemate with North Korea. You tell me that there’s a possibility that could change except for the opposition of a few old “white men & women” with their gear stuck in reverse? I call that “insanity”.
1
To demonstrate the disgustingness of all things trump: he is trying to blame the burning of the White House in 1812 by the British on the present Country of Canada. Canada's Birthday was 1867! I do not know if this is true but I heard he is threatening Canada if we dare retaliate with our own tariffs. Canadians want us to retaliate NOW.
1
This is typical of Nick Kristof. Mr. "equivalence." Always looking for opportunities to demonstrate his superior balance and fairness -- the genius above the fray. To any reasonably observant and sensible person, Donald Trump's efforts with North Korea in the wake of his mindless destruction of the Iran deal are nothing but pursuit of another grand photo opportunity. Holding Trump and his so-called diplomatic initiative to a similar standard that the Iran deal satisfied and that Republicans lied about, distorted and ultimately ignored is hardly childish. Indeed, a fair-minded and neutral observer might say the Democratic Senators are the only ones doing the job of protecting U.S. national security in a responsible way. A concept utterly foreign to Donald Trump -- and apparently also to Nick Kristof. Shame on you both!!
1
I can think of no person less qualified to engage in diplomacy on behalf of the United States than Donald Trump. Trump has spent his entire tenure spitting in the faces of our allies and cozying up with dictators. He is bombastic, sadistic, rude, and ignorant (Canadians burning down the White House? Really?).
Every previous president has refused to meet with the Kim regime, not because they didn't want peace, but because there would be little to gain by offering North Korea a propaganda coup. Just think of how the visuals of Trump and Kim will be played to the populace in North Korea- that Kim "brought the mighty US to it's knees with his might" or other such nonsense. It lowers our global authority, which is already rapidly decaying under Trump.
Trump could care less about peace or geopolitics. This is just another opportunity to burnish his bloated ego and hand out those shiny summit coins. Oh, and angle for a Trump property in Pyongyang. They have the best property. Believe me. The best.
1
Hey Dems you shot yourself in the foot with your candidate for President. Please don't get used to shooting yourselves in the collective foot because of ideological rigidity and motives based on a dislike of Trump.
Jaw jaw rather than War war is so much better - and more entertaining. Unfortunately the era of liberal democracy is ending and a new digital democracy is taking its place.
Kristof is correct: it’s churlish to lessen the chance for progress in Korea just to “get even” or “make points”. Let’s see some grown-ups here. You aren’t professing love for Trump by hoping for peace, however improbable the avenue.
2
Don't you know? Virtue signalling at the espresso bar and in the faculty lounge is far more important than preventing nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.
3
Well said, Mr Kristof, your headline says it all.
So, what was it that you're most optimistic about?
Multiple Choice:
1) Dennis Rodman is at the negotiating table.
2) Trump has provided concessions on sanctions, before any offer at all from Kim?
3) Trump's meeting with a DPRK war criminal for 2 hours at the White House?
4) Trump's photo op with the above and a big big envelope, that he may or may not read, nobody will ever know.
5) Rudy's off script, outlandish taunts about Kim groveling on his knees to kick off the talks?
6) Trump (really, taxpayers) footing the bill for Kim's 5 star hotel?
7) No clear, stated objectives?
8) All the above.
2
It is difficult to conceive of how the Democrats are in a position to do anything to undermine the talks with NK. If Mr. Kristoff had not noticed, the Republicans still control all the branches of government. And using the term childish to describe legitimate concerns about an individual who has demonstrated himself an incompetent, petulent and impatient "leader" simply misses the mark. This NK summit is Trump's to win or lose on his own. You don't need to give Trump any excuse to blame others when it fails; and you may rest assured it will fail and he will blame Democrats as he has consistently done throughout his pathetic political career.
No, this one is entirely on Donald Trump. And if the lowest subcontractor on a building renovation in NYC can’t trust Trump to bargain in good faith because he or she will get cheated and any contract ignored, how can you seriously expect even the stupidest world leader to cut a serious deal given Trump’s deserved lack of any credibility and vile reputation?
2
As much as I have disliked Trump and his oversized ego for almost forty years anything that edges the crackpots of the world towards peace is a great day, no matter if it's another crackpot pushing them!
In this particular case even Dennis Rodman has the potential to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize as far as I'm concerned!
And just imagine the United States' new war mentality? Peace through insults!
With all due respect to the office of the Presidency and with no personal animus towards the person now inhabitating that office, the operative phrase now must be: what you are speaks so loudly that I can not hear what you say.
Even when optically "correct" the White House simply can no longer be trusted because the appearance of corruption is omnipresent and because falsehoods spew from the White House like a Hawaiin volcano. All the king's horses and all the king's men can not put it back together again.
No, Nick. With all due respect, we simply don't trust these two childish so-called leaders.
2
If Democratic leaders feel the need to personify any success with North Korea (with that person being someone other than Trump, of course), there's always Moon:
"The real hero here is South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in..."
This effort already is under way, but it's not been a complete solution for Democrats. Moon or no Moon, Democratic leaders still would prefer that Trump fail, just as Kristof writes. If they could figure out a way to attribute 100% of any success to Moon (or to anyone else, just so it's not Trump), they'd probably see their way clear to wish for some success with North Korea. So far, though, Democratic leaders haven't figured out any successful outcome that sheds no favorable light on Trump, and so they still prefer that talks fail. The Shumer letter is a prime example of that attitude: as Kristof explains, the letter writers set the bar so high that "failure" is inevitable, allowing them later to declare that any step forward is a "failure."
Democrats find it nearly impossible to cooperate with Trump on any issue whatsoever. It is always resistance all of the way. And this is quite OK with the majority of Democrats. These are the same people who were appalled by the Republican resistance to all things Obama. It's now "never Trump" no matter what the issue may be.
If we are ever to get over the "Cold War" resistance to everything that the other party stands for, some one must break with current tradition and actually support a material issue proposed by the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with all of the principles of your opponent, or even like him or her, but be willing to negotiate a compromise position on important issues to the American people. We have historically done just that with our enemies; surely we can do it with our fellow Americans.
Even Trump can occasionally find an issue that the Dems can agree with from time to time. Perhaps peace on the Korean Peninsula is just such an issue. The Dems hatred for all things Trump cannot be good for America, at least with a foreign policy issue involving terrible nuclear consequences. Dems put away your political swords on Korean peace efforts and let us see what Trump can actually achieve. He may just surprise us.
2
The North Koreans are playing tRump like a well-tuned fiddle.
He simply is the first American president to let them do it.
Whatever "gains" he thinks he may be gathering will, in short time, prove to be further disappointments for the diplomatic agencies, and lead only to distrust of the US by our closer allies, such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc.
2
This is a good, balanced column. Democrats have to do better than simply opposing Trump. And in this case, he may have stumbled into a good decision. The bellicose rhetoric has stopped, as have North Korea’s missile tests.
2
Absent a coup, the Kim dynasty of the Hermit Kingdom will outlast Mr. Trump. I am content to hold my tongue for now and hope any rapprochement can be achieved with one of the most contentious and dangerous borders on the planet.
Democrats have an obligation to share their concerns about a deal with the DPRK with Mr. Trump but both the White House and the Democrats should have kept their concerns in camera.
Poppycock to this article ...
I suspect the main reason that Trump is using his limited diplomatic muscles on North Korea instead of his European and North American friends is that a) this is something other presidents haven't done, so it feeds his narcissism, and b) he may win a Nobel peace prize, which feeds his narcissism.
I'll be happy the day Trump does *anything* that is driven by a desire to contribute to world stability and prosperity through diplomacy, rather than driven by a desire to boost his own ego, but fear I will be waiting a long time ...
2
Trump is not doing this for peace. He’s doing it for a prize that adulates his needy soap opera self. Let’s hope there are smarter people at the table than him and let’s hope his actions don’t cause a first strike against the US on US soil. If it does, he’s done. He’s done more to damage national security than George W. the democrats are right to scrutinize.
You last line begs the question: who brought us last year with his childish "my button is bigger," "fire and fury, and " little rocket-man," into a possible stride towards war? Excactly, the very persona, who desperatly wants to get even with Obama on the Nobel prize scale....that is all. It would be worth finding out what the US is voluntarily giving up for this, just so our "large ego man's" hunger for adulation is stilled. We do not know the details, but one can doubt Kim will fall for a treaty, which might not be worth the ink it is written on. Not only was the Iran deal not honered, today this chaos administration proudly proclaims that it will ignore and not oblige to any World Trade Organisation rulings. Would you be surprised that the US would overnight become the Nr. 1 importer of North Korean Steel, while destroying all of our alliances for the same reason? And for what, a Trump Tower in Pjongyang?
And we should cheer for that? Remember, all Trump does, he does for himself, if it shall leave crumbs for the benefit of the remaining world, it is coincidental, not a sought result.
2
Foreign policy is serious business. Back-channel talks and negotiations are conducted by educated, thoughtful diplomats and policy shapers, with real knowledge of history and world dynamics, before we seal any deals with the leader of our country.
Trump blustered about how he wanted to meet with the KJU, blindsiding his minions, who had to slap together a summit, putting the cart before the horse.
So, we are sending perhaps the dumbest person we can, to, an historic meeting. Personally, I don't trust that any good will come out of this, it is too far above Trump's intellect.
1
Trump isn't doing this North Korean meet because he wants peace on the Korean peninsula, thus a Nobel Prize. Trump needs to appear to be doing something for the world's betterment in order to justify his being and staying on as our president, regardless.
Our problem is our Dept. of Offense controlled by our military industrial complex. Not one country has a credible fail safe guaranteed defense against ICBM's. For USA, "De" fence was de ocean but dat ain't true anymore.
Consider the North Korean despot can launch missiles to incinerate California and we are powerless to answer in kind.
A few days before the North Korean despot launches his missiles, the Chinese and the Russians will inform Trump we cannot answer with atomic weapons as the radiation dust will blow across China and Russia, infecting millions of innocent bystanders in China and Russia with radiation poisoning and that is not acceptable to them.
There would commence a military establishment atomic war ending commerce and world trade. Pray God intervenes.
1
Trump wants an award. More specifically, Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He's like a kid in a candy shop trying to figure out how to manipulate his mom into buying him the $100 candy bar that's really just .50 worth of chocolate. Trump doesn't care about any of the specifics of this deal, just so long as it gets him his Nobel prize. And he will certainly whine like a b when he (pray to God) doesn't get it because some people (Norwegians we hope) (not Nicolas Kristof) are not fooled by his (lack of) antics. Truthfully, I think Kim Jung Un should get the prize over Trump. How come we don't hear that? Kim Jung Un for the Nobel Peace Prize? It is interesting that I have considered Kim Jung Un has comported himself far better than my own president.
1
Anything it takes to avoid a needless, nuclear war in Korea would be appreciated.
Trump's North Korea efforts won't last longer than five minutes on any given day, and will be altogether different tomorrow, who needs to bother resisting?
Trump behaves like a drunk bulldozer driver who tears down the existing structures without the vaguest idea about the consequences nor a plan for an alternative: Paris accord, Iran deal, US embassy in Jerusalem, tariffs, TTP, NAFTA...
And this man who is only driven by his ego will bring peace to the North Korean Peninsula? The same guy who taunted Kim and scared the world with the threat of nuclear war?
He agreed to the meeting because he imagined (most likely when he day dreams about super powers in his administrative time) himself wresting away North Korea’s nuclear arsenal in direct negotiations in maybe two hours and be rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, he only desires because Obama received it (his envy driven obsession with Obama is another chapter).
Now of course the on and off and on meeting is just an expensive get to know each other. He got the world to watch, that’s his triumph. But please who actually believes anything substantive will come out of this? After the meeting wraps up he will move on to the next project that gives him the rewarding dopamine kick and the world’s breathless attention. Most likely only some sort of war will do the job.
2
The Democrat's resistance of Trump's North Korea efforts mirror Republican rejections of the successful Iranian treaty, which they just threw into the trash. Mindless, winner take all partisanship is killing the US and I don't see it ending any time soon, regardless of the merits of this action by Trump. As you sow so shall you reap, which surely the presumptive party of Christianity understands.
1
The pettiness of politicians knows no bounds.
Sorry, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that indicates that Trump has the ability to do anything other than get played by another dictator while busily destroying the relationships with our allies. He destroyed the Iranian deal--which seems to be approximately what you would consider a "win" when it comes to North Korea. How can you even begin to pretend that he knows what he is doing when that is his maniacal behavior thus far?
Outraged as I am about the con artist now leading our nation and the band of hypocrites Republicans who have sold their souls to him, peace with Korea is an urgent priority.
Every president deserves all the support that can be mustered to achieve it, including this very bad one. I expect Democrats to rise above the disgusting partisanship Republicans have displayed for years and do all they can to encourage peace.
