We should be very suspicious, this all seems too easy. A few bellicose, insulting tweets with an uninspired oft-used sanctions policy and North Korea is ready to "tap out"? Good luck getting into North Korea to inspect anything.
2
What will John Bolton's position be at the White House? Can't wait to see him as the National Security Advisor.
Typical column where Trump's tweet sounds sane only to be followed by more nutty and dangerous tweets. How long will it take? Oh, perhaps 48 to 72 hours. Some people will never learn.
Let us see if Trump takes up North Korea on an agreement that he has repeatedly said he wants. OR- will he just continue to threaten North Korea with nuclear war simply because it is a communist country that many in the US would be happy to see destroyed- as they tried to do in the recent Korean war.
Kim will tell Trump he's the best most greatest president ever. Trump will then give away the store.
1
More like Rex's court. How about this compromise. North Korea gives up its nukes, delivery systems and other WMD to China. China in turn protects their future, with others agreeing not to work for regime change. Simple and effective, if only it was possible.
I'm left with a suspicion that Trump (not what's left of his administration), will at some point demand military action against the South Korean government to keep it from collaborating with the North. Perhaps a 3 am tweet, to be met with instant disapproval from Congress, Japan, China, and of course Korea.
No, no , no! Trump's tweeted reaction did not make sense for once. How is it that in the same editorial in which you caution that thoughts about the situation should be kept off Twitter, you gloss over the casual way in which the president has once again taken to social media to threaten nuclear war?
"Ready to go hard in either direction." Translation: peace would be great for the world, or maybe millions will die in what could become the deadliest of wars. It is alarming that statements like this from the president are now so normal, no one even bats an eyelash. I'm also far from ready to credit Trump's shockingly reckless willingness to openly consider war with a nuclear-armed regime as an effective strategy for deescalating the conflict, as it now seems you are comfortable doing.
We should be heartened that the sanctions appear to be working and North Korea is open to some form of negotiation. But Trump has shown in the past week that he will launch a trade war as a distraction from his assorted scandals. It's still possible that he could launch an actual war. Let's not kid ourselves that this cavalier tweeter-in-chief has anything resembling a sensible approach to handling this most serious of matters.
"North Korea Has Put the Ball in Trump’s Court."
Which is where, for the good of the nation and the world, we do not want the ball to be. To belabor the point, the president is unhinged and untethered, and thinks only of himself and the white nationalists who adore him.
It is more than ironic that the Trump Republican policy of eviscerating and demonizing the government has now completely undermined the State Department's ability to take advantage of this opening.
It isn't, of course, really a policy. It is just a sticky fermenting ball of "deep state," "government schools," "Obama F.B.I.," and other ignorant conspiracy theories pushed by the Trump Fox Republicans.
We must hold Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell accountable for the fact that such deplorable lies are now having a material impact on the real wellbeing of the nation and the rest of the world.
Will the United States under the chaotic ministrations and machinations of this White House be a constructive player? The last line tells us why that is unlikely:
"That will require creative and sustained diplomacy, toughness, patience and a president who can be disciplined enough to keep his thoughts about the situation off Twitter."
1
A ball placed in Trump's court...to be badly handled all around.
Nothing happens in a vacuum...especially N.Korea flipping on giving up their nuclear weapons...So, one has to wonder just what brought this about.
Kim has said if the military threat to the North was eliminated and its security guaranteed there would be no need to have nuclear weapons. Putin, just recently, dropped his thinly veiled threat of a Russian nuclear response against the USofA in retaliation to any attack against any of its allies.
It appears that Kim believes he has found his assurances...
Joseph Yun even if now retired, could still be appointed special envoy to North Korea, a post that he could probably accept if certain conditions where met. If not, Mr. Yun is not the only one that could be tapped for this mission. The timing is right for the start of negotiations although the North Koreans have a terrible track record for keeping their commitments. In a perfect world the two Koreas would unite, just like east and west Germany did, and prosper exponentially.
3
"North Korea has put the ball in Trump's court (read any president's court)" and just how many times has North Korea done exactly the same thing to absolutely no avail? The NYT editorial board is apparently very short on any understanding of North Korea's history.
When two loonies stare in each other's faces, the one who blinks . . . Maybe Hillary should be president, and the donald should be our foreign 'diplomat.' He reads people well, he'd be the devil at a poker table.
The belief that the U.S. can "lose" or "win" another sovereign nation seems particularly misguided here, an example of the American tendency to see ourselves as the master chess player moving its pieces about forcefully with diplomacy, spy manipulations, and military interventions. When does has this kind of thing really worked? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Those damaged states in Central America that the U.S. used by supporting dictators in the effort to prevent communism in our hemisphere?
There's a lot more in play in forging a community of responsible nations than just implementing whatever the current occupant (or any occupant) of the White House wants, as should be abundantly clear by the laundry list of efforts to shape North Korea cited in this article. The closest we came was the multi-nation talks back in the Clinton era, and that failed when NK got caught cheating. It's a shame that didn't lead to new talks, but, whatever.
Short of an unannounced spiritual awakening by the Dear Leader, it would seem that Kim sees an opportunity to align with the South, to the exclusion of the U.S. While I certainly don't welcome the idea of yet another legitimized nuclear state, would talks between the Koreas be the worst outcome?
Perhaps that's what South Korea sees now... that the best way to engage your enemy is to make him your friend.
2
The sanctions must be hurting.
Of course, the US and other parties need to proceed cautiously but attempt to take full advantage of this opportunity. That will be difficult without experienced ambassadors and State Dept. teams in place for South and North Korea! I appreciate Senator Gillibrand for co-sponsoring S 2047, a bill to bar the executive branch from using taxpayer money to launch a military strike against North Korea or introduce the Armed Forces into hostilities in North Korea unless Congress explicitly authorizes such actions or unless such actions are taken to rescue US personnel or repel a sudden attack on the United States or its allies. I urge Senator Schumer to stop playing footsy with the Republicans who refuse to confront Trump on his dangerous stance on N. Korea and rather co-sponsor this important bill. Let us also urge our representatives to co-sponsor HR 4837, a similar House bill to prohibit the introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities in North Korea without a declaration of war or explicit statutory authorization, and for other purposes. All Senators and Representatives of all parties should be calling for the immediate and appropriate filling of key post to both of these countries to act on this opportunity and avoid miscommunication leading to unnecessary conflict.
3
Fact: North Korea INVADED South Korea in 1950 with the goal of taking over the whole Korean Peninsula, and sparking the Korean War.
Fact: North Korea has cheated repeatedly on a previous nuclear program cesation "agreement".
Fact: North Korea's development of nuclear weapons didn't happen overnight, as many in the "It's All Trump's Fault" camp would try to make you believe.
North Korea's "Oh poor me, why are you threatening me militarily" posture is nothing short of the highest hypocrisy, directed to buy the sympathy of the clueless. Based on many of the previous comments, it's working.
Pres. Clinton gave NK security guarantees, and then they responded by cheating and giving him the finger.
There would have been no need for a demilitarized zone, or for an Armistice to be in place if North Korea hadn't been the aggressor, to begin with. Maybe now, North Korea is beginning to understand that the era of appeasement is over, or they are trying to fool the West into a false sense of security while they keep building up their nuclear capabilities. We should proceed, but with great caution. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
1
While we cautiously and optimistically follow President Moon's diplomatic lead, let us not lose sight of demanding that our legislators do everything possible to prevent war with North Korea. I applaud Senator Gillibrand for co-sponsoring S 2047, a bill to bar the executive branch from using taxpayer money to launch a military strike against North Korea or introduce the Armed Forces into hostilities in North Korea unless Congress explicitly authorizes such actions or unless such actions are taken to rescue US personnel or repel a sudden attack on the United States or its allies. Let us urge Senator Schumer to co-sponsor this important bill. Let us also urge our representatives to co-sponsor HR 4837, a similar House bill to prohibit the introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities in North Korea without a declaration of war or explicit statutory authorization, and for other purposes.