The public would respect them for that and perhaps the cynicism about politicians that is killing our democracy would be reduced a bit.
1
Mr. Kristof, you said: "While international security is complicated, here’s a rule of thumb: When you find yourself on the same side as Bolton, go back and re-examine your position." The same most certainly could be said substituting Trump for Bolton. Trump has proven himself to be feckless, careless, unprepared, intellectually incurious, ignorant, dishonest and overconfident. So why take Dems to task for taking your excellent advice?
1
It's fine if Trump seems to do something right. I just don't think he knows what he's doing. From trade to healthcare he has demonstrated his inability to grasp facts or to figure out what to do about them. He takes offense easily, throws embarrassing pulic tantrums, and can't be trusted with military secrets. In short, he's a bungler. Why should you be so confident about his North Korea mishap?
2
This is what I was afraid of . I dislike Trump intensely and believe that most of what he does is disastrous for America . But to - essentially - wish for failure simply because it is Trump who may meet with Kim positively drives me to distraction . All Americans, in fact the whole world, should wish for success, or at the very least for some progress in this , one of the most dangerous part of the world .
That this meeting is fraught with enormous danger is obvious . Republicans themselves are already abetting the chances of its failure . Anybody who thinks that Kim and his government have not seen the idiotic comments of such clowns as Kudlow and Giuliani probably thinks that North Korea gets its news via carrier pigeons .
Democrats should not play the disgusting role that Republicans played with Presidents Clinton and Obama, precisely BECAUSE Republicans played that role .
When and if the meeting has concluded will be the time to draw conclusions on its wisdom . Before that, we should all hope that some good will come out of it .
2
There is nothing "mystifying" about what addles the Democratic Party. It is incurably and utterly devoted to PC symbolism, tokenism, and spinelessness. This was the case already when half of its senators, including Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, failed to stand up and reject the blank check for GW Bush's demonstrably and monumentally foolish Iraq invasion, and that crass incompetence has plagued them ever since (and the Republicans even more so).
Trump is by far the worst US president ever. Democrats unchanging goal (and quite predictably so) is to remain slightly less miserably bad. I wonder when newspaper columnists are going to finally wake up to the disastrous reality of this foolhardy dynamic.
America needs to finally return to the principles of its federal Constitution wherein political parties are, quite deliberately, nowhere mentioned.
If the Reps can be constantly petty, I’ll allow the Dems a little pettiness.
There is nothing "Childish" about being skeptical of any deal Trump will end up with in his dealings with Kim. Trumps past performences have given many of us pause to doubt his tactics or his abilities to negotiate, even though he likes to brag about it.
I feel this hoped for treaty is more about Moon and Kim and should be less about the USA's interests, except for getting our troops, at long last, out of S. Korea.
I think most Americans would like to see the U.S. in serious talks with North Korea... just not with this particular team at the helm.
3
This would be a good time for the Democratic leadership to remain silent and be thought fools rather than to speak and remove all doubt. I don’t like trump, I don’t trust him, but I grudgingly respect him for defying the foolish convention of denying North Korean leaders official recognition. It’s about time.
1
Hasn't Trump been pushing for complete disarmament? Didn't Bolton threaten the "Libyan Model"? Didn't Trump cancel, then reschedule, the meeting in about a 24 hour window? Hasn't Trump called Kim "LIttle rocket man" and insulted the size of his button? The idea that the democrats can do anything to undermine this "deal" is ridiculous. Trump has done it all himself. And now he's so desperate for a "win" that he is likely to make a terrible deal. The democrats are right to voice concern. They are the only people looking out for America right now.
1
The political dysfunction of our times; the moribund predisposition of our “leaders:” the other side can’t do anything right, and we can’t do anything wrong. Meanwhile the suffering electorate pays the price of the squabble over power, money and the spoils of “victory!” What hypocrisy, when tactics assume more importance than strategic insights. Quite clearly, the “best” both parties bring is worthy of real seriousness, while the rest is worthy of an afternoon “soap!”
1
I believe you are absolutely right in the practice sense, and wrong in the political sense. The Democrats have learned from the Republicans that obstruction and I told you so is so much more politically beneficial than accepting what you can get for a marginally safer world. As you said yourself, they will cheat like they did before, but who will get the blame is the calculation. I would, like you, fault them, but then I look around and see who won Congress and the Presidency and wonder really who has the right strategy. Sad when doing the right thing for all the right reasons gets you the chump award.
Trump did not agree to meet with the Dear Leader of North Korea for any benefit but his own, certainly not America or the world writ large. Recall the chants of 'Nobel, Nobel' and his wistful adolescent smirk. Trump refused to re-certify the Iran deal only because it had former President Obama's name on it. Yet, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile. Perhaps Trump will get lucky in Singapore. Although I might add that his State Department spokeswoman thinks D-Day exemplified a great relationship between the U.S. and Germany while Germany, after a month, is ready to boot Trump's Ambassador out of the country. So, hey, lets go for it in North Korea. What possibly could go wrong?
2
No we are not acting childishly. On the contrary, it is as usual the accuser labeling the opposition for how they are acting. Let's be honest, we are appeasing an unstable murderous dictator. In other words, a terrorist. I was under the impression, we didn't negotiate with terrorists. This charade would not be tolerated if it were a normal administration. Kim is getting exactly what he is seeking, recognition as a nuclear power.
1
There are people so blinded by their hate for Trump, they would rather see a disaster than Trump win.
The communist regime, like dictatorships through history will eventually collapse. Trump is possibly laying the ground work for the eventual change.
Trump won't allow a lousy deal like Obama did with Iran and let NK have a nuclear missile arsenal.
1
Shumer, Feinstein and the rest of the Dem signers represent the worst of the Democratic Party and they are the poster children for why the Democrats are quite likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Until we clean house and get rid of the whole old guard, Wall Street, establishment controlling the DNC, the Democrats will never make any progress and neither will the American people.
1
Negotiations in the past have been well-planned and thought out. Trump seems to revel in being unprepared and flying by the seat of his pants. There is a world of difference with Democrat's trying to tell something to an unteachable, unprepared, and delusional president and Republicans trashing prior presidents who spent upwards of a year in preparation for talks.
The biggest threats to talks are in the White House. Pence and Bolton pushed a "Libyan model" which for the very fist time made the North Korean response actually reasonably outraged. Now Giuliani said Kim got down on hands and knees to beg for talks. Either one of these highly publicized statements is a far greater threat to talks than a letter.
Your question, Nicholas... "Why can’t Trump treat Justin Trudeau as nicely as he treats Kim Jong-un?" The answer can be found in Timothy Snyder's new book, "The Road to Unfreedom." Weakening by division so the authoritarian cn rule.
It easy Nobody thinks North Korea is a real big issue for one. Kim Jong killed family members and decides what anyone is allowed or not in his country. I am more of the wait and see. I more think he is fooling with Trump because Jong pretty much like the rest of the world knows this nation alone more than half can’t stand this President. We all know Kim Jong is not well liked either.
The Democrat positions hardly are childish. Trust but verify has been a critical part of international agreements. To take such a requirement as a negotiating position is also not childish. To describe the Democrat position in this manner is itself childish. Mr. Kristof knows better and can do better than this simplistic piece. Very disappointing.
If Trump was to endorse the breathing of oxygen, I'd start holding my breath. Irrational, perhaps; but also a measure of just how much I despise the man. In praising Trump for anything-- anything at all--- Kristof merely strengthens Trump's hand and lends support to his entire deranged agenda. One would have thought Kristof understood this, but then he has always struck me as a bit naive.
1
Mr. Kristof, Democrats are childish? Really? I can't help but wonder where you've been for the last 500 plus days and why you believe Donald Trump is in any way qualified to understand the ramifications of any negotiations with Kim Jung Un.
Your position here is wishful thinking mixed with folly. A child in the eighth grade could probably provide an explanation to you on how complicated matters of this nature are and this administration is too busy undoing and attacking American Institutions that would have been in a position to actually make a deal with North Korea work.
North Korea will never give up their nuclear weapons so what exactly do you think will take place here?
Please stop being critical of Democrats who understood the damage Trump would do to the nation before he was even elected by those whopping 77,000 votes split between three states.
The only thing Donald Trump cares about at this point in time is staying out of jail. Every single one of his policies and attempts to implement them have been dismal failures.
Read much?
5
The Democrats recognize the obvious - that Trump will do anything to be able to say that he made "A DEAL! (tm)", regardless of whether or not he secures necessary concessions and conditions from Kim Jong-un. Kim recognizes the same - his appeal for "peace" is not based in his fear of Trump, it is based in his own belief that he can manipulate the egomaniac that resides in the White House.
1
The summit has now been watered down to a meet and greet. We're flying toddler Trump to Singapore for a hand shake photo op with a savage dictator.
Trump's ignorance as exemplified by his statement yesterday that the Canadians had burned down the White House in the War of 1812 serves as an example as to why we should have low expectations for anything of significant substance coming from this meeting.
Trump knows that he is hated by the majority of the people he governs so I fear that he will make foolish concessions to the Kim Jong-un so he can win the love of the North Koreans.
2
Yes, the effort to forge peace should be supported. But to call the Democrats childish misses the mark. It is hard for one party to be bipartisan. And, if the administration does not seek the Democrats advice, or even thoughts, I think it is responsible for them to attempt to get the #PLIC's attention with this letter.
No Mr. Kristof,
This fraudulent president is decidedly not actually doing something right. He only wants to look like he’s doing the right thing so he can further his own narcissistic desire for constant approval. This fraudulent president, who wrote a book about what a great deal maker he thinks he is, will soon be played like the second fiddle he really is, by Kim Jong-um. The only reason trump wants a “deal” with N. Korea, is so he can win a Noble Peace Prize, as did his hated predecessor, Obama.
He will want to agree to anything to make that happen, including a removal of some or all American troops from the peninsula. If that happens, God help the residents of Seoul and the rest of the South Koreans. I’m almost glad that the rabid war-monger, Bolton, is the National Security Advisor. But, of course, trump could always fire him too.
The problem with Mr. Trump is that no sober statesman or woman on earth believes he is reliable in anything, let alone a nuclear deal with North Korea. That regime, after all, is taking advantage of what they very well know to be his quixotism to extract from it what they want, and to walk away from anything they can't get from him, meanwhile having got his effective international recognition of the regime for free.
2
What's childish is thinking that N. Korea is more important than, say, Congo or Zambia, the only 2 sources of rare earth (critical to all digital tech) outside of China. Or more important than health, income disparity, racism and fascism.
N. Korea, nukes, an ad hoc Singapore Summit, a possible "huge win" and Trump's all eyes on the Nobel prize...is just political and media fluff with no upside but a downside as deep as Trump is shallow.
Korea is an Asian issue, not ours alone. N. Korea isn't a rogue state. It's a client state, China's pawn in the new Great Game that Trump still thinks is a row of casino slot machines. China wants US out of Korea and economic hegemony in Asia. Confrontation is anathema to its Confucian character so China moves indirectly and uses N Korea as its Charley McCarthy puppet mouthing what it won't say itself.
North Korea and China play good cop/bad cop with Kim as the heavy (pun aside). His family goes back generations allied with China, when Mao backed Kim's great grandfather who led Korean guerillas against the Japanese in WW2. The Kim dynasty is powered by China.
China will play rope-a-dope with de-nuking Korea. Short-term goal is lifting US sanctions so China can cash in as N. Korea's biggest trade partner. N. Korea doesn't need a nuclear arsenal when China can supply nukes on demand.
If Kristoff thinks Democrats are childish, he should remember it was children who saw through the emperor's new garments to spot his birthday suit.
6
Kristoff had a few clear-eyed moments recently when he recognized the horrors of the show put on by the swamp creatures of the Trump family and the GOP. Now, Kristoff reverts to type, and "let's be nice to everyone." In a world where Trump tells the prime minister of Canada that you guys burned the White House, where Trump attacks our allies with a trade war, where even the granddaddy of the mutant ninja turtles, Mitch McConnell, warns Trump that he may be fooled by Kim and where the PM of Japan does the same, Congressional Democrats are supposed to abandon long years of experience and fawn over the stumbling idiocy that passes for diplomacy in the White House? Our State Department has been gutted; we have a Sec’y of State whose record of diplomacy is in insulting Democrats and thinking Americans, and we have a National Security Advisor whose record was so bad even Republican senators wouldn’t confirm him as ambassador to the UN. Kristoff helped to give America the tragic farce of Trump. Kristoff roamed the world as our self-appointed professional breast beater while Trump built his base on all the ugly –isms of our current administration. Hasn't Trump shown clearly that nice guys finish last?
1
All fair points.
But seriously. No good can come of this, and no good will.
Two crazy heads aren't better than one.
We just threw away a deal with Iran where they did, in fact, allow inspections everywhere.
And how can a deal made by someone who will walk away from any deal he doesn't like (and particularly one made by Obama) hold up over time?
I note Kristof forgot to mention that Trump just let one of his subordinates talk about how Kim begged for the summit on his knees.
Insane diplomacy is bad diplomacy, and no good will come of us. I just hope war doesn't come of it. And it might.
All fair points, individually, but they don't add up to much except "What's the worst that could happen?"
When are we going to stop asking that? We already know the answer.
Crazy as it seems, the democrats' unintentional game of "good cop-bad cop" may encourage Kim to talk constructively with Trump.
Kristof makes one of the best points I've seen in years. The Dems are regrettably doing a variation on the Trump theme: Admit no good in Trump (Obama) even when it exists, condemn Trump (Obama) even when he does the right thing.
Schumer and the rest are people I respect and admire. But this current posture is horrible.
Democrats must be willing to help negotiate a better deal with the North Koreans. If Schumer's actions don't help, then Trump is a poor negotiatore. We need a deal at least as good as the Iran deal. Don't expect anything substantial and long-lasting with Trump (except tax cuts for the billionaires).
If Trump's North Korea deal does not get as much as the world got from the Iran deal, then we ought to denounce him for hypocrisy. Let US wait until 2020 to pass judgment.
These things take time.
I'm trying to think of anything --ANYTHING -- the current occupant of the Oval Office has done in international relationships that gives me a shred of confidence in his abilities. Please, Mr. Kristof, throw me a line here. Personally, I think Kim Jong-un sees a patsy for a negotiating partner and recognizes that North Korea will never have a better time to strike a deal so much to its advantage.
1
Everybody knows that Trump does not have the self discipline and character necessary to negotiate a nuclear arms deal. It doesn't happen at one summit meeting. All he will do is come away with some agreement that allows a burger joint in Pyongyang and a Trump golf resort to be built.
What about Otto the kid whose death he blamed on Obama? Trump doesn't seem to care anymore. Sad.
The Democrats have had their share of blunderers in Asia, including Truman & Johnson. MacArthur wanted to use occupied Japan as a staging area for war with the Soviet Union and /or China, only to be restrained by the "moderate" Truman. Little war good, big war bad.
Lets hope Trump can accomplish a peace treaty with NK before an upcoming defeat in the next presidential election after the Iran situation spins out of control & gas hits $4 plus a gallon. Using damage control, resting on his laurels, Trump will give Israel the green light to deal with Iran, leaving Bibi with only the evangelicals for commiseration. The Nobel calls.
1
Odd that no one is noticing that the summit will take place in Singapore, which is on the same island/land mass as Malaysia — which is where Kim Jong Un had his brother assassinated by intelligence agents 16 months ago. And no one feels this is handing to Kim Jong Un a giant victory? A meeting with the US president just a few hundred miles from where he killed his brother? Kim is brilliantly making himself look invincible, with the help of Donald Trump.
Nick,
That's because you're dealing with a child (puerile adult) and a bully in this entity who calls himself Trump—
Who has no diplomatic skill whatsoever (amply and repeatedly demonstrated). And it's debatable whether he even knows how to make a "deal", let alone keep one. That's the reason.
Most Americans wouldn't trust Trump or anything he brags about achieving with Mr. Kim—
As far as they could spit with the wind blowing against them.
A non-Democrat, an independent.
2
And he should be awarded with a Peace Price for his success. But not the Nobel Peace Price, that is a rigged competition. The real one: the TRUMP Peace Price. So much better !
If Donald Trump is awarded a Nobel Prize it will be a total disgrace to the award. He is actively directing ICE agents to break up migrant families at the border this is a clear human rights violation which is ongoing you don't give out peace prizes to people doing stuff like that.
There is just no way this deal is going to end well for the U.S. with Donald calling the shots anyways. He has no clue what is going on.
1
Republicans obstructed everything Barack Obama tried to do for eight years. They even denied him the appointment of a Supreme Court justice when there was still one year left in his term. Now the Democrats are supposed to support Trump? I think Democrats should treat Trump exactly, no more, no less, the way the Republicans treated Obama. Otherwise Republican intransigence will be rewarded. This whole thing is a joke, anyway. The North Koreans are not a threat to the United States. They're not suicidal. This is much ado about nothing, and nothing will come out of this meeting of any substance.
I am so sick of Trump patting himself on the back for so many lies and the vindictive trashing of everything that President Obama accomplished. Where is his dedication to friends and allies? Until he can make friends with people who have been our friends for so long and actually join the international community, the word trust in Trump is just an oxymoron.
It is not that we who talk about Trump in negative ways do not want peace. It is the self serving nature of his attempts that trouble us. Please let peace begin in the hearts and minds of those of us at home, something that Trump has been attempting to destroy ever since the thought of the presidency crossed his shark like mind.
1
Please don't conflate Mr. Kristof. I'm sure it hooks readers with the headline but it's simply untrue. I am an Independent but I was a Democrat. I hope and pray that the North Korea talks proceed to a lasting peace between our nations. I would like to spend the money it takes to keep a cadre of +60,000 US armed forces returned to our treasury. SOME Democrats are acting childishly, not ALL Democrats. To conflate all Democrats based on the behavior of some, is like me saying "I am a Democrat and I am not acting childishly, therefore NYT columnists can't write very well." It's disjointed logic and we don't need that right now.
1
Democrats have a right not to believe in anything Mr. Trump does in Korea or anywhere else. It is our right to disagree with our President.
1
Absolutely nothing that trump does is trustworthy and so it goes with North Korea. Kicking the can down the road until there is a responsible adult in the oval office to deal with Kim Jong Un doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me; in any case, the denuclearization of the north will take much longer than trump's childish immediate gratification compulsions.
1
It's hard to not compare terms with the Iran nuclear deal that were berated by trump.but we are barely at the 50 yard line, much too early for a victory dance with whatever terms that may improve world and American safety or on the flip side all can blow up with Kim and trump at any time and leave us all worse off
A troubling - naive - column, filled with contradictions. Mr. Kristof takes `childish' Democrats to task for not applauding what is certain to be a phony summit, one that affords both participants their desired photo op. (Yes, Mr. Kristof, we know: talking is better than shooting.) But after suggesting that Mr. Trump is actually doing something right, Mr. Kristof says the `real hero' is the South Korean president, Moon Jai-in. A solid observation. What is not a solid observation - one, in fact, that is ludicrous - is Mr. Kristof's claim that the march toward this - what should we call it? - lunch, is driven by `Trump's newfound pragmatism'. Poppycock, anyone?
2
No, "childish" is Tom Cotton drafting a letter to Iran's supreme leader, behind Obama's back co-signed by 47 Republican colleagues basically saying that you can't trust making a deal with America. In fact, "childish" isn't the word I would choose.
Has Mr. Kristof picked up a newspaper in the last 9 years?
2
Do you trust Donald Trump to competently and honestly represent the best interests of the United States?
3
"a peace process with North Korea"
It all depends on what the definition of peace process is.
Nick Kristof -- preparing to boil my shoes and eat them if President Trump achieves his goals with North Korea. Wishing him luck in his meet and greet with Kim and Moon in Singapore, for however many days he will be there (in the shadow of Dennis Rodman). Who can forget that Trump called Kim Jong-un "Little Rocket Man", and compared his "big and powerful" button to Kim's "little button"? That Kim called Trump "a senile dotard"? Right now, on the cusp of today's G-7 Summit in Quebec, am wondering whether or not to eat my boiled shoes with Sriracha or Tzatziki sauce.
Call it the Bannon Principle named for the unlamented former advisor to all things Trump. When the Access Hollywood audio surfaced, Bannon declared the moment definitive of the Donald Trump constituency. If you stuck with Trump through that, you were a certified loyalist. If not, you are forever suspect.
Trump, as is his wont, simply said that loyalty includes sticking with him even if he is shown to be a cold blooded murderer.
That’s the real deal, one entered into giddily by the religious right wing Christians, Mike Pence, and the red hatters, to name a bunch.
Well, I’m not on board. I am the resistance. I resist. Trump set the terms. I’m abiding by them.
I’m also an avid Eagles fan.
The Founders never intended to have armed citizens roaming the countryside on the off chance that a rebellion or invasion was coming over the next hill. They expected to have a standing army and militia (called the National Guard), not a bunch of half-drunk weekend warriors with little, or no knowledge of the law or rights of individuals. Great Britain had managed to survive for decades without arming the Bobbies. But we, in our infinite wisdom, manage to provide us with pychologically impaired protectors.
3
I have a piece of paper which guarantees peace in our time. Now where did I hear that before.
What deal? Trump is always about hyping big and not delivering anything. Why should everyone NOT expect more lies and broken ‘promises’ from him?
There is no deal, and it is waaaaay premature to try to blame DEMOCRATS at this time.
1
The North Korean summit is days away. one would think that Donald Trump would be diligently preparing for what could be the most crucial moment of his Presidency.
I don’t see much evidence of that. I see whole days wasted insulting football players, holding fake patriotic rallies on the White House lawn, lots of inane tweeting and insult hurling.
I imagine Kim Jong Un is at home cramming, and will show up to the summit much more prepared and knowing much more about Donald J Trump than vice versa.
2
You say that Democrats don't believe that Trump is doing something right, vis-a-vis North Korea. Frankly, I don't know what he's doing. He lies so much and changes his point of view so much that I don't have a clue what he's doing. When Barack Obama made the statement that he would sit down with the North Korean regime, Fox went after him, as did the Republicans, saying (horror of horror), "Obama negotiates with DICTATORS! BRUTAL DICTATORS WHO STARVE THEIR PEOPLE!"
Trump says the Iranians have lied about verification efforts, so he pulls out of the Iran agreement. Trump tells us falsehoods on a daily basis. How would we know if what he's telling us is true? How would I, as a voter, whether Republican or Democrat, know to trust his efforts? He presents himself as a strongman, yet he knows little about world history (e.g., the "Canadians burned the White House?" Really?) or even American history, or the Constitution. He reminds me of all those guys I went to school with in the 1960s who fell asleep in history class, and now they support Trump and act as if they're Constitutional scholars.
No, Mr. Kristof, I'm not being childish when I scoff at his "efforts" at peace in N. Korea. I simply cannot trust a chronic liar who boasts about everything and tries to make it all about him. I do, however, agree that South Korea's president is indeed the hero here. Perhaps he will be the conduit to get something--anything--done for peace.
2
And what about the denuclearization of the US as part of the deal?
1
Well said Nick. Right on cue, Democrats are forming the famous democrat circular firing squad and painting themselves into a corner and giving more fodder to republicans.
1
I think despair is the right response. He is our contestant in the Hunger Games and he stands there shouting: look at me! Just hope that others see him as a useful foil to their serious diplomacy.
1
While many Americans understandably find Donald Trump very scary, what should really scare us is the Democrats are so little different.
Mr. Kristof, do not be surprised if this meeting results in North Korea making gains and the US making concessions in exchange for expediting the opening of the new TRUMP Yongbyon Hotel and Golf Resort.
3
The Iran deal should be held up as the negotiating model for all time only the ransom money should be paid in bitcoins instead of in dollars.
If the far right conservatives coined the term RINO for their own party, how to call both the Democrats and the Republicans?
DINO – Different In Name Only
Is there any significant difference between two of them?
It’s extremely hard to find it.
Both have waged the endless wars and controlled by the big money. Both have won the elections by promising the things they couldn’t fulfill and exported the US jobs overseas. Both have recklessly cut the taxes, failed to balance the federal budgets and accumulated the colossal debt…
Should anybody be surprised that the Congressional investigation ended up with discovering their hidden presidential mistresses (Monica Lewinsky, Stormy Daniels)? Both parties claimed alternatively that Obama and Trump weren’t the legitimate presidents. One side tried to destroy the Iran deal; the others are attempting to undermine the North Korean negotiations…
Both parties have managed to separate the voters into such tiny groups (conservatives, liberal, old, young, male, female, legal, illegal, Caucasians, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, straight, gay, working, retired, employed, unemployed, wealthy, middle class, poor, coastal, heartland, northern, southern, educated, uneducated, gun owners, antigun activists, pro-abortion, prolife, religious, atheists…) so they are now divided into two equal blocks.
Thus the power stays solely in the hands of those with the money to pay for the political campaigns…
2
Excellent article. Democrats have been saying 'not B' every time Trump has said 'B. ' Democrats should say A when Trump says B. When Trump advocated better relations with Russia, Democrats should have said how to do that well. When Trump offered to pull back his awful tariffs, Democrats should have said how to do that well.
What? Why should Democrats say anything, Don isn the president, his party is in control, if he can't figure out how to do something well he should find another job.