Nancy B.
Nyack, NY
28
Yes. Congress must act to prevent the horrors and destruction of war. I also urge both of Michigan's U.S. Senators, Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters, to support and co-sponsor S 2047. Congress must take back its authority to authorize and pay for war.
So true! Fortunately, these bills are written to explicitly rule out the word games Presidents have played by calling their wars anything but that. With these bills on the tables of both chambers, it is up to us as constituents to urge our members of Congress to pass them. We cannot abide by anymore of these word games, enabling Presidents to spearhead pre-emptive strikes and drag us into illegal wars.
JFK didn't tell anyone about pulling missiles from Turkey as he negotiated an end to the Cuban missile crisis. Negotiations demand some give on both sides.
1
I know - send Jared !!
This administration spits in the eye of the diplomatic agencies of our government. It is a disgrace that we don’t even have an ambassador to South Korea . Trump makes a mockery of our government and quite frankly its embarrassing.
Let’s hope Trump doesn’t blow a chance of having peace and security.
2
"North Korea’s apparent agreement to talk to the United States about abandoning its nuclear weapons is a relief..."
There is not worthy of relief. This is a but a small sliver of hope, overshadowed by a giant, massive history of failed negotiations, over-the-top verbiage, and the constant threat of both nuclear and conventional war.
To hold that the South Korean's statement should inspire "relief" is beyond dangerous. If anything, our guard must be up even more than ever. The history of the conflict on the Korean Peninsula demands nothing less.
1
"North Korea Has Put the Ball in Trump’s Court".
No, it hasn't. How naive.
I suggest President Trump, after his initial careful tweet, go play some golf. He is under no obligation to do anything, other than to tighten sanctions. There is no ball in his court.
2
A half open door for talks with North Korea, so to defuse the nuclear threat, is in sight. But U.S.'s orphan, if not pauper, diplomacy is no way to handle this opportunity. Trump remains obtuse and so does Tillerson's complicity, as warmongering remains their aim. Should we expect the truth from these liers, and recognize their utter incompetence and graft, and perhaps ask the European Union to replace Trump's total absence of credibility?
"Meanwhile, in other news of the day", Stormy Daniels had been designated Secretary of Fate . . .
1
Yes....'the ball is in Trump's Court' ....but then again Trump has a limited 'Court'
so....without a 'Court'....who is there left in the State Department..
Trump really is ' a moron'..sic Tillerson....so can Tillerson just persist and convince Trump to let him...that is Tillerson ...be acting in place of Trump or
at least be Trump's mouthpiece....
Trump is so stupid and vain ...this is unlikely...
and most of all I think that our international diplomats know whom they can
ask....Tillerson and Mattis...end of discussion ...for now.
"North Korea Has Put the Ball in Trump’s Court"
And you, of course, are rooting for Kim Jong Un. I suspect you would support Hitler if only he said something critical of Trump.
The advantage that Kim Jong Un and Xi have over Trump is that they do not have lots of their own citizens snapping at their heels. That allows them to negotiate freely. Trump's ability to ignore contrary opinions does give him SOME freedom but he can always be brought down and perhaps he will be brought down to be replaced by someone like Bush who will invade countries, or by someone like Obama who will practice regime change under the table.
It would be nice if the New York Times would stop snapping at Trump's heels, but that will only happen in 2021 or 2025 when Trump is no longer president.
1
Perfect time to attack them as we need to.
Why would anyone think, let alone believe, that Donald J. Trump wants peace?
1
This is an obvious nothing burger from North Korea. Why anyone treats it as something, is amazing. Let me give you the standard playbook.
1. Talk about what the other side wants and offer hope.
2. Wait whatever time you feel like.
3. Take away the offer.
They have been using it for decades. Trump used it on DACA and gun control.
As P.T. Barnum said, "There is a American born every minute."
2
Who ever thought that Nixon and Kissinger would ever be able to convince Mao and Zhou to join the world of nations? But they took the chance and the world is better for it. For all the naysayers who shout that it will never work: nobody knows how anything will work out until it's tried. And any effort to bring NK into the real world is better by far than doing nothing. As to the question of who can be our envoy to North Korea now that Joseph Yun retired last week? Mister Trump can pick up a phone and ask him to come back for one last job. Or give me his phone number, and I'll call him.
Mr. Trump: Don't blow this chance to make the world safer by getting into one of your pompous tirades. And no tweets, please!
North Koreans must be starving and can’t eat their nukes. “Trump = Progress” with North Korea.
1
"North Korea Has Put the Ball in Trump’s Court"
Oh, sure. A real battle of the Titans. What we have here is The Giant Lie Off. North Korea is as big a liar as Trump is, and that is saying something. All this "dialog" will do is to show who the better fibber is. My money is on Kim. Lets not hold our breath waiting for any positive results coming out of this. Kim is just kicking the can down the road, and he knows he has a willing dupe to exploit in the process.
1
Have NO fear .. it won't be accepted ( might interfer with a golf game .... WAR, Atomic War is a much betterthing ... We can use ALL our missals and buy New ones ( sounds like the president of syria, eh)
1
"That will require creative and sustained diplomacy, toughness, patience and a president who can be disciplined enough to keep his thoughts about the situation off Twitter". OK, so much for that idea! Tots' Rattles Unleashed Means Peace?
1
North and South Korea will need to wait for three more years or until we have a change of regimes before real action can take place. The Trump Administration is incapable of doing this deal.
1
To use your ball/court metaphor, Trump will fumble it.
Diplomacy means playing the long game. Trump wants instant victories. The two are fundamentally incompatible.
1
The diplomacy that would be required here for any kind of agreement is just not possible with the Trump Administration. The competence and the staff needed is just not there and never will be as long as this man in in charge of the US government both foreign and domestic. Talking about it is nice.
2
Kim obviously feels that U.S. foreign policy is in such disarray under Trump, who has antagonized China and most of our allies with his threats of a trade war, that he has the advantage in any negotiations. And he is right. Trump doesn't have a clue about what to do, wouldn't listen to good advice even if it was given and there's no one left to give it since our gutted State Department has lost its best Korea experts.
2
NK has no intention of getting rid of their nuclear weapon capabilities now or in future. Why should they? They are playing the long game with nuclear threats one minute and charm offensive the next- keeping everyone off balance.
Their goal is to have the US remove all military presence in the Korean peninsula so they can reunite with SK- under the control of NK of course.
Meanwhile, they will not really comply with any treaty terms if past behavior is any indication of future behavior.
As long as everyone knows and understands NK which I am sure they do- talks are a good first step and certainly better than threats by Twitter from both sides.
However, thinking NK will ever give up their nuclear capability is naïve.
11
I agree. Only force will effect their decisions. Military force from us or assassination from China. I know which I prefer.
North Korea has become a thorn in the side of Putin and Trump. Same with Syria. Putin and Trump plan to combine Russia and the USA into a conglomerate country in order to rule the world. Trump said during the campaign that the two countries working together could set the world agenda and bring world peace - check it out!
These two have worked out a deal and they are patiently implementing their plan to rule the world.