The onus is not on Democrats to prove to the world that they can play nice with Trump in spite of his daily antics, lies and attacks on democracy. He's already needlessly blown up an Iran deal for no reasons that are good. Why should Democrats trust Trump to do anything positive? I'm so over people like Kristof who seem to think we are dealing with a normal, rational leader in Trump. To blame Democrats for not trusting an untrustworthy, unstable, protectionist, autocrat who has no ability to tell the truth is absurd. Even if the deal flops we already know Trump will say it was a great success and the MSM will be there to back him up.
2
Dems are not against a North Korea deal.
We understand that Trump is a terrible negotiator and will likely give away everything just to get a deal of any sort
2
I don't think the Democrats who authored the letter were trying to undermine Trump. I think they were providing instructions, as you would do with a child using those small, blunt-ended scissors for the first time.
2
What is so galling to Democrats is that Trump wants to get credit for anything "good" he does, but takes zero responsibility for any of the negative repercussions of the myriad bad things he does, including emasculating the ACA, delegitimizing Obama, pulling out of climate change agreements, backing out of the Iran deal and NAFTA, besmirching our institutions and civil servants, obstructing justice...not to mention all his lies, name-calling, self-promoting, hypocrisy, laziness (has Trump ever gone to visit citizens on a weekend instead of golfing or give campaign-style speeches?), and other detestable behavior unbecoming of your next door neighbor not to mention the president of the United States.
Furthermore, anything "good" he does always seems to revolve around puffing himself up ("Nobel Peace Prize!), pandering to narrow constituencies, etc. He never seems to really understanding the issues with any depth, and in some cases he seems to be doing good things for the wrong reasons.
With the storm of craziness that he generates around himself in everything he does, it's no wonder Democrats are loathe to give him credit for anything. It's his own fault.
1
Nicholas has taken the first step toward reality: realizing how maany Congressional Democrats are mindless auto-bots who can only hate anything their enemy proposes.
Capitol Hill Dems weren't this emotion-based before Ms. Pelosi took the Speakership in 2006. Would their maturation improve if she was replaced?
Thinking of Congress makes me feel better about how all of everybody-can-vote-here California only has two progressive Senators to hold the country back.
1
No. The Democrats are bringing up what Trump is not demanding that would make the deal as good as the deal struck with Iran. They want Trump’s lame bombast to be seen for the farce that it happens to be. Kristof is right with respect to what a loyal opposition should do with respect to foreign affairs. But Trump sees respect for such civilized norms as weakness and that he has no intention of sincerely making a deal that makes any difference. He just wants the publicity.
1
Kim has lied repeatedly. The Iran deal is the model we should go for--at the least.
If Trump doesn't negotiate something at least as good as the Iran deal (inspections...), then Kim will cheat.
that's not being petulant. it's being sensible.
1
I don't sees what is childish about insisting upon tough conditions from North Korea, including inspections.
The Democrats' criticism is well-founded. First, has Ms Kristof forgotten the history of negotiations with N Korea? Signing a deal with it is no major accomplishment; there have been 3 in the past 20+ years. But N Korea never negotiates in good faith, and eventually its cheating is discovered, and then there are even more histrionics from the North about "a sea of fire" descending upon Seoul. So if any agreement has a hope in Hades of being effective, it will have to have, eg, intrusive inspections.
Additionally, Trump is so obsessed about getting what he considers a "win", that there is a high probability he'll sign something, just to get it; remember his Rose Garden ceremony for the AHCA, something he later described as a "mean bill"?
In the end, this op-ed piece is not up to the NYT's standards and was disappointing to read.
1
Yeah sure, all this will be resolved when Kim retires to own and manage a Trump branded resort in Pyongyang.
Has anything Trump ever done been honest?
Listening to Chukie Schumer is like listening to nails scrape across a blackboard. This man is one annoying do nothing. Chuck talks the talk however when walking is involved he stumbles.
Schumer and just about every angry, disappointed, confused Democrat have done everything possible to subvert this administration . The entirety of the Democratic Party should sit back and ask themselves do they really want Trump to fail so badly that it takes everyone down with it.
From Pelosi's "crumbs" to the Maxine Waters show these Dems have shown their true colors, green with envy. Trump has done more for US Citizens in the last 500 days than Obama did in eight years. Actually Obama was a long term problem for the USA, it may be decades before his damage is really seen.
History is written by the winners .
Trump is a winner.
I disagree with you, Mr Krisof. Given that Trump has shown that he basically does nothing for the good of the country or the world, just for himself/family/friends, I think we can safely assume that he is meeting with Un for some other reason than diplomacy. I may be a bit paranoid here, but given that he has now exhibited behaviors of a wanna-be dictator (buddying up to dictators, wanting people fired for not standing for the anthem, eroding the rule of law, etc), how do you know that his buddying up to Un isn’t to curry favors of other dictators, and maybe ideas on how to subdue the populace? I am not usually a paranoid person to this degree :), but I am getting there....
1
Wake me after a deal is signed, and we can talk about it then.
The victory lap usually comes at the end, not the beginning.
You said “efforts” regarding Donald Trump.
There are no efforts.
Scratch that. Some people are probably trying to make efforts, but none of that matters to the President. He just wants to get into a room and have a “relationship” with one of the most dangerous dictators in the world.
Then he’ll “see what happens”.
The mind boggles.
1
Thank God for Democrats. They are the adults in the room, not childish at all, just want to do what is best for the country, not what's best for Trump personally.
2
Hey, Nick, do we have an ambassador for South Korea yet?
See what I mean?
Do you actually think Trump can negotiate? You are sounding like Lindsay Graham several weeks ago giddy about Trump's moves winning him the Nobel Prize.
Until Trump canceled the talks.
Given all you know about Trump do you really think he has the knowledge, the diplomatic skills, the temperment to reach any worthwhile conclusion beyond a photo op?
I understand now former Celebrity Apprentice contestant Dennis Rodman may show up at this thing! (That's not sarcasm.)
How many times has he lowered the bar? That's not because he is being modest and pragmatic. If you think it is, then you've not been paying attention these past almost 40 years.
Even Nick Kristof is fooled by Trump's antics. Look, Democrats are not resisting a peace deal with NK. They're saying Trump will make a bad or meaningless deal. And he's willing to give NK the same deal he just trashed with Iran. Not to mention, they're justifiably irked that Obama was blasted by every conservative in America as "coddling dictators" for suggesting he would meet with NK, when conservatives thought we should just bomb NK. Now Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? Moreover, NK was never going to "deal" until they had nukes. But even with nukes, they're no threat to anyone, anywhere. Kim Jung Un may be a brutal dictator, but he knows that launching a nuclear first strike of any kind will be his last act as a human. Trump, mixed in with his daily nonsense, has positioned NK as a major threat to the US. In other words, he's created a problem that doesn't exist so that he can solve said problem. But he's not even going to solve the imaginary problem he created. The only deal Trump can make is one where NK receives economic power. That's all they want. They get rid of nukes they'd never use anyway, and in return, economic shackles are removed. This is an important distinction. Over the next decade NK will prosper. NK goods will reach the shelves of a store near you. And they'll still be an oppressive regime. They'll still be able to create nukes. The same Republicans who will cheer this deal denounced any thought of such a deal with Obama.
No. Democrats are doing what their constituency expects which is to resist Trump at every turn. That should not be so difficult for anyone to understand. I want them to continue resisting Trump until the day our nation is no longer impacted by his scourge and those of his enablers.
The idea that there was a threat of nuclear war from NK is a bogus proposition invented and inflated by Trump. NK never showed the capacity to fire a missile far enough or accurately enough to threaten the US. The ramshackle nature of its nuclear program was evident when its test site collapsed in on itself.
The Republicans in Congress swore a blood oath to block every move President Obama would make the day he was elected, before he even took office. The GOP indeed offered nothing but complete obstruction for 8 years, even violating Obama's Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. And Mr. Kristof has the nerve to call Democrats "childish" in reaction to a Trump maneuver. Very disappointing to say the very least. Every Democrat is obliged by decency and respect for America to resist Republican/Trumpian machine with every ounce of strength that they have. That is not being childish, it is being patriotic, Mr. Kristof.
2
While I neither trust nor support the disgrace that occupies the White House, the letter that Schumer et al. signed was unnecessary and bad strategic politics. Like most of the thinking world, I believe the tiddlywinks president is being played by chess masters who realize that he will do anything to appear to be a serious politician. Let it play out, then point out how the president gave away the farm. By preemptively laying down obviously unobtainable goals the Democrats open themselves to exactly the criticism Mr. Kristof lays out here, and to what end?
The pure politics suggest, unless the summit produces North Korea's unlikely abject capitulation to the US and its demands, the Democrats should seize on any shortcomings of whatever agreement emerges from it to aggressively pursue Trump for his failure. And that is the path I recommend, because right now Trump poses the greater threat to the international order, he does not mean well and all of our interests lie in his diminution rather than feeding his insatiable vainglory.
A small first step to show this isn't a publicty stunt would be to dump Bolton. It makes no sense to pursue peace while getting guidance from a guy whose idea of peace is pre-emptive war.
So let me get this straight, Democrats are giving Trump their opinion in writing, one that seems reasonable if North Korea is serious about gaining sanctions relief, and you call that childish? According to you, no one should question Trump and his sad excuse for a State Department.
What is there to negotiate if they don't give up their nukes? Isn't that the whole point? Yes, it's a bad deal if we eliminate sanctions and they keep their nukes.
Mr. Kristof presents an accurate and timely stinging analysis of the Democrats’ “Boltonist turn”, except calling it childish is way too lenient – it’s both destabilizing impact on world order (bordering on humanity-endangering) and a politically self-destructive maneuver (as it gives Trump a handle on the “stabbed in the back” pretext in case of a negotiations failure).
The same is the case, with even more potential humanity-endangering implications, concerning the liberals’ refusal to separate between the geopolitical and nuclear issues vs. a. vs. Russia and the collusion and interference stories. From the NYT Board warning that Putin has actually declared a global war on the West (while the Committee on Pro-Russian Activities censoring the comments section) to the continuing demise of the anti-nuclear movement (fearing being blamed as Putin’s stooges) smiting what seems to be the budding of geopolitical stabilization and nuclear arms control efforts (even when the protagonist is a moral-leper like Trump) is a moral-historical travesty and a political folly.
Please don't lump all Democrats in Congress as monolithic echoers of the seven you name. Dems are not like the GOP, where everyone marches in lock step to achieve power at the expense of any semblance of integrity. Those Trump apologists and enablers that are so accustomed to lying to please their donor base- not a single one publicly acknowledges carbon based climate change.
However, they all are politicians on both sides of the aisle- spinning, spinning, spinning, and the longer you play the game the more cynical you become. The success of GOP tactics does not inspire unilateral disarmament of demagoguery.
What the Dems need to do now is dump the old guard- Schumer and Feinstein have had their day and paint their politics by the numbers.
Very uninspiring.
Democrats, as you say, are plenty grumpy about this.
And Democrats, as you also say, have every right to be. Not that that matters.
Having set Iran free to make and stockpile whatever weapons in whatever quantity it wants, Trump now crows in advance over a stunning turnaround in nuclear relations with North Korea.
Whatever stunning that has happened here is, as you say, the result of President Moon's desperate persistence.
Having already won almost everything he wanted (the world stage sans threats of mass death, worldwide credibility, some measure of dominance over our own hapless executive, a chance to gain big benefits for doing very little), Mr. Kim has become mellower, jovial in a Reagan-at-the-ranch kind of way. The press gasps; the world breathes a sigh of deep relief.
Bless you Mr. Trump.
I wish I could appreciate your kudos for our suspect leader. Even a whiff of positiveness is misplaced until there is a positive end result.
Nick, Trump is frankly too impulsive and unpredictable as is Kim.
Some positive accord with North Korea would be a wonderful end result but let's see if it happens before praising the maniac.
1
It is really way off to choose the word "childish" as a criticism of Democratic responses to Trump's NK--I won't call them negotiations--interactions. Grandstanding. Kristof's lost track of who he's talking about.
I'm sure you've all seen Giuliani's comment today on how Kim "begged on his hands and knees" to restore the summit, and then crazy Rudy's defense of his own inflammatory remarks (kneeling is a particularly freighted symbol of submission for Koreans), saying that Trump is "the stronger figure."
This is worse than childish. If Kim backs out now, as Giuliani is actively provoking him to do, Trump can strut and say it proves that Kim is afraid of the mighty Donald. That's the only thing Trump wants out of this. The only thing he wants out of anything. It's malignant narcissism made into a foreign policy principle.
It makes all the sense in the world for senior Democrats to use their weak hand in some effort to constrain possible outcomes, few of which have much chance of being good.
1
A former NYT reporter yesterday described Trump as a sort of needed "circuit breaker", much to the horror of his MSNBC hosts. He said he worried the media said everything Trump does is horrible and extreme when in reality most were mainstream views. The democrats reaction to Trump's North Korea gambit displays this same unthinking reflexive behavior.
There is a very good reason for not wanting this summit to take place--if Kim embarrasses Trump it could provoke Benedict Donald into going nuclear. But there's an even better reason for thinking that Trump will behave himself no matter how the summit turns out.
Summit phobia exists because Trump will be going to Singapore woefully unprepared. Politico reports that not a single high level security meeting has been held to suss out a coherent policy approach to North Korea. It is quite possible, even likely, that Kim will eat the Dealmaker's lunch. Faced with public humiliation from "Little Rocket Man," there's no telling how "Yellow Haired Toad" will react (my apologies, Elton).
But that's almost certainly not going to happen because Kim has Trump by his short yellow hairs. It's been observed by many that Trump habitually lies about things great and small. His biggest whopper was the magnificent lie--too outrageous to be doubted--about now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's supposed 1st trip to North Korea. It never happened and not only does Trump know it, but of course so does Kim.
Trump told Fox & Friends that Pompeo didn't even plan to meet with Kim. So why go? And it took days--not minutes or hours--for Trump to produce photos of the trip. Why the delay?
Kim did Trump the invaluable favor of going along with the charade so that Pompeo's image would be burnished enough to gain confirmation. Why else would Trump describe the murderous despot as "honorable?"
Does Nicholas Kristof stand with those who think Trump should receive a Nobel Peace Prize for "solving the Korea problem" ? It is not clear.
Many are charmed by Trump's guile. When Republicans heard on tape how Trump likes to grope the private parts of women without their permission, they thought that he was just being a ":guy". When Trump paid $25M to settle a suit for defrauding students of their life savings , Trump fans thought that was clever. When Republicans learned that Trump has been bought and paid for for years by laundered Russian money they think it is a sign of his business acumen. . When the GOP leadership learned of Trump's extortion of companies and governments for political favors they were simply jealous.
Mr. Kristof finds Trump's Korean reality show to be of merit. Sad.
1
I can certainly understand why Democrats might not be exactly cheering on Mr. Trump as he supposedly works towards a resolution of the Korean issue. Perhaps in their comparison of the potential lethality of the respective threat represented by two possible conflagrations, one nuclear and the other presidential, the democrats have concluded the latter to be the greater. ANY success by this limitlessly dangerous president of yours will be seen as an ongoing existential threat to the entire world. And when your president can be perceived as more threatening than nuclear war, you’ve got to know that you’ve very much got the wrong man in the job.
1
This must have been written before the King's jester publicly insulted Kim Jong Un with his assertion that Kim got down on his hands and knees to beg for the summit.
While I agree that in normal circumstances you should never throw out the baby with the bathwater, experience so far indicates that this administration doesn't really want the summit, but is bent on making the other side take the blame if it doesn't happen.
1
From Politico: "National Security Adviser John Bolton has yet to convene a Cabinet-level meeting to discuss President Donald Trump’s upcoming summit with North Korea next week, a striking break from past practice that suggests the Trump White House is largely improvising its approach to the unprecedented nuclear talks. " https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/07/trump-bolton-north-korea-630362
Realistically, the North Koreans have played every U.S. President they have health with and the democrats simply understand that Trump is so naive and vainglorious that he will agree to almost anything that will be totally unverifiable costing us billions for little or nothing in return.
Skepticism that this president is capable of inducing North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons is well justified. If Trump is going to trumpet in advance his Nobel Peace Prize, we skeptics are entitled to predict that he isn't up to the job. I will happily eat crow if I am wrong, but I'm not too worried.
There's no reason to reverse a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump has little idea what he's doing in his position as President.
So when he whacks a mole, it's just blind luck, and no reason to
go fawning over his Presidential prowess.
Sometimes I wonder what world Americans live in.
It was always North Korea's official position: 1) peace and 2) negotiation. This was true in the 50s and remains true today.
It's also true that the West's official position was always siege (economic sanctions) + regime change + destruction and annexation of North Korea under capitalist hegemony (i.e. to transform those 25 mil North Koreans into semi-slave, extremely cheap labor force for the South Korean chaebols). This is also the West's position regarding Cuba, so I don't understand the denial.
The only thing that changed in these 60 years was that the North was able to build a functional nuclear warhead, capable of reaching continental USA (but, most importantly, Guam, a very important outpost for American military projection against China in the Pacific). This is what forced the USA to the negotiation table. This is what toppled Park Geun-hye. This is what forced Moon Jae-in to hold hands with Kim Jong-un was if they were BFFs.
Denuclearization will not happen, this is pure nonsense by the American MSM and the Bushian faction in Trump's government (Bolton et caterva).
So, merit where merit is due: Kim Jong-un acted quickly after he saw the disaster of Libya, and time proved he was fast enough.
1
The measure of the deal should be Iran. The Iran deal is terrible, which virtually guarantees they can go nuclear in 10 years. Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world, whereas North Korea? Well, they did quite obviously kill Un's brother, but that was just a family squabble. A very winning North Korea deal would be that their nuclear weapons go to China, that they dismantle their production facilities, that periodic scheduled inspections were allowed by the IAEA, and in return the sanctions are lifted, a guarantee that the United States would not invade North Korea, along with what Kim really wants, access to a variety of economic aid to keep his regime afloat. So long as it's humanitarian aid that keeps their people from starving, that's something we'd be doing with another non-crazy country anyway. That's a reasonable investment in the world's most rogue nation.
No, Mr. Kristoff, I will not credit the current occupant for anything because, unlike you and your fellow members of the media at large, I refuse to legitimize this farce of an administration by associating any action that he takes with the office of the presidency. He discredits the office every day in every way imaginable. Hoping for his success in any endeavor is equivalent to accepting the defeat of decency, honor, respect, and morality. No, Mr. Kristoff, I will not do so.
It's the PROCESS that'll kill things. The last step "Leaders Meet",came first, with only the US involved - this was a UN war.
Both sides are playing to the audience, without involving the the officially aggrieved party that went to war, or the most threatened nations at the table!
Start w/the old deal in place and a framework - US Offer: food,open borders, trade, (remember, though, we just slapped our best allies and China with what N. Korea is likely to want, inexpensive-to-make steel & aluminum to US in return for some political dissent & full nuclear disarmament.
The chief US bargaining chip is the cheapest soybeans & rice - basic food the North lacks. The fastest way to feed and improve the health of its population is with legumes & rice, a feature of a lot of good, cheap food - it is rich in both carbs AND 100% complete human protein balance, cheap no-fat "meat" - but we have to open trade, insulting our closest allies..
Trump hates 'em but we need career diplomats, and folks we've kept from the table. The UN fought the North, NOT the US. Japan has been ignored, though it has the most to lose and all Koreans all have a 70-year-old grudge against it. Listen to what your intelligence organizations say-Trump hasn't.
Dismantle bombs & allow sale of weapons grade stuff to China - they've got enough bombs to destroy planet and facilities for handling it. Destroy enrichment/bomb casing/missile manufacturing facilities, bunkers, etc.
FINALLY HOLD A GRAND INTERNATIONAL MEETING
There is nothing King Minus can't make worse. That's been his record in office and he is nothing but predictable despite his seeing unpredictability as being a strength in foreign affairs.
He wants a "win" and a Nobel so badly that he will gladly sell out Japan and likely we'll get a show agreement with no teeth. We have a manchild in office, playing games with nuclear powers and losing our allies by the day. Democrats, indeed all of us, have reason to doubt.
As I've said before I don't trust Trump further than I could throw an elephant and that is not any distance at all.
Trump is known for his slick sales pitch and excessive self aggrandizement. If the Trump-Kim meeting happens it will have great symbolic significance and may lead to further talks but it all could be for show and a lot of flash without substance. We all know how Trump loves to sell himself and get attention. Be careful that American doesn't get hoodwinked by a master scam artist and con man. The summit may well go nowhere and it could take years to reach any kind of solid agreement. Trump has talked a lot but I want to see some results in foreign policy too not just promises and overly optimistic marketing. Trump is always more interested in promoting himself than anything else. The summit could well be a scam just like Trump University. Again Trump hasn't proven anything to me except that he can talk a good line.
Let's see if he can actually do something difficult rather than no brainers like tax cuts and immigration demagoguery to throw red meat to his core supporters. I am cautiously optimistic on the summit but don't want America to get conned by the Fraudster in Chief. Remember America the Latin phrase "Caveat Emptor"---buyer beware and be careful and diligent about any "deal" Trump offers. Beware Trump bearing deals from Kim.
Donald Trump doesn’t want/desire/think about/plan for peace. He is in talks with North Korea because it gives him a political win. The Democrats are right to worry. Donald Trump WILL sacrifice anything he can, including our national security, for a win.
He’s proven that time and time again with Russia. Russia hacked our nuclear plants, and provides weapons and resources to the Taliban. I take very personal offense to that because I am a veteran of Afghanistan. Trump, the president of the United States, can’t even bring himself to impose sanctions on a nation that is providing weapons to people that are killing our soldiers.
And we are supposed to think he will protect US interests in negotiations with the North Koreans? Does your birth certificate say 6/6/2018?
Why should Democrats do anything?. The Trump king does what he wants to do. What do you want the democrats to do? have a smiling photo op with this man who has insulted everyone excluding his family. Should the Eagles team go and have a smiling encounter with Trump who has insulted every player, there mothers of color? I think more people fear the police in this country vs the nuclear threat of a leader who clearly enjoys living . I have been alive for a long time and the nuclear war is a talking point that comes out on a regular basis by the GOP in order to cut social programs and build up the military over and over again.
So till the GOP explain what is actually going to happen, what are the achievements expected since no one appears to know. Stop picking on the Democrats to do the job of the GOP they are the ones in charge.
I want to know why the 5k people who died in Puerto Rico aren't being addressed. That's a real issue not white noise about the on and off again meeting. Give us a break
2
Don't blame the actors for a badly written movie script. Democrats, Republicans and even Independents are just actors in the reality show call American Democracy. Their parts require them to always attack the opposition to grab more power for their tribe, regardless of the merit of the other side. The inherent tribal structure and dynamics of American Democracy is the true culprit. Some people still consider this failed political system "exceptional". More voter turnout changes nothing. But even a bad show must go on.
1
Trump is actually doing something right? What might that be? He is affording Kim Jong Un a world stage in return for next to nothing. He will be negotiating with a man who knows every detail about nuclear weapons policy, who knows everything he needs to know about the position of South Korea and China vis a vis the Korean peninsula and who knows what he wants to achieve in this meeting.
In contrast, we have our Boy President, who doesn't believe in preparation, who doesn't know the basics about foreign/nuclear policy, let alone the nuances and who has only a slogan (CVID) for a goal. And, by the way, doesn't the Democrats letter just reiterate that position and its obvious implications? Which leader among Trump, Kim, Moon and Xi would be the childish one?
I’m a life long Democrat and I sure as heck support efforts to bring peace to the Korean peninsula. And I’ve not spoken with anyone who isn’t supportive. We’re all just a little shocked that someone so patently incompetent has managed to bring it along this far. And that appears to be the general posture of our electeds as well, from both parties. Not sure whom Kristof is talking about.
I'm surprised at and disappointed with Nicholas Kristof, who is normally on the mark. History teaches us that even if something "good" comes out of whatever is going on between the U.S. and the two Koreas, we won't really know the impact for several years. That is because North Korea has historically been unpredictable, even after a signed treaty.
As for Trump, he deserves no credit here. For those just waking up now, this man lives solely to answer the question "how can I make myself look really good today?" He's already basking in the sunlight of a negotiation that has barely begun - just witness the commemorative coin that was produced with his and Kim Jong Un's images on it.
Let us not forget that Trump has offset any gains here with North Korea by pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty. He did that solely because his name could never be on that one (President Obama's is).
Donald J. Trump is a reckless, thoughtless, selfish, and mentally ill man that should be far from any public office, if not in prison. We should not be praising him for anything. Even if he seems to have done something "right", it's like the proverbial broken clock being right twice a day.
Who says that the Republicans and the Democrats are incapable of cooperating?
Haven’t they managed to divide and polarize the country together?
Of course, each of them is solely responsible only for a half of polarization.
One party created the pro-gun, pro-life, pro-man, pro-border-control et cetera population.
The other side created anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-illegal, pro-woman base…
Instead of trying to deal with North Korea and cut the peace treaty with Kim Jong-Un, should not we accomplish the same objective with our fellow countrymen within America first?
Would it be much faster if the Koreans were in charge of pacifying the Korean Peninsula and the Americans of uniting the USA?