I know this sounds crazy - but it is true!
1
As an ardent opponent of Donald Trump, I never thought I would say this, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the North Korea-South Korea talks have occurred just around the time Trump has loudly proclaimed that he would rain down "fire and fury" on NK and that his nuclear button is bigger than Kim Jong-un's. Bullies understand other bullies, and Trump has put Kim in a vice that Kim understands.
I must also acknowledge that there is some logic in Trump's determination, as noted by Landler and Sanger in today's NYT, "not [to] get drawn into a lengthy negotiation in which the U.S. offers concessions that keep the North Korean regime alive, while the North Koreans retain the key elements of their nuclear arsenal." That being said, the U.S.'s opening position appears to be that NK must disarm before the U.S. will agree to negotiate. That's a position about as likely to succeed as the Palestinians insisting Jerusalem must be their capital.
Ultimately, I don't see how any agreement can ever be reached with NK to shut down its nuclear program, for the simple reason that Kim will never allow inspections by any Western country of its nuclear facilities, which would be necessary for confirmation that NK's nukes have been dismantled. Still, if Trump's aides could convince Trump that he'd win the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula, you never know what might happen.
The old Reagan mantra of "trust, but verify" will have to be a centerpiece of any agreement. The real challenge for the U.S. is that we now have, thanks to Rex Tillerson, almost no diplomatic capacity to handle the tricky details involved in a viable verification process, and thus will be at the mercy of of other, perhaps more talented negotiators from South Korea and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Then, of course, there is the volatile narcissist in the Oval Office who fires off tweets first and and asks questions later. This is not a scenario for success. It will only work if, as it has been, the two Koreas take the lead along with China and the IAEA and drag a reluctant Trump administration along with it.
1
Bring back Mr Yun. I see no reason why they can not denuk and at the same time our military leaves South Korea and we set up with the South Koreans a verification process in the North.I am not optimistic. Also aid and ways for the North to recover economically as fast as possible. I hope Mr. Kim can sell this all to his Generals and other hired help. A mass victory for North Korea can probably be sold to its people. We do not have to take credit for anything just get it done. Of course we could be wrong and Mr Kim is just having fun. I pray not. Not with Trump as President.
With the state department in such disarray and Tillerson in need of a hero, maybe Jared should step in to save the day. His wide-ranging foreign service expertise would probably solve this pesky problem in a couple of hours-- if he can set aside some time when he's not working on Mideast peace, that is, or solving the US opioid crisis, or filling out the paperwork for his security clearance.
Even if North Korea were to abandon its nuclear weapons, can the North Korean defense leadership guarantee to the North Koreans as well as China that a future American President, in response to domestic political pressure, would not attempt to overthrow the Kim Jong-un regime?—- As we did in Iraq on a bogus charge that its leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction like ours, like Israel’s, like Pakistan’s, India’s, the U.K.’s, and several other countries?
So long as the United States, its “five Eyes of English speaking white nations,” as well as NATO, control the enforcement arm of any denuclearization agreement between North Korea in the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members, the North Korean government will be at a disadvantage in negotiations.
But since Trump’s style of negotiations is to make initially maximum demands, in order to negotiate down to a deal that he really wants, expect North Korean counter maximum demands,
So if I were a North Korean leader, I would not only demand that all U.N. sanctions against North Korea as engineered by the United States be suspended during talks, I would also demand a permanent position on the United Nations Security Council for international political leverage. North Korea needs world markets to expand its economy and to diversify its political power. We need to give Kim Jong-un more incentive rope. First establish trust.
One of the conditions of negotiations should be opening the borders so the world can see what goes on inside N. Korea. Either Kim Jong-un or Donald Trump-unfit will unilaterally break any agreement made.
There is only one ethnic sectarian historical Korea. There is no North nor South Korea. Any more than there was a Union North and a Confederate South USA or a North and South Vietnam. Korea is divided by socioeconomic political diplomatic and military civil war backed up competing foreign powers. Koreans have stepped up to take charge of their present in order to insure their mutual future.
Mr. Kim reasonably and rationally wants to remain in power. Having seen what happened to Moammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein when they gave up their nukes he is being prudent. Mr. Kim has more nation state governing political experience talent than the entire Trump administration combined.
Despite the ignorant, immature, intemperate and insecure name calling and threats of the American President this is no ball game. Nukes and missiles can mutually assure destruction. Contemplating doomsday is not fun and games. But for the impeachment and removal from office of his corrupt connected predecessor Mr. Moon would not be in office.
1
The notion we will get everything we want and North Korea will get egg all over its face is the way Trump likes to look at negotiating. I win, you lose. Well I suspect the best we can hope to get is a deal like the Iran deal. Complete halting and dismantling of the nuclear program for 10 years with free access to all nuclear sites. We aren't talking about who gets what weeks in the condo during a divorce settlement. This is to avert a nuclear war. And the first order of business HAS TO BE making sure the impulsive, petulant, easily provoked American president sits on his hands and zips his mouth and let's those far more intelligent and adept at these things get the opportunity to try and get something accomplished. And China should be a major player in the negotiations as well. The last thing we need is to start the process by insulting the other side. And no one wants to give up something during negotiations to have the American president rub their noses in it afterwards. The biggest impediment to making progress is having a president who doesn't know how to keep his nose out of places it doesn't belong because some things are best left to the experts. If the process fails and North Korea decides to strike, their best target would be Mar A Lago, where it would inflict the most pain.
Most of the discussion about NK's nukes assumes that missiles would be required to hit the US. Possibly true but not certain. They have submarines, and crews that would undertake a suicide mission, into any West coast harbor. Another way would be to put a miniature sub on a merchant ship and drop it over the side to go in to any harbor on any coast.
They could halt development on missiles and weapons, sign a peace treaty. and retain the capability to take out one of more US cities.
This editorial omits to mention that it was the US which reneged on an agreement to provide assistance in the DPRK's peaceful nuclear programme, that and the election of a right-wing President in ROK has led to the present crisis. Indeed, a look back in history will show that it has been successive US administrations which have promised 'fire and fury' on the Korean peninsular, including the use of biological warfare on the DPRK in the 1950s. Sadly, I doubt if this administration will further this peace move by the two Koreas
Everybody (rightfully) eviscerates Donald Trump for his mind-boggling management of foreign policy and (also rightfully) sits in amazement at his lack of challenges to Russian aggression. But as we watch our State Department implode under the "leadership" of Rex Tillerson, a once close working ally of Vladamir Putin, could it be that our focus on Trump is misdirected?
Where the heck is the SecState and his experts on this development? Oh, right, State still doesn't have an Undersecretary for Arms Control, no Assistant SecState for East Asia, no ambassador in South Korea. And, there's zero evidence of any substantive participation by the President with his National Security Council.
With this administration, foreign policy is made on the fly by an impulsive president, driven by his thirst for praise by Fox and Friends. Nothing good will come of this situation.
1
I think what is at work here is North Korea's neighbors want access to its labor force. These people will work for practically nothing and have produced amazing things (nuclear bombs for example) with very limited resources. Just as the hidden motivation of Nixon goes to China was cheap labor, now it is the same thing for Japan, China and South Korea.
Plus, China can offer North Korea both security and a guarantee the current regime will remain in place for the foreseeable future. Trump's contribution to these events is his incompetence.
Ah, yes, the NYTimes take the Neville Chamberlain "Peace in Our Time" approach. We've seen this before and the results were devastating. We cannot be duped. Kim is playing us. I do agree that there should be talks. Any agreement that denuclearize NK must contain ongoing inspections and verifications.