If that approach didn’t work, what about an American diplomat in charge of uniting the Koreas and one Korean peacemaker trying to unify the Americans?
"...any country would resist having an enemy poke around its military bases, underground bomb shelters and border fortifications."
Right. That's why any such agreement would call for inspections by the IAEA to verify compliance with commitments related to nuclear weapons and, presumably, UN appointed inspection teams for chemical and biological weapons. That approach seemed to work well in the case of the Iran deal, until the president unilaterally broke the US' commitment. Not exactly a hopeful sign that this same president will solve the NK issue.
I too would like to see the Trump Administration succeed on NK, despite my disdain for Trump and his appointees. However, Trump has a history of making bad deals - and of touting non-deals as deals - when he is desperate to claim victory. The democrats would negligent to not articulate what - in their view at least - would constitute an actual peace deal as opposed to something more similar to the meaningless photo ops that this reality show administration thrives on.
4
Don't ever assume that Democrats are the party of peace. Their penchant for militarism and aggression was on full display in 2002 when far too many of them, particularly in the Senate, supported the monstrous Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq. Because of their militaristic tendencies, I refuse to consider myself a Democrat.
But this latest ploy to undercut Trump in dealing with North Korea really takes the cake. I suspect they are afraid that Trump might actually come away with something beneficial to the world, perhaps right before the elections this year. That would be terrible, wouldn't it?
I really can't stand Trump for many, many reasons. But if he manages to do something that strengthens the prospects for world peace, then he deserves the credit.
I have to hand it to Schumer and the Democrats; they have outdone Trump in acting like little babies. This country really needs a truly progressive political party. Democrats simply don't fit the bill.
Just remember, in America, we have the freedom to disagree, no matter what.
The opening to North Korea and Kim's new legitimacy led to meetings with Assad and Putin.
Isn't that just great? Where is all this heading?
I never feared a war because as much as the two strong egos talked tough, they weren't going to allow mutual destruction.
I agree that the stalemate had to end and some hope given to North Korea's people for some normalcy in their lives but what a Pandora's box is opening now!
Aren't the conditions that the Dems seek the same as those that were in the Iran deal? Yes it's better for Trump to play nice, but won't that change if he doesn't get what he wants? Isn't there a real risk that Trump will agree to a bad deal so he can say "mission accomplished." I say keep his feet to the fire.
3
Remember the reaction of the far right to Barack Obama's statement that he would be willing to meet with Kim Jong-Un? They were outraged. The thing is, if Obama had been able to arrange such a meeting, he would have properly prepared for it. And like the Iran deal there would have been appropriate safeguards, as specified by the Schumer letter.
That's the problem with this upcoming summit. There is apparently no preparation. trump just wants a "win". Who knows what he will give away at the spur of the moment to get his win. That is the purpose of the Schumer letter. Not to block the meeting, but to at least insure that trump doesn't give away the farm. Sorry, Nick, you are wrong on this one.
If anything comes from this, I hope the Nobel committee considers Moon Jae-In for the Peace Prize. It was through his efforts that this summit may actually occur.
6
First, I agree that Democrats don’t do themselves any political favors by critiquing the deal before it is made. One would hope that there will be time to examine the deal and vote on it in the Senate. If it’s flawed, Democrats (and Republicans) should say so, and still louder.
But it’s also clear that much of this response is payback for Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal. And just like the Iran deal, this isn’t just about the US and the Koreas. If Trump negotiates a destruction of long-range missiles but leaves short-range missiles in place, to get Kim’s agreement, will Japan’s Abe serve as his Netanyahu and proclaim that “North Korea lied!” In a big PowerPoint? If Democrats take over the House in November, will they invite Abe to speak and proclaim that Trump’s deal was a bad one? In other words, for all the petulance of Democrats today, Republicans have a load of responsibility in where we are now.
2
I don’t know what other Democrats think. And I don’t trust Trump to tell the truth about any deal he makes with N Korea. So I have doubts about the outcome of the meeting. I want it to work just like I favored the Iran agreement. Any agreement that reduces the likelihood of nuclear weapons being deployed anywhere is a good thing. This is one win I want Trump to have. But I want it to be a win and not deception.
2
You are absolutely correct in pointing out the real hero in this whole situation is Moon Jae-in. As a Democrat, I am willing to give the president credit for moving the process forward, but I've also got a wary eye out. Both leaders are unpredictable and to say the meeting could go badly would be an understatement. However, if both leaders recognize they can incrementally move the peace process forward a bit with the US giving up some sanctions in return for verifiable pledges of a halt in further nuclear weapon and missile, then we could be looking at a win/win--and who would object to that?
Negotiation with North Korea beats empty bluster or military clashes any day of the week. But this sit down is shaping up as nothing more than a glorified pre-election photo-op for Trump while providing a major long term concession to Kim by giving him a meeting between nuclear equals and sanctions relief requiring zero concessions on nukes, human rights, or conventional missiles and regional provocations. Kristoff is right that any real negotiations should have begun at the working level with genuine bargaining targeting the avoidance of future clashes. June 12 is simply the next installment in Trump's ongoing domination of the news cycle.
6
Maybe three people agree with you, Nick.
I happen to be one of them.
No one would doubt your liberal credentials. But it is now virtually impossible for a liberal to criticize the viewpoints of another liberal.
It is considered heresy.
5
Maybe the number is four, including me. I notice that Colorado Senator Cory Gardner (GOP) shares the position of Senator Chuck Schumer and John Bolton.
Inspection and verification requirements at least as good as the Iran agreement seems to be what Democrats are demanding. "Childish"? I don't think so.
4
I support any and all attempts to try to bring North Korea into the 21st century on reasonable terms. Of course Trump is bumbling his way along with this in hopes of earning glory without a clue as to what he is doing, but if it turns out successful, so what? I'll be the first to clap.
2
Interesting that you think Trump is trying to bring NK into the 21st century and the international community when Trump is trying to take us out of it.
What will the European reaction be if Trump cuts a deal with PRNK that is less restrictive than the Iran deal that he refused to recertify? And what will this mean for long term relations between US and Europe?
The worst possible outcome has nothing to do with potential US/PRNK hostilities. No, it's the day when EU withdraws support for the dollar as the world's currency. Given our large debt, this would result in a sudden devaluation followed by interest rate hikes that drive inflation. And the Fed would be restrained in their ability to prevent it due to our high debt payments and trade deficit.
Trump insolence to our Allies will eventually have a price, and I fear his arrogance will cost us all.
5
We crossed the rubicon with the "election". Know that his arrogance, ignorance, venality and hubris will definitely cost us all. Hold on to your hats.
China supported the North Korean communists when it could not even feed its own people (1945-now). China was the half starved tiger that roared and forced the world saving US to back off to the 38th parallel in the 1950s. So now they are just going to walk away? North Korea is just going to collapse at the tweet of Trump?
All of my concern in this is for South Korea and Japan. These are our allies. Trump will consider their welfare not at all. He is playing into China's hands. This will not end well.
2
"It’s almost unimaginable that North Korea will allow such intrusive inspections"?
Nicholas, it doesn't seem unimaginable, until you add that it would be an "enemy" conducting the inspections.
Why would you assume it would have to be an enemy of North Korea? Could there be some country or entity in this world that North Korea would trust to perform inspections?
The consequences of using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is so horrible, so devastating, it must be an absolute requirement that someone verify North Korea is free of them.
Trump presents certain fundamental problems that are truly unique in our country's history, rendering ANY point Kristoff raises about North Korean strategy moot. The bottom line is that Trump is unfit to be president and this makes him a global menace. He was unfit prior to the election and he is unfit today. We gave him power, not competence. His farcical campaign dodged the issue by creating pure havoc, but it remains the strongest argument against his administration. It even, in my opinion, surpasses the possibility of any criminal behavior on Trump's part.
Trump is someone who has amply demonstrated that he acts without thought; that he cannot be BOTHERED to think. It is also abundantly clear from his campaign and presidency to this point that he lacks the knowledge to understand his presidential powers, much less use them responsibly (even if he were inclined to be responsible). The assurances that Trump, once president, would surround himself with the best possible people and heed their advice have fallen flat.
Most people do not hold children entirely responsible for what they say and do, the flipside being that they are not permitted to claim all the "powers" of an adult citizen. It is never a good thing to let a young child fly a plane, no matter how agreeable the destination. Trump's willful ignorance is not quite as innocent, but the danger is the same. Kristoff and others place too much focus on the flight plan and not enough on the pilot.
1
Opposing the “deal”? What deal?
Isn’t this a little premature?
Call me when Trump meets, much less exceeds the level of progress reached by his predecessors, who he labels as “failing” out of hand.
He hasn’t even begun.
I rather hope Trump does manage to pull this off because we really need to be able to talk with North Korea and bring them into the fold. I cannot stand Trump but I don’t want him to fail at this.
3
The arrangement with North Korea should be in the form of a treaty. With no unrevealed side deals. It should have provisions at least as demanding as those in the Iran deal. And should also deal with the issues Kerry left on the table. Like being a state sponsor of terrorism. If it doesn’t have these then it’s no better than the Iran deal which Trump has been castigating and many of us find lacking.
2
This is what I love about true Liberals, they speak truth and admit when they are wrong or when someone else is right.. No one is more liberal that Kristoff, his picture under the word liberal is in the dictioanary, but he rightly takes to task Democrats who are doing what their Republican enemies and make no mistake Republicans have treated and made Democrats their sworn enemies since January 20th, 2009 when a black centrist president came into office and on that very day, Republicans swore they would vote against anything he tried to do and block him in every way. That was how this partisanship started, with a real meeting on Barack Obama's inauguration day. Ask Republicans like Paul Ryan they are proud of it. But a true liberal calls out Democrats saying, if Trump has success on something we all benefit. That said the North Koreans are very slippery and what may look like success may not be.But give peace a chance as they say. Makes me proud to be a liberal.
Mr. Kristof's logic escapes me. The D's are holding Trump to the same standards that his administration espouses for Iran as well as Trump's previous statements about the conditions for N. Korea's denuclearization. Mr. Kristof doesn't know what constitutes successful meeting and neither does Trump.
Mr. Kristof is mired in a familiar trap that continues to entrap reasonable people about Trump-- they project their own reasonable behavior to a capricious and unreasonable person.
3
Bravo for this article! This is something that needed to be said by a liberal writer in a major publication. But there is even more to it than this. It is the establishment/Clinton Democrats who are the leading war hawks today. Not only with respect to North Korea but also in their endless, inflammatory comments about Russian aggression when it is the United States that has aggressively expanded NATO to Russia's borders in violation of a promise made by former President George H.W. Bush to Russian Premier Gorbachev.
This aggressive attitude by mainstream Democrats towards Russia, and China as well, is only tangentially related to Mueller's probe of Trump's Russia ties). And it is not really something new. Remember that the Vietnam War, though it was extended by the Nixon administration for five pointless years, was initially a Democratic war.
This aggressive attitude by mainstream Democrats contributed to Clinton's defeat. I oppose Trump on every issue and despise his method of governing, but still breathe sighs of relief that he won and that the chances of a nuclear war under a hawkish Clinton administration were thereby reduced.
Whatever actually happens when Trump and Kim meet in Singapore, the Trumpies will loudly bray triumph. Expect the beginning of a long slow slog through murky details instead.
3
The actual results of this summit are completely unpredictable. My own belief is that there is no real North Korea "crisis" because they are light years from being able to hit an American city with a nuclear warhead and have near zero chance of ever being able to do so. They have not demonstrated (a) a nuclear device small enough for a warhead (b) re-entry survival capability (c) being able to hit a target thousands of miles away. Without extensive testing they could never acquire these abilities and continued testing (under any US president) would undoubtedly provoke a US attack, which is why they discontinued testing. I also believe that any appearance of success by Trump would guarantee his victory in 2020, Democrats not winning the house in 2018, and a lot more, all very bad for this country. This does not justify the Democrat senators' stance, which looks political, makes them a target for Trump vicious attacks and makes his "winning" more likely. Everyone should read the column in today's Times "Trump’s ‘Winning’ Is America’s Losing by Lilliana Mason."
" it’s just that no previous president agreed for fear of legitimizing the regime."
And for fear that Republican hysterics would accuse them of appeasement. When I saw that picture of Mike Pompeo in New York with the North Korean "spymaster" who was sent to deliver a large envelope (or was it Trump's small hands?) all I could do was to imagine if instead of Pompeo, it were Hillary Clinton or John Kerry in the picture. It is not hard to imagine the howling accusations from Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Peter King, Jim Jordon, and Mike Pompeo. Imagine Rupert Murdock's tabloids declaring the Democrats as traitors. I think it's a good thing to negotiate with your enemies, and the GOP would never allow a Democrat to do it but they will give Trump permission.