2
It appears to me that Mr. Kim has made the shrewd calculation that it is to his advantage to negotiate with Washington while a dunce occupies the White House; perhaps a positive, unforeseen benefit to an otherwise disastrous situation.
Is it really possible? Many commenters here would actually prefer N. Korean nuclear missiles targeted at NYC than a diplomatic triumph that Trump might brag about.
1
Dear New York Times Editorial Board:
Been there, done that.
Sanctions working, tighten them further. That's it.
Iran said a while ago that as far as the pain of sanctions goes, they will "eat grass" before they abandon their nuclear program.
NK has plenty of grass. Let's set the table.
1
I'm not sure whether Kim Jong un is seriously considering giving up his right to have a viable deterrent but if he is I would urge him to reconsider. When dealing with a recidivistic terrorist state like the US you have to be able to deter an unprovoked attack. The US is seeking to prevent NK from being able to defend itself against the US using nuclear weapons just as it did with Iran. Iran as a result is in the invidious position of being subject to attacks by the US's puppet, Israel, which it can do little or nothing about. NK is very close to having an ICBM with a miniaturised nuclear warhead that can reach the US mainland. When dealing with evil you have to ensure you can deter them. Only if the US knows they are dealing with a realistic counter strike it is possible to offer real deterrence against a US pre-emptive strike. No country on earth has the right to take away a country's sovereign right to defend itself. NK must stick to its guns and Russia and China need to make it plain, as the US has done with Israel and Taiwan, that any unprovoked attack on NK will be considered an attack on them. This will neutralise Trump. Evil comes in many forms and its most potent is a country that considers itself better than others; a country that considers it has the right to impose its values on others at the point of gun. The US is that country.
Trump is one of those negotiators who does not know how to take yes for an answer nor to commit to saying yes himself. Assuming South Korea did not misunderstand what North Korea said, this opportunity puts Trump in a position of being the point person on making a deal instead of merely being the deal breaker in chief. His Art of the Deal talent will surely be put to the test. More important, that he and Tillerson have left the State Department lacking in capable people is terrifying. Negotiating even from a position of strength, which may or may not be our position, is not effective if one is also negotiating from a position of ignorance and incompetence.
I wonder if there is any substance called North Korea; my guess is it evaporates soon once Kim Jong-un ceases to exist. Dictators are quite selfish but Kim has gone too far in the process of consolidating his power and has wasted any substance endowed by his grandfather. So this is not a diplomacy; this is how to deal with a man who happens to have nuclear bombs.
Rex Tillerson...now there's a name I haven't heard in a while. Is that guy still around? Do we still have a State Department?
1
North Korea has one goal and one goal only...establish full nuclear power as soon as the end of this year.
The Trump sanctions and the China sanctions have pushed North Korea in a corner. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing!
1
High on the wish list of Koreans is the peacefull reunifucation of Korea. And the lowest is a nuclear war that kills millions of Koreans. Ditto whether the person is north or south of the 38 parallel.
SK will not agree to Trump's preemptive strike to "totally destroy" NK - aint no way Jose!
Kim Jong-in is a smart young man. He really has not changed anything in the North position but has now managed to look like a good guy awaiting trumps move. From a military point of view I do not blame him for his position and if he trusts trump or the US he really is a fool, just look at the Iran deal. Iran did and is doing their part and trump and the US want to punish them and go back on the deal.
1
Ok, I will confess to not understanding this overture to peace.
Why would Kim Jong-un offer to give up his entire nuclear missile program and strategy? It has been his single goal for years to pursue nuclear weapons and he has done so to the detriment of his people's quality of life. He has never cared if North Korean's were starving and has used the propaganda of his military might to keep his position at home and abroad.
What has changed to cause Kim Jong-un to change his mind? Tough sanctions may hurt his people but we have seen he does not care about that. He has a network of suppliers and black market monies that keep him and his military thriving despite sanctions. And he has his nuclear weapons now.
His dictatorship relies upon North Korea being isolated from the world especially regarding news and information for the people he controls. As for the security of North Korea, he knows that South Koreans lead the push for peace as they would be the ones decimated by war and the US would hesitate to be the ones to this, even Trump.
Please NYT explain to me what Kim Jong-un is up to. Of course I would want peace for all Koreans but I just don't get what is going on.
To see the real positive result from dialogue demands us to be open and fair to us as well as the other. Press has a vital role in ensuring such a sincere effort to both side and yet, you failed in your writing as you blame fatly North Korea for the fallout of the deal with Clinton Administration. To blame others is easy but not the prudent way to sell our trustworthiness. The promise of Clinton Administration has failed to materialize first before North went on their way. Start being true to the fact is a beginning of a dialogue. We all deserve and demand such an honor from NY Times.
I didn't know Trump had a "court"? We all know he has a circus, but, I don't see any "court" in sight. Perhaps he can put the "ball" on the nose of a seal and amuse himself and his friends at Fox?
“For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned."
1) It is not the first time in many years this sort of thing is started
2) Who is making the serious effort ? North Korea: just accepting to discuss, no serious proposal, same ol' same ol' same ol'. USA: where are they ? China: radio silence. The only serious effort here is made by South Korea, thanks a lot.
Lies, deceits, appropriation of others' achievements, self-aggrandizing claims need to be constantly exposed and corrected, otherwise our very values will be lost in the trash bag.
Again, the two sides are talking past each other.
There remains a basic misunderstanding.
The United States thinks N. Korea is willing to give up all that it has accomplished with nuclear warheads.
However N. Korea remembers what happened to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi when he trusted our country.
He gave up his long range ballistic missiles expecting a peace initiative from the U.S.
Instead, he was bombed by the U.S. then killed by local tribes.
North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un is not foolish enough to destroy his only safety mechanism against us.
After all of this past, the U.S. still doesn't understand N. Korea or its leader.
We are not going to talk N. Korea out of its current nuclear capacity.
Our vice president is even more dangerous because in any dispute he thinks he will have God on his side.
N. Korea won't be giving up their nuclear weapons unless we give up our 4900 of them. We are now upgrading, improving all of them. For what?
The U.S. and N. Korea might be meeting soon but there is no agreement unless we allow them to keep what they now have.
I doubt that our current U.S. government will allow that so we are still just talking past each other after all of this time.
M.W. Endres
If Israel can have hundreds of nuclear weapons of mass destruction aimed at Iran and other neighbors, then there is no international law or agreement that stops nations from introducing nuclear arms into their arsenal.
The US is paying billions to Israel, so why cannot Russia pay North Korea? Not a fan, just saying the amount of hypocrisy in the US position is sickening. Soon the Saudis may have the same weapons.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
1
Last I heard, Israel wasn't threatening to nuke the Guam Air Force base or the West Coast of the United States.
Kim Jong-un seems to have borrowed an idea from the US—negotiate from a position of strength. Kim obviously feels the North is stronger than the South (without the US at the table).
A prudent strategy for the US would be to let the Koreans meet without the US in attendance—see how much each side is willing to give.
The whole world is wishing that Joe Biden had been setting next to Kim’s sister at the Olympics opening—Joe would have said “Hi, I’m Joe; I’m from Scranton.”
Bureaucracy is a necessary process, and the Department of State reportedly ... "baby with bathwater" cliche.
North Korea, which is highly skilled re negotiating is seemingly
coming around.
Let us pray to the deities of progress and goodness that the principles shall compromise in ethical pursuit of healing
Korea aka reunification.
The private school curriculum of Kim in Switzerland plus the
madman theory that POTUS is very ably working lead me to
optimism rather than the Porkchop Hill of my childhood feeling re
Korea.
And thanks to the diplomatic effort of all including informal ambassador Rodman.
Chaos in the Korean situation may be transcended by way of
south Korean new leader Moon an adaptive gentleman for sure.
G-D exists after all, some times.
And the Korean Kia proves that ... good Soul can be too.
It's long past time for the Korean War to end in a Peace Treaty. This could be the beginning of that process. Trump's scorched earth policy promising to make NK a Nuclear Wasteland along with contiguous countries like SK, Chima, Russia and Japan, sounded the alarm. China said they would be actively opposed to a US pre-emptive strike on NK, SK has opposed a Military solution. Japan asked for more missile defense, but I'm certain, unstated in true Japanese fashion, that they opposed any talk of a preventive war that would likely leave Tokyo smoldering, while the aggrieved US looks on from afar and out of range. So let the parties talk and come to a conclusion that they both can live with. Then we can do our part and bring our troops home.
1
North Korea is playing. Nuclear weapons give them an edge in international blackmail, and failure of the US now to negotiate them out of existence makes the problem a US problem.
Kim Jong-Un is in the business of remaining in power. There is the possibility that he believes Trump will reduce North Korea to rubble, but mostly it is a ploy in a leader who has no real interest in the welfare of his people or the welfare of the world.
The phrase, "Trust but verify" doesn't apply. Don't trust. And think carefully about the poker hand Kim is holding. There are probably five aces in his deck.
To take seriously any conciliatory suggestion from North Korean is to ignore North Korea's history of acting "conciliatory".
The Arms Control Association, a DC based group, has documented US-North Korea Diplomacy at: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
One of the positive developments in having a people stop threatening to murder you, is that it leaves the door open for discussion on a more humane level. The reason for the threats, were and are a few more than a few; social and geopolitical in origin. The latest driving force, was a Progressive putsch for universal social policy; which has been rejected not only in the US, but around the globe. China accepting refuges? Japan? Korea(s)? Being required to restructure their societies to a multiculturalism - that has never existed. Something has the Koreas talking.
A mercantile US President, was just what the 'doctors of global functionality' ordered. Of course, we could've stayed with the Progressive plan. That is, "Stop dumping steel, and make your society a hodgepodge -- now, or we will starve you to death." All the while, having no precedent that multiculturalism will provide a productive society, e.g., the very US those Progressives espouse from.
We have been down this road before, and with much more experienced and knowlegible State Department people in the wings. One caveat - don't let Trump anywhere near the place if some more concrete actions are possibly imminent. I'm sure the South Koreans are overjoyed at this latest trade and tariff blunder. And don't you just love Trump's response when asked why Mr. Kim seems amenable to discussion... "Me." And he added, "just kidding." Hardly. But to give the devil his due, if he can pull off something productive here, the world will be thankful for his effort.
2
The editorial board apparently does not know this, and there is no way that Trump or his cronies could understand it, but there is a huge catch in what North Korea appears to be promising.
The term denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as the North Koreans understand it means that no power possessing weapons can occupy the peninsula north or south. In order to achieve denuclearization the United States must leave South Korea entirely, not a single soldier left.
Trump will assume that Kim Jong-un is offering to give up his weapons for normalization of relations and some food and oil. When he discovers that every American Soldier must leave South Korea as part of the deal, this will blow up.
I estimate that this misunderstanding will result in a delay of perhaps 3 to 4 weeks, when we will be right back where we are, with a slightly improved nuclear program and missiles to carry them in North Korea.
4
It's an obvious trap. NK will eventually want to negotiate but it will take another couple of years of tough sanctions.
There's a possibility I hadn't considered yet. Kim is willing to come to the table because current US diplomacy is in such disarray North Korea has a negotiating advantage. The US can't refuse or we're the aggressor Even if talks fall apart, North Korea can blame US disorganization. The US will obviously blame North Korea in return but diplomacy is currently low-risk, high-reward for the Koreans. Trump is going to claim a diplomatic victory no matter what the outcome but I have little faith that outcome will be favorable to the US. Moon is about the only person who might be able to salvage this situation. USA is in the backseat.
1
The US current diplomacy via Twitter has made much of the world realize that they can move forward on a number of issues without the US.
China has taken the lead on trade in Asia. The Paris Climate Accords are going forward without US leadership. And now the two Korea's are at least talking about peace without US involvement.
If the North Korean's are smart they will propose a nuclear free peninsula, including the surrounding region. Then the ball will really be in America's court.
I don't agree that the ball is in Trump's court. It's still in Kim's court. He has pursued nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles despite many UN resolutions condemning those actions. He needs to come up with a proposal for a verifiable and enforceable means to eliminate his nuclear weapons. Then we can talk about what the US and S. Korea will provide in exchange.
Let's be sanguine about this. It is highly unlikely Kim will give up his nukes. He only wants to talk so that he can make a small, temporary concession in exchange for a softening of sanctions. I hope the US doesn't fall for that trap and keeps increasing sanctions in place until there is an enforceable agreement in place.
The question is whether Mr. Trump knows how to get to yes. If his negotiations with Congress are any guide, he takes one position, then offers to meet his negotiating partner by taking a reasonable position close to if not spot on, then abandons the position and goes back to where he was, leaving his partner to feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy once again snatches the ball away.
1
Even without the official endorsement by the North Korean side yet the South Korean disclosure that the North Korea was willing for negotiating peace and discuss the contentious nuclear issue is to be welcomed as a positive sign for peace. As about the motivation behind the peace overture, could it be a tacit understanding between the two Koreas to turn the dispute into a bilateral issue that keeps it off the international meddling. The growing desire on the part of the South Korea to chart its foreign and security policy course independent of the US and a better understanding with the North do possibly suggest that the two Koreas are exploring peace prospects along this bilateral engagement.
3
From those who know their history, to those that don't, it may come as a surprise to know that both China AND North Korea decided to go Nuclear after they BOTH saw what America did to one and wanted to do with Nukes to the other...but MacArthur was overruled.
Suffice to say that the U.S was the catalyst for BOTH countries deciding to go nuclear, for different but broadly similar reasons...though from different directions.
By the actions of the same Country though...
2
"It is an opportunity that cannot be squandered. That will require creative and sustained diplomacy, toughness, patience and a president who can be disciplined enough to keep his thoughts about the situation off Twitter."
Yes, yes, yes. Let's hope that the good will is real on both sides and that something good can come of this. Both countries and the world have so much more to gain by cooperating and engaging each other than by maintaining belligerent, fearful postures that are damaging to all concerned and fraught with risk.
I sincerely hope that Rex Tillerson gets his head out of his asset, which is one of the world's great resources for easing tensions, resolving conflicts, or maintaining dialogues until meaningful change can be achieved. To date, he has caused significant damage, all in vengeful service to Trump who no doubt still seethes that this was Hillary Clinton's department and who probably is fulfilling the wishes of Vladimir Putin for reduced State Dept influence.
2
The North probably wants the U.S. out of South Korea in exchange for a verifiable end to their nuclear weapons program. It's worth trying for, imho, as it beats the alternative. However, wouldn't it be ironic if, at this critical juncture, we were incapable of fielding a knowledgeable/qualified team to the negotiations . . . thanks to Rex Tillerson's dismantling of American diplomacy. He has not implemented the sanctions on Russia, passed overwhelmingly in Congress. He has not spent one cent of the millions earmarked for combating Russian cyber intervention in our elections. He has gutted the State Department. And, according to news reports this week, he was Russia's choice for U.S. Secretary of State (over Mitt Romney who is hawkish on Russia), so why would he want to negotiate with North Korea when his Russian masters (Putin pinned the medal of friendship on him) are supplying them with rocket engines for their ICBM's. And then there's the issue of our erratic president. It would appear that the odds are already stacked against the chance of a favorable ooutcome.