I think we may get some progress or even success in these negotiations. Kim is motivated, since he's achieved strength through through the success of his nuclear program. Additionally when - really - will he ever have a chance to negotiate with an American President who is 1- is liberated by Congress to do anything he wants, and 2-negotiate with an American President who will not get attacked by the right-wing for making a deal and 3-negotiate with an American President who is as much of a fool and bad negotiator as Trump is?
This is Kim's unique opportunity to get the best possible deal. I'm someone who likes peace over war, so as bad a deal as Trump may make, it's still a good thing.
2
Trump wrecks havoc with the Iran nuclear deal and we Dems are supposed to applaud his efforts to create what even at its best can only be a version of the exact the same thing with North Korea?
He is not fit to be president. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He has to go.
3
Lets talk after the circus on the 12th.In the meantime Mr.Kristof I suggest you focus on what you do best.
The Dems are not being childish. They are only being clear eyed.
Diplomacy is not just 'deal making', it goes well beyond that. The current president knows very little or perhaps even nothing about diplomacy.
We'll see...
I am not afraid of Trump coming away from the discussions with Kim with an acceptable deal. It is entirely possible that Kim, having achieved the nuclear protection he sought, is now turning to economic development and seeking a partial reintegration of North Korea into the world system.
What I am afraid of is that Trump, his supporters, and even many voices in the mainstream press will attribute any change of Kim's policy to Trump's reckless tweets and nuclear bluster. Rest assured, if Kim has shifted his strategic goals it is not because Trump called him "Rocket Man," reminded him that the US has a larger nuclear arsenal, or effectively threatened North Korea with pre-emptive nuclear annihilation.
At least two of Kristoff's op-ed colleagues have already dignified the argument that Trump's nuclear bullying has brought Kim to the table. Kristoff may think that's poppycock, but there are many partisan figures who will make that argument and millions of unsophisticated voters who will believe that schoolyard version of international relations.
The problem is that if nuclear bullying becomes legitimized as a way for the United States to conduct foreign policy, sooner or later it will lead to a miscalculation of historically tragic proportions.
1
So disagree with this. What Trump is doing is obviously for show, to appear to get a win. Any US president could have obtained a meeting with this nutcase, but clearly didn't want to validate him. I agree with the Democrats, even if they are reflecting a political position. So what - in this case they are right to doubt.
3
"Yes, it seems that Trump has been played by Kim. "
Yes, of course, and the fact that this result of Trump's utter incompetence can have a positive outcome is crucial -- especially since the situation might otherwise lead to a catastrophic war.
I think there are three kinds of Democrats commenting on this negotiation: neocon/hawks who actually agree with John Bolton, opportunists/political game-players who see everything -- even the gravest issues -- in terms of their own political careers -- and some who are voicing hopeful sentiments. The last group are not endorsing Trump's character, insight or emotional stability -- just joining the vast numbers of humans on the planet who don't want to see a war that will kill millions.
There was no war threat before Trump. NK just demonstrated that it had bad weapons. So does Israel, China, Pakistan, Russia, all of whom could misuse that power. War is not inevitable, but could be provoked. Trump mishandled the NK issue, but it seems that Kim is the adult, by demonstrating he had power, now he is ready to negotiate. Imagine what he would get if he had no nukes: no relief, no invitation to Mar-a-Lago, no attaboys. Now he and Trump are BFF. Trump thinks his maximum pressure got Kim to the table. No, Kim's showing nukes and Trump's reaction got him to the table, now he knows he can play Trump, because Trump wants this too much. It is better for all if it works out. But, peace on the Korean peninsula is not up to Trump but NK and SK.
In the meantime, maximum pressure to start trade wars and snub our allies, break up the international order to instill chaos doesn't seem right to me. Could it be that the whole international order, the state department, the previous 5 presidents and administrations and the whole Western alliance has been just plain wrong about everything all these years? We have no way of knowing without a lot of classified data, so don't count chickens and don't blame Democrats for opposing an autocrat in everything else.
13
Mr. Kristof's words speak to a common, I believe, problem within all of our psyches. I have had to wrestle with my own inner petulance towards this situation. President Trump's motivation for doing anything does not appear to be grounded in a value system that I can agree with or disagree with. His value system, if one can call it that, appears to be rooted in his insatiable need to win, to be adored - to obliterate competition (Obama), to humiliate and agress upon critics. It is childish and petulant in the extreme. His motivation for doing anything is embarrassingly obvious. However, regardless of his motivation, if something changes with North Korea I would applaud it. He may not be able to be bigger than his own need to win, but I guess I can try.
3
This column is childish. There are many observers, not just Democrats, who are wary of these negotiations, including Republicans, the career State Dept., and those who abhor the fact that John Bolton is involved in the talks at all.
Right now, the fairest way to describe this situation is theatrical. Both Trump and Kim are actors, after all, and each is attempting a new role, one as a diplomat, the other as a responsible citizen of the 21st Century.
Like many Americans, I hope that something good will come of this effort. But the specter of Otto Warmbier hangs heavy over this spectacle.
10
I agree with Paul. Anyone who isn’t concerned about this meeting is foolish. At best, it becomes a meaningless photo op. (Remember the Trump war on opioids?) And the downside is huge.
Opposition is not just from those noted but also from Japan, our foremost ally in East Asia, under the threat of conventional weapons with prime minister Abe well aware of what a sucker Trump is for a photo-op as the way to become BFF
I don't know about "Democrats" writ large, and how they feel. Many on both sides question how well Trump can actually perform, given his horrible negotiating track record and his impulsiveness. What is clearly obvious (and evident from his urgency to cancel, then restart, the talks) is that Trump is limping into the summit with an unprecedented need to get something, anything, done. He's wounded, and he needs to feed something to his base, so he'll be willing to give up the farm for anything that sounds like progress. The base's belief that Trump really cares about Korea is laughable. So, THAT'S why the skeptics are speaking out, as a warning against the inevitable Trump cave and the subsequent spinning in the right-wing press of victory. But I agree with Jimmy Carter. If Trump really does get North Korea to denuclearize, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. We'll see.
7
Totally agree with you that Democrats (especially Schumer) is no better than Trump. Most Democrats are bought and paid for by some of the same people (and corporations) as the Republicans. It’s why so many of the American people have lost hope.
“North Korea might well cheat, and these are half-steps, not rapid denuclearization. But half-steps toward peace are better than full strides toward war.” This statement is naive at best and probably dangerous. It is also quite ironic given Trump’s objections to the Iran deal. Most of us believe these talks are all show and will not bring us any closer to peace. In fact, the personal confrontation of these two egomaniacs makes the prospect of war even greater.
5
There is nothing childish about the skepticism of Democrats about Trump's dealings with North Korea. Sadly, Trump's style continues to be "government by publicity stunt." It is usually about self promotion and rarely addresses coherent policy goals unless it is written by someone else.
There always seems to be some point at which we all wish that a "new Trump" will emerge who is profoundly different from the one who swindled people in Trump University, bankrupted casinos in Atlantic city with fantastical claims about their earnings, lied about Obama's place of birth for years and campaigned on racist caricatures. But there is a reason that people have credit scores and pay higher insurance premiums when they get into a lot of accidents.
Trump has yet to show evidence that he even knows the details of most of the treaties he has rejected or even of the health care program he tried to torpedo. His lack of attention to detail and his awful predisposition to embracing anyone who says nice things about him makes him a set up to being played.
Yes we would all like to think a different Trump is involved in this process. Yes we would all like to think that Trump is mysteriously going to solve the North Korea problem. We would all like to think that people around him will successfully guide a process that he seems incapable of guiding himself.
The track record just isn't there.
1
Sorry, Nick, but I think it's you who's being naive. Trump has had opportunity after opportunity to turn the corner and show he's capable of being diplomatic, and he's disappointed at every turn. He isn't a diplomat or a real negotiator and it's completely unclear what kind of agreement he'd walk away with after dealing with the far more competent North Koreans. The Democrats are right to be concerned. Concern that Trump will give NK what it wants while getting paper promises in return doesn't put concerned Democrats in the same camp as John Bolton.
1
A three year old gets in a car with the keys and prepares to drive. Wonderful idea! Maybe he'll get it right. But, the adults sigh, laugh, whatever, and take the keys away.
13
A some want sane opinion, so it stands out in the NYT. But Mr Kristof, not to give credit to Trump and his firm stands as a key motivator in North Korea’s willingness to meet with both South Korea and the US, is to deny reality.
Democratic leaders need to step back and let this unfold. Yes, Trump's policy may be based solely on his own self-aggrandizement. Diplomats and media may mold that into some kind of peace making. Yes, Trump is being played by Kim. If this succeeds, Trump will take the credit -- though S. Korea's president is the only one making serious negotiation here. If this fails, Trump will own that failure. No good Democrat should stand in the way of that.
2
Democrats Childishly Resist proposal for six-year-old to land a jet plane.
In essence, this is where we are. It is not that we do not want peace between the Koreas. It is just, well, what have you seen in the last 3 years and counting that would suggest that this is likely to end well?
This is a man who has shattered relationships with most of this country's closest allies - diplomatic gimmies as these things go. Why on Earth, then, would you expect this summit would work out better? I'll grant you that Mr. Trump appears to have a greater affinity for dictators than democratically elected leaders. However, is there one US international relationship so far he hasn't strained?
"Jaw Jaw is better than War War". I'll agree Churchill was right in this. But Churchill was Churchill. If Churchill (or Reagan, or Nixon, or GHW Bush) was meeting Kim, we'd all be a lot more confident of the outcome.
We worry that Trump is walking into a battle of wits, as usual, completely unarmed.
1
I live in Seoul and have two young children here. Whatever Trump can do to alleviate the tension of being invaded by North Korea has to be good! Read Mark Fitzpatrick's piece in The Times of a couple of weeks ago. As he points out there will be thousands or millions of deaths should any hostitilities break out. North Korea will not start anything as they know it would lead to the end of them. If Trump can keep things calm and not worry about crazy Bolton or this group of Democrats....what do they want anyway? North Korea will not give up their weapons...period, but they won't attack either.
No surprise that Schumer and Pelosi are two of the naysayers, after all they benefit less when swords are beaten into plowshares.
The devious wickedness of these two charlatans has no equal.
But enough of these prentenders; let's look at the likely outcome of the removal of this 70 year threat from a Damocles like sword.
China, North Korea, South Korea, the United States, and Russia, have, behind the scenes, been engaged in removing every obstacle to a successful summit outcome.
The American advance team has been in Singapore for two weeks, not only dealing with logistics, but also in close communication with the North Korean advance team, a South Korean team, and a Chinese delegation, consequently 5 days away is the beginning of the end of enmity on the Korean peninsula.
The agreement will have the following outcome;
The armistice will be replaced with a peace treaty, no more DMZ, and the opening of the border between North and South, enabling the free flow of people and trade.
The North Korean armed forces will stand down and return to barracks; weaponry targeted at the South will be removed; a verifiable agreement, with a start date, will begin to denuclearize the peninsula, with a solid end date established.
All sides will set up embassies in their respective nations, and work on the complete removal of sanctions, along with implementation of open trade policies, bringing North Korea fully into the community of nations.
Iran, watching, will shortly follow suit.
1
I'm surprised that Schumer let his attention lapse--for even one nanosecond----from his ongoing obsession of becoming Senate Majority Leader. One is also awaiting petulant statements of righteous indignation from Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders.
Senator Schumer's letter to the President is likely just the first step in a campaign of opposition to any kind of agreement involving North Korea. Soon, I'm sure, we will have Democrats denouncing--in advance-- any sort of deal on the Sunday talk shows, with a variety of foreign-policy advisors warning us not to accept any pact at face value. I have no doubt that the Democrats will be sending congressional delegations to South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan, where prominent senators will warn the respective countries about the dangers of a deal with North Korea. After several op-eds in our newspapers, written by well-known church leaders and academics, Leader Pelosi will probably invite the Prime Minister of Japan to address a joint session of Congress, and, while visiting, denounce any North/South Korea deal at every opportunity. That's what they did with our multi-lateral agreement with Iran; I am certain that they will . . . . Oh wait! wrong party, wrong country. My mistake.
3
I keep wondering why no one remembers the letter to the mullahs from Tom Cotton and 16 other Republican senators.
The simplest answer, to me, is that the big-time media is too busy chasing the next story at the expense of a truthful narrative about something from the past that is relevant to the present. That, and careerism.
Nicholas Kristof, you've made no mention of the JCPOA aka Iran Nuclear Deal which Trump scrapped. Why on earth should Democrats accept a deal which will only match the terms and conditions of the Iran Nuclear deal when the current administration has abrogated it's international responsibilities towards it? If it wasn't good enough for Iran in certainly shouldn't be acceptable for N Korea to have the same terms.