1
"While the North has not yet made its own statement on the talks..."
Isn't it a bit premature to declare the ball is in Trump's court? So far the only source for the change in Kim's willingness to engage in talks is South Korea. Until the North confirms their interest in talks there is really nothing Trump and the US can or should do.
2
Can't wait for The Donald's reaction when Kim wins this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
11
I can't wait for Stu's reaction when Trump wins this year's Nobel Peace prize.
“Many things helped bring about this opening, including both South Korea’s determination to avoid war and Mr. Trump’s willingness to consider it”
I don’t think the Times has ever offered such praise, as weak as it is, to Trump.
Congrats for finally recognizing that his aggressive rhetoric is helpful and is now beginning to pay dividends.
7
Right. Profoundly mature thinking.
In my opinion, this step makes total sense for NK. They have been building their nuclear capabilities over decades, sacrificing their own people and becoming international pariahs. They have taken a lot of heat, and rightly so. But from their position, a lot of their posturing and nuclear development was to command respect and to gain leverage. They have been disregarded and disrespected (from their viewpoint) since the Korean War. But they have now succeeded in their goal.... to have nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and Europe. In their mind, they have succeeded and nothing more needs to be done. They are now in that position of power unlike anytime before and as such, they have more leverage at the bargaining table. I am not saying I agree with their "ways and means" to get to this point, but it seems to have proven effective to achieve their goals.
I try to understand it from their perspective, even though I find their methods abhorrent. From a country that clearly disregards the needs of its own people (or others), their decades long strategy seems to be paying off. It will be interesting to see how the West responds.... will we talk, or will we decide that we want to raise the ante? The desire for respect is a powerful factor for all sides. (look at some of the extreme language and actions that our own president has used in his futile attempt to gain respect).
3
I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that a divided Korean peninsula is not sustainable, just as a divided Germany and a divided Vietnam were not sustainable. If both the Korean leaders looked into the (not-so-distant) future and came up with an idea of how a united Korea might appear, why would the US even be consulted? Even if they are thinking shorter-term, why would either Korean leader really care what Trump said? Trump is the opportunist; he's just showboating.
1
Greg:
By any standard South Korea is a stunning success story. Just as West Germany was. I don't why anyone would call either of them "unsustainable." I suppose you could say that they both made a bad choice of neighbors.
It is an open secret that the country that appears to be dead-set against Korean reunification is China.
'That will require ...... and a president who can be disciplined enough to keep his thoughts about the situation off Twitter'
I hope you did not mean this to be a joke!
I am eagerly waiting to see what he will be tweeting about Kim-Jung-Un at 3 AM tomorrow.
1
"Mr. Kim, tear down your nuclear missiles."
1
I yield to no one in the degree of my loathing of Trump.
One comment observed that Trump was to blame for the accomplishments of N Korea in developing nukes and missiles.... things that obviously have been in the works for years and years. Trump is not to blame.
On the other hand, even I will be forced to acknowledge that his bluster might have given results (it's too early tell, by several years, or a couple of decades!) Who knows what the long-range results might be? If, however, the poorest of North Koreans wind up with more food and other necessities, I will be forced to give Trump credit for part of that.
Here's hoping. We're a LONG way from being sure what N Korea is doing!
1
Yes, North Korea has put the ball in Trump's court and he has no idea what to do with it. Or whom to do it with. He has managed to irritate both South Korea and China with his ad hoc anger-fueled tariff decision. So, at a time when he most needs partners (although he would never admit to needing anyone...ever), he can't look to the countries best in a position to help the US.
It seems as if this White House never contemplates the downstream ramifications of any decision it makes. Everything is in the moment, What happens the next time he sees the top three people from DOJ having dinner at a non-Trump establishment? What happens if Sarah Huckabee Sanders were to ever admit she told white lies on behalf of the president? The sad and frightening this is that absolutely no one anywhere knows the answer to those questions.
42
Tom:
Don't you get it that the little green shoot that might mean peace is a downstream ramification of Trump's decisions. Give the devil his due.
Smash it back at them is the answer. And those white lies were nothing, just being polite instead of how the president would be. I would be quite happy telling someone that the president did not wish to see them ever, instead of being nice and telling them he was busy. Those were the white lies.
'Washington says it will settle for nothing less than a “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of the nuclear program.'
Yes, that is how it should be.
But will we be able to convince the North Koreans that the US always keeps its word - a promise is a promise?
Will they be able to point at instances where we did not keep our promises? I hope not.
1
Watch the hands. The lips are only a distraction.
1
Great opportunity indeed. It's an opportunity to 1) get rid of the nuclear threat over our head once and for all, and 2) save billions at the same time by withdrawing troops from Korean peninsula. There will be no reason for us to be there any more once North Korea is denuclearized. Koreans are worth $trillions and have modern military; they can fend for themselves just fine against conventional threats. Without us there, they are likely to make up and embrace each other as same people anyway.
I'll note that Chinese have stakes in this too. The American x-band radars and thaad stationed in Korea has been a thorn on their side. In exchange for the troop withdrawal, Trump could extract trade concessions from Chinese. That would be a triple win for Trump.
The NYT now owes Donald Trump a massive ang groveling apology for its ongoing editorial attacks on Trump and his North Korean policy, the latest of which was February 1st of this year.
3
No. No they don't. On what basis are you making this claim?
3
"Policy"? Are you kidding? Please articulate exactly what Trump's policy on North Korea is, citing examples of what he has done so far and how the State Department is involved in executing this "policy".
7
Trump has no policy, he has visceral emotions with which he reacts to any perceived attack on his prestige or competence.
Watch and see, this is about to blow up, because Trump does not realize that the term denuclearization means that the US must remove all of its people from South Korea.
Trump hasn't done anything except to speed up the North Korean program. This will not end well.
2
The past four administrations have wrestled with N Korea and their nuclear weapons program. The North continued the program in spite of everything including talks, ever escalating sanctions, international isolation and sabotage. Now the North has 30 (likely more) weapons and has perfected an ICBM that can reach the continental US. They only need to design a shell that will withstand re-entry. All of this has been accomplished at enormous cost to the country and its people. So, suddenly Kim Jong-un is going to going to talk and give up the weapons? He doesn't care about the sanctions and is perfectly willing for millions of N Koreans to starve again to achieve his goals and stay in power.
Pardon me if I am extremely skeptical of the motivations of this leader and its regime. I don't trust them at all.
Should we enter into negotiations? Yes, but only after they agree to a verifiable halt to any further weapons development, which seems basically impossible to guarantee, and with the end point of denuclearization.
I suspect the US, S Korea and China will again negotiate with the North, further sanctions will be at least avoided and the N Koreans will buy more time. In ~1 year's time they will walk as they have done before - all the while having achieved whatever goal they actually have in mind right now.
23
Not one comment in praise of Trump and his unorthodox brinkmanship.
It was the same for Liberals and Reagan. The Cold War ended itself.
Be a Liberal. Cower. And praise globalism.
Even as it runs over 95% of Americans.
It’s just “those people”, sniff.