Furthermore the Dems should insist that any deal with N. Korea passes a 2/3 vote in the Senate thereby making it a treaty so that the next administration doesn't do what Trump did.
The Republicans should put their money where their mouths are!
Yes, the DEMs are acting childishly however they are just mere mortals. They have heard for years that the Iran deal was bad and now they just want to apply all the things our dear leader wants from Iran to NK. However because of the double standard of the GOP and trump now those things don't matter as long as trump can say "I won and Obama lost". I also hope for piece however I believe this meeting will be just a photo op for both of them while SK and China open up the trade flood gates.
1
As a Democrat, I agree the knucklehead in chief deserves credit for the upcoming summit. I also agree, if there is an agreement, the South Korean President does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
But I also share the Dems skepticism, given Trump’s poor understanding of what a good “deal” really would look like here. He needs to understand the concerns of East Asian countries and the realities that inform the North Korean leader.
I’m concerned Trump wants a deal, any deal, more than he wants anything else or a show (in prime time) where he walks out or settles for a splashy post summit handshake and a milk shake of a deal.
But at least he is sitting down with Kim. So have a Singapore Sling and munch on some Cheetos and enjoy the show.
This is the overwhelming sadness of the current state of American politics. Trump seeks the same deal with North Korea that he has endlessly blasted the Obama administration for in Iran. The media thinks we should praise and shower dear leader with compliments when he does the job he signed up to do, like a 4 year old child in need of constant affirmation. Meanwhile we should sit back and do nothing as he trashes every norm, value and relationship we as Americans hold dear. Sorry Kristoff, but the Dems are right on this and Trump will soon prove to have been outplayed and outmaneuvered by Kim.
4
"They seem more concerned with undermining him than supporting a peace process with North Korea" The Dems are acting like the GOP did with Obama, just oppose no matter what. Unfortunately working together should begin with Trump reaching out and that is not likely to occur
4
Until the public and its media outlets recognize that denuclearization is off the table, talks will untimately fail.
A freeze in place with no new testing or development is adequate for all sides excepting Japan. They’ll be left to build their own defenses but we could bring home our troops( from South Korea).
Trump will not agree to these terms unless public pressure to do so develops. That’s why the discussion should be in the public sphere.
2
Headline should read: Democrats Resist Trump’s Childish N. Korean Efforts.
Trump’s efforts in N.Korea started out with the exchange of childish insults and has migrated to Bromance, when Trump started smelling the whiff of Nobel Peace Prize.
Anyone in their right mind would be more than a little concerned that the impetuous, ignorant narcissist would cut a deal with “Little Rocket Man” that would leave allies and the world at greater risk than we are today.
The Democrats send a letter outlining what is desirable with the hope that Trump reads at least the first three ideas. It is sad that they felt it necessary to remind Trump of the basics.
We all want deals that ameliorate nuclear war risks and encourage negotiations. And we hope, against all odds, that Trump does well.
But the man child who is our President doesn’t inspire much confidence. Concern trolling the Democrats is misplaced.
9
I wish the conversation about North Korea wasn't only about denuclearization but also about the human rights of their citizens. So far I've heard nothing. They have a right to be free too.
5
Even an article pointing out Trump's achievements can't resist demeaning him simultaneously. These authors are the kids raised in American the ones who didn't experience the depression and have forgotten that the Social Nirvana they perceive in Europe was only possible because the USA defended Europe- very plain and simple. A generation that never really grew up who are busy attempting to dismantle the near perfect system of industry and government that our parents built, fought for and finally died. They are curiously interested in more and more things like politically correct thinking.
6
It’s not the idea of negotiating with NK that I question. It’s all the reality show nonsense that precedes it. It’s that we can’t trust a single thing the man says. It’s using events like the return of prisoners as an event to promote his daughter and make outrageous complements about NK leaders to make himself look good. It’s knowing that the man won’t rely on serious advice from knowledgeable diplomats (e.g. Don’t congratulate Putin). It’s knowing that Trump knows nothing about the history or complicated reality of the situation or has any interest in seriously learning same. It’s that uneasy feeling that a serious diplomatic effort is being undertaken by a man who has never in his life done anything with any goal other than to glorify himself at the expense of others. It’s knowing that without getting anything in return he has already elevated NK leader to an equal on the world stage. So why shouldn’t we be suspicious and fearful? Has Trump EVER given us any reason to feel otherwise?
15
Kim Jung Un killed a general with mortar fire. He had to stand in the middle of a field to await the lobbed rounds to fall around him for the explosive rounds to tear him to shreds. That's reality TV. Kim loved having Dennis Rodman over, that was an episode. Not liking the necessity of the methodology of how to deal with North Korea, as opposed to say Sweden, is one thing. Not realizing that it's nevertheless a necessity is another.
Nicholas, if there are high demands on any deal Trump makes with North Korea it's not Democrats' refusal to accept the possibility that Trump might do something right.
Trump himself set the bar for nuclear deal making when he withdrew from the Iran Deal. He said the Iran deal was the worst deal ever negotiated and that he will bring Iran to it's knees and the world to his point of view.
It is also Trump who says "everyone" is saying he should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Stopped clocks and all that...
5
There's a fear that our president will leave South Korea bare by pulling our troops out. It is scary to think of there being another Korean War. You don't have to be democrat to feel this way. You don't have to know much of anything to feel this way.
And Kristof may know enough to see how Trump and South Korea could succeed in bringing Kim into a better place, but a lot of the rest of us will wait and see.
4
As a Democrat, what most frightens me is the prospect of the Donald making bad worse. Kim III is poised to get a deal which he doesn't deserve, should the Donald not walk off in a huff. There is also the benefit to China from any relaxation of sanctions. Is that something we can accept? Nobody in the White House is sufficiently sophisticated and experienced to manage Kim III or Beijing. What must have motivated the letter's signatories are the concerns I've noted. Looking at the long term outcome of any agreement without safeguards is hair-raising.
6
Since I posted an earlier comment on why Mr. Trump negotiating with North Korea is so dangerous, I read another article in the current issue detailing the mounting sense of chaos in the current NAFTA negotiations. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/trump-nafta-businesses-fr...
Add to that the mounting threat of a full blown trade war with many of our strongest allies and I come away stunned that anybody could trust Mr. Trump with anything vital to our nation’s security, safety and economy. He is flatly incapable to serve as president.
11
I think Democrats are most concerned that if the historic meeting occurs not much will happen other than having the two sides sit down, exchange tame niceties and set another meeting six months down the line. Trump of course will boast that he "has saved the world" and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize when all he has really done is been in he right place at the right time. Maybe Trump saw the opportunity and took the risk but denuclearization of NK the way Trump wants it will take a lot of time and effort if it happens at all.
But Trump is sure to boast and boast some more. Let's be cautiously optimistic while at the same time not let ourselves be taken in by Trump's slick and self serving sales pitch. Remember this is the author of the scam called Trump University. It certainly is possible the entire NK scenario is just a scam, a very slick sales pitch and little
of substance. Trump is many things but he surely is a master at self promotion and selling himself. Americans should remember that as time goes on and be sure about what they end up buying. As the saying goes "Caveat Emptor"---Buyer beware. Beware Trump bearing deals from Rocket Man.
1
This piece is timely and needed. As a liberal Democrat for over 40 years I am beginning to weary of the inconsistent righteousness shown by many of my “ fellow travelers”. Yes, be constructively critical as loyal opposition as Trump and his team negotiate with North Korea. THAT kind of “carping” is responsible governance. And it could make for a better agreement. But please let’s not play righteous games that may be a stumbling block to achieving a safer world, even when someone you may loathe politically or otherwise has a chance of making it happen.
8
Appeasement is always an easy, attractive route to take. Rarely does it produce positive results.
5
If this was Obama the only question would be which foreign leader could the Republicans invite to Congress to undermine the President.
5
Obama had eight years to figure out the North Korea problem. He did nothing...except of course give us the "Arab Spring" and we all know how that turned out....BAD!
You're right to assert that Trump has made "stunning compromises" in the dance with North Korea n The problem is that he appears to have no idea he's made them.
9
Since Trump wants this deal ahead of the mid-term elections, it is legitimate to worry about what he is going to give up. Since any de-nuclearization will take place over years, that part of the deal seems easy—Kim will sign up for something he can worry about later, just as his predecessor did. The question is what will happen in return, particularly since Trump seems to want to get US troops out of South Korea anyway. On the face of it, with US disengagement the winner looks like China.
As the author pointed out, the only real negotiation that has taken place thus far is Trump with himself. He created the worry about a possible US first strike, and then made it go away by giving in. Since this has been choreographed from the beginning, the deal is going to happen, and they don’t seem too worried about what it is.
2
Yours is a voice of reason in an overly politicized climate. If there is any guiding motif in the Trump Administration's foreign policy, it is disengagement. What possible better example is, possibly, at hand than détente on the Korean peninsula, and possibly more than stalemate and the world's longest enduring Armistice? If ever there was a place from which withdrawal of American troops might make sense, where else than Korea?
4
Korea would be a global power of consequence if it abandoned nuclear weapons, unified and concentrated on what the Korean people excel at - the extraordinary capacity for work and innovation. Kim and Moon recognize as it appears does Trump. The capacity to hit the U.S. with an H-bomb got Kim a well deserved place at the table.
Unification of Korea is the real challenge that lies ahead. With unification can come rockets that compete with Musk for commercial launch and Korean bases on the Moon.
If Trump will support unification he can emerge a winner. Bolton is likely to be disappeared under such a scenario and Trump would be largely Mueller proof. That could be bad because of Trump's authoritarian tendencies and his worshipful base that would forgive behavior that would have led to the removal of others from the WH. Given success with Korea that may be the burden that the country has to bear, preferable to a Pence presidency to be sure.
2
Exactly, except Bolton will remain until the Iran deal is done, a deal nearly a duplicate of the Korean deal, and one which Iran is desparetly champing at the bit, to have occur.
The curious thing about the negative attitude of the "wandering in the wilderness of their own minds", Democratic Party, is that they are willfully blind to the damage they are doing to their own rapidly diminishing prospects.
1
If Trump managed to negotiate a real improvement in relations with North Korea, I think we'd all be happy. But frankly, I think it's more likely that Mueller will find the Russian collusion money trail than that Trump or his administration can demonstrate a modicum of statesmanship.
9
You still can't see it.
The Mueller thing will die, with no collusion findings, regardless whether such collusion existed, because the North Korean deal will be an extraordinarily positive accomplishment for President Trump, and you are hearing this from a Democrat so disappointed in our party, I will never ever support them again, unless Schumer and Pelosi are gone, and a truly progressive Bernie Sanders like party-line emerges.
I don’t trust trump to be competent to make a good deal with Kim. Now I’m a democrat but here I’m siding with a real conservative — lord Randolph Churchill who said: the duty of the opposition is to oppose.
9
" Finally doing something right "??
Just watched CNBC where Warren Buffet admitted that the economy is doing unbelievably well and GDP can reach 4%.
Why,,according to him the tax cuts and removing many government regulations.
I could go on but most here are living in denial.,,,I won't even bother.
9
Yes, while progressives engage in Trump bashing and partisan navel gazing, Trump trudges along doing the kinds of things ordinary Americans appreciate. I know of no one who will be unhappy to receive their $2K child *tax credit*, which used to be phased out at $115K for married couples filing jointly but is now available for couples earning up to $400K. That's $2K per child that comes right off their tax liability. It doesn't get better than tax credits.
5
Many of us will be unhappy because these cuts are grossly increasing the deficit and being paid for by those same children and grandchildren as well as by the poor and middle class who will see decreases in Social Security and Medicare as well as many other programs leaving us with third world inequality. Taxes are the cost of civilization.
2
yeah except now those people can't deduct more than 10k in real estate taxes. that trade off is not even close.
2
If it were Obama instead of Trump, Mr. Kristof would be crediting Obama instead of the South Korean president. Still some way to go in recognizing Trump's successes.
6
Trumpo's success is measured in the millions of people who are entranced by his fraudulent lies, blatant racism and sexual misconduct.
"The real hero here is South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in." That, indeed, is the heart of the question.
President Moon recognized that Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are examples of the same bizarre political egotism and that if negotiations would ever to move it would be up to him. Moon has been able to support and cajole both leaders respectfully. It is certainly in South Korea's interest to bring the Korean conflict to a legal and political closure but Moon is playing his hand very carefully.
Nonetheless, I am glad that Trump will sit down with Kim.
But I cannot forget that Trump has not shown himself to be a good faith participant in diplomacy. He has managed to alienate allies and jeopardize relationships that have taken decades to fine-tune. Skepticism on this side of the Atlantic or Pacific is warranted and hopefully helps to keep the pressure up.
President Moon is the individual who should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
14