2
Nothing, not one single thing has been accomplished by this brinkmanship. If you think that Kim Jong on is going to negotiate away his nuclear weapons, you are no better experienced than the president or his advisors, in the gutted shell that used to be the United States Department of State.
North Korea is employing delaying tactics, at the end of which they will have a reliable system for delivering nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.
Trump fails again.
3
"North Korea Has Put the Ball in Trump’s Court; an opportunity that cannot be squandered."
Yes, that is truly an opportunity that cannot be squandered. To those eager to see peace in that part of the world, that probably qualifies as the century's understatement.
But think again. We are talking about Trump's administration. An administration that says one thing today and does another thing tomorrow. And, save for Israel, it does not consult with other countries. That is why, I am afraid, this opportunity, like others, will be squandered.
Just watch Trump's decision on the US-South Korea "Joint Military Exercises". Stopping these exercises will be critical to building confidence between the two sides. But, since he thinks like a bully, Trump is not going to back off from conducting them. And, then, we can be certain that North Korea will respond by going ahead with its nuclear bomb and missile tests. At the end, we will be much closer to a nuclear war than any time before.
18
Is Kim Jong Un, the Gorbachev of North Korea? As the Soviet Union collapsed during Gorbachev, North Korea began its nuclear weapons program during the presidency of George Bush, Sr and then continued through the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama year and has peaked now in the Trump's first year in office. Ball was in North Korean rocket man's court after the tough sanctions, tough talk, US and South Korea naval movement towards North Korean shores, the winter Olympics comraderie and US missile defenses. After all of the Trump's bold and fearless moves, the ball is back in Trump's court and he should very cautiously respond to grab the opportunity for a denuclearized Koren peninsula. After 4 previous US president's failed to reach this stage in history, the most unexpected president might just achieve that. But then I am an optimist and hope springs eternal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program
3
" If the military threat to the North is eliminated and it's security guaranteed ". Only the US withdrawing from Korea fits that requirement. Next: Japan remilitarizes and gets the Bomb. Good luck with that South Korea.
1
"That will require creative and sustained diplomacy ... patience and a president who can be disciplined enough to keep his thoughts about the situation off Twitter."
... which means any hope is sadly misplaced.
1
Trump has taken every opportunity to trash every agreement made by the United States in every sector before he became president. This now is an opportunity for him to negotiate and finalize a deal (assuming Kim is up to it) from a blank slate. He will have no one to blame if it collapses and can take full credit if it succeeds.
It is now time for proponent art of the deal to show his true colors.
4
Pariah that he is, and given the relish with which he incinerates and/or casts to the dogs anyone in his coterie, including family members whom he suspects of disloyalty, unless China is pulling the strings it's difficult to give credence to any notion that Kim Jong-un would disarm and rely on third parties for his political and personal security.
3
“Putting a ball in someone’s court” is the sort of expression which encourages sexism: males are more prone to the sport analogy obsession. One should use those less.
Nuclear proliferation has to be stopped. By all means necessary. The West and South Korea, Japan, etc. should be able to make North Korea an offer it can’t refuse… considering Korea had many wars with China… In the last 1,000 years.
Claiming that sports analogies are sexist is ridiculous, and an insult to all the phenomenal female athletes around the world. Did you not see how women athletes performed during the Olympics?
This is rabid political correctness, and not helpful in any way.
Patrice:
Let me put a ball in your court. By all means necessary means by military strikes -- if necessary. Is that what you meant?
1
Kim Jong-Un is only seeking absorption of South Korea then the really big bombs start. Being the permanent leader he has time on his side.
4
How many ways can we say to the NYT editorial board: suckers! Maybe 'fools' would be more appropriate. How about 'insane' if we define 'insane' to mean to try to do the same thing that has failed repeatedly and expect a different result. Ask Bill Clinton for his opinion. Ask George Bush I and II and ask Barack Obama. The family dictatorship that runs North Korea must be laughing at your editorial.
3
I'll bet Mr. Kim is hoping they send Jared.
What could go wrong with that?
But seriously with a negotiator like our president and the disarray it brings, Mr. Kim surely feels he has a rare advantage.
4
The US is diplomatically paralyzed. With few other soft power initiatives in the world, Kim Jong-un may see "charm" as his best suit, as ludicrous as this would be in normal times. Trump is incapable of countering.
4
The US should withdraw completely from Korea - it has no right to have military forces there in the first place. The Korean people must be allowed to make their own peace - just like the people of Vietnam when the French imperialists and the Americans were driven out. The US must stop interfering in the affairs of other countries - such action is causing chaos, misery and death around the globe.
1
Ask a South Korean whether the US military occupation was good or bad for S. Korea. He or she will look at you as if you are off your rocker. South Korea is one of a few outstanding successes since WW2.
My first reaction is to hope Trump doesn't tweet and mess up the positive momentum.
But it may be that the combination of welcome South Korean Olympic charm coupled with a scary USA pushed this conflict to the first positive development in decades.
I would not begrudge Trump credit. Perhaps praise will temper him.
2
More skepticism is warranted.
4
Awesome! Well written!
The chance of North Korea actually giving up its nuclear weapons program is something like 0.0000000000001%. The chance of North Korea pretending to be interested in a deal to get a reprieve while working furiously to perfect its nuclear delivery systems is 99.9999999999%. Predictably, North Korea will demand unacceptable terms to cause delays while trying hard to make the U.S. look unreasonable to the rest of the world. Inevitably, there will be no deal. Implying that it will be the fault of the U.S., as the New York Times is doing, will only serve to undermine the national interests of the U.S.
1
Quite confident that Trump will screw this up. Rapprochement with NK means he won't be able to use his nuclear weapons.
3
So Mr. bad haircut and the only overweight citizen in the state just did a 360? Let's see if there actually is an opportunity to squander. I wouldn't count on it.
3
Yes, it certainly should be obvious that the possibility of a peaceful solution is better than the possibility of a nuclear war. Unfortunately, the only that seems obvious to Mr. Trump is his mammoth ego.
The Trump administration wants to void President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, calling it the “worst deal ever.” He’s opening himself up to criticism of the most unforgiving sort if he ventures into these deep waters.
Nuclear arms agreements are delicate and troublesome affairs requiring diplomacy and nuance, not to mention a deep sense of history. These fraught elements require time and patience—this last a virtue notably missing from this presidency. He has a Secretary of State who is not highly regarded in international circles. The North Korean diplomatic portfolio is gathering dust. Added on to all this is the president’s track record since he assumed office. His is a government by tweet. He is widely seen as lazy and disengaged about issues far less momentous as nuclear war.
Mr. Kim, on the other hand, is to be commended, as this editorial states. Whatever his motivations, Kim Jong-un deserves credit for either recognizing a situation and reacting to it in a mature fashion as behooves a statesman or for devilishly paying out a line to the mercurial American president simply to guffaw at his reaction.
Mr. Trump, if he is serious about meeting North Kores halfway—for he cannot both dictate terms and walk away in a huff if the layers play out too slowly for his liking. He cannot be both conciliatory and threatening. He has a rare—and, perhaps, last chance—to do honor to himself and his office, behavior that, since January 20, 2017, has been noticeable for its absence.
34
Bluster and arrogance will not win this fight (especially since WE WANT TO GO TO WAR)
It's a win-win situation for him.
Trump will cut a nuclear deal with North Korea and will be widely praised for it.
A few months before the November election he will fashion some excuse for launching a surprise missile attack on North Korea's nuclear facilities and will be widely praised for that decision also.
2020, here he comes.
3
The picture says it all.
1
Thanks, but no thanks NY Times! According to you Trump can't do anything good, he is a war monger, a danger to world peace and put American security in danger. In fact the opposite is the truth, based on what happened after Trump's election. He has advanced American interest, challenged adversaries, destroyed Islamic terrorists, willing to take actions to level trade imbalances to help American workers, cancelled unfair treaties and will continue to do so, doesn't matter what NY Times' editors say.
14
Trump has made the United States a laughing stock in the world. No one respects this country anymore. They have seen his naivete in trade and international policy, and they know that they can rob him blind.
He sets up dire situations in conflicts with other countries, for which we need our allies to help extract us. But Trump has already alienated them with his desire for a trade war.
Least qualified president ever.
3
As the old saying goes "when all is said and done, more is said than done". Let us hope even pray this is not the case. RDM
Kudos to Kim Jon-un for making the first move to forego a nuclear build-up. That's what responsible statesmen do in the interests of world peace. Too bad that the US president wasn't big enough to extend an olive branch to the North Korean leader to diffuse tensions that ran high last year.
5
The ball in Trump's Court? That is a ridiculous thing to say. Idiotic. I would expect nothing less from the leftists on the NYT's editorial board. North Korea must dismantle their nukes. The Obama era of appeasement is over. Full stop. That is the deal. Those are the terms. North Korea has the ball and it is in their court.
6
Considering the past behavior of the North Korean regime, there will be no deal unless the U.S. is willing to settle for something less than denuclearization of North Korea. To imply that the inevitable failure to reach a deal will be the fault of the U.S., as the New York Times is doing, is both dishonest and horribly wrong.
Hold on, Bub. I had very little use for Obama. I can't stand Trump. But let's be honest. "Appeasement" for NK did not start under Obama. That can has been kicked down the road for a long, long, time. Nice attempt at revisionist history. Epic fail.
2
You keep demanding that they give up their nukes. NK is a sovereign country, you may have to wait a while.
Trump has no magic solution aside from starting a war that will devastate South Korea. He's bluffing, and Un is calling that bluff.
1
Until the end game is clear, don’t expect any negotiation as an actual attempt to form some sort of lasting peace. NK enjoys being on the front page. Look for demand such as ending the joint military exercises with the US and sanction changes before any meaningful steps can be taken related to nukes and missiles. (Trump will likely take some sort of credit for bringing NK to their “knees.” It will be naïve and won’t go well.)
In the past, NK was offered free—desperately needed---nuclear power plants in exchange for ending their weapons plans. It didn’t work then. This is just getting started.
20
That offer for "free" nuclear plants were reneged by the alliance. The US failed fund it in timely manner, project got delayed and eventually abandoned by South Korea and Japan as well. The lifting of sanctions was likewise reneged by the Republican congress. Wikipedia has detailed time line with comprehensive citations.
1
The delays were not the main factor in the breakdown. NK had uranium enrichment facilities that were not disclosed and considered a violation of the non proliferation treaty. It unraveled from there. The point is still that this will not be a simple process and headlines never come close to the backstory.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/dprk/fact-sheet-on-dprk-nuclear-sa...
1
So, the Tillerson "eviscerated" State Department, lacking experienced personnel, may not be up to the diplomatic task of taking advantage of this possibly historic opportunity at a denuclearized peace on the Korean Peninsula and around the world? This astonishing assessment would be hysterically funny, if the stakes were not so terribly high. Another tragic example of America devolving into a third-rate nation under this dysfunctional regime of our Fake President, populated by similarly inexperienced, unprepared incompetents.
12
Trump is repugnant. But we err in not considering whether this (and rapid defeat of ISIS and very few other developments) would have happened without. Is there something to learn? (Even if pure luck - which is dubious - we should applaud and remain open to the possibility of method in the madness).
2
“an opportunity that cannot be squandered” - handed to an administration that thrives on chaos.
Dear Lord!
6
"An opportunity ... handed to" Trump. This was no windfall. It was earned.
If Trump is smart he will withdraw from the Korean peninsula, and Asia entirely. Continuous meddling in world affairs only sets up America for further humiliation.
Humiliation? Continuous meddling has led to one of the world's greatest successes since WW2: an industrial powerhouse, a democracy -- and K-Pop.
1
Hopefully agreement will be reached after tough
negotiations. It would need to be formalized
by written treaty, thorough IAEA inspection
of North's nuclear arsenal, US recognition
and establishment of diplomatic relation and
demilitarization of the peninsula. Assurances, as
the experience shows, are not reliable. George Bush
stopped sunshine policy of SK's outreach to NK. Trump
has reversed the decisions of Obama. China has
probably played helpful role in persuading Kim to
stop his belligerency and offer talks. This has been
China's position all along. With patience and commitment
to peace on the peninsula the negotiations can be
successful.
I'm sure many people would consider the neutralization of an emotionally unstable, pathologically lying man with self-esteem issues and access to nuclear weapons as a positive step forward for the entire world.
And it appears Kim Jong-Un is one of them.
1
I seriously thought you meant Trump. Of the two, he is less stable, and much dumber.
Are you kidding me? Who is still buying the same line that the North Koreans have been peddling for the last 25 years, when they tricked President Clinton into supplying them with fossil fuels in exchange for "not developing a nuclear program." The only thing the North Koreans are interested in doing is buying time to beef up their nuclear arsenal even further. Does anyone think this time is any different? What is the definition of insanity?
9
It took almost three years but it finally happened:
A Times editorial NOT critical of Donald Trump.
3
It is not true that the 1994 deal collapsed because of North Korean cheating. It collapsed because North Korea decided that the US did not intend to fulfil its part of the deal, in particular installation of a Light Water Reactor (which was way behind the agreed upon timeline and in the event never happened) and a refusal of the US congress to lift the sanctions in place against North Korea or in any other way move towards the envisioned full normalisation is relations between the two countries.
Now maybe there is good reason to oppose full normalisation, in particular the extremely oppressive nature of the North Korean regime internally. But this does not alter the historical reality that the Agreed Framework collapsed largely due to the US dragging their feet on implementation.
Given prior history it's unlikely that anything substantive will come out of this. North Korea will want, at a minimum, the signing of a peace treaty (not a stretch), the lifting of all sanctions (more problematic by far), and the removal of all US military personnel from the peninsula (a non-starter). What I believe North Korea is really trying to do is to undermine the South Korean relationship with the United States and encourage them to start normalizing the relationship in exclusion of the United States. If this happens other countries would likely follow suit (and not just China and Russia). In essence North Korea would be trying to reduce the actual power the US can exert over Korean issues. Which is exactly what we've been doing to the DPRK.
If I am correct I believe that this would be difficult but far more possible than under a less chaotic State Dept. So this period is a possible window of opportunity for North Korea that will, in all likelihood, be closing in a few years.
19
And why won't and hasn't the U.S signed a Peace Treaty ending a war that started almost 70 years ago?
Is it asking too much that the U.S be the "Bigger Man" and by signing a Peace Treaty with North Korea going a long way to providing that country some security among the great insecurity it has harbored so strongly, it has literally developed a Nuclear Capability to provide it with the assurance that the U.S not signing a peace Treaty could have helped bring about.
No one remembers what state North Korea was in when the armistice was signed...but hardly a structure was left standing and 25% of its entire population had been bombed into nonexistence by an American Air Bombing campaign , so one sided and destructive that EVERY American Ally at the time complained bitterly at the U.N and in the Media of the Barbarity of America's air campaign against North Korea.
They want a Peace Treaty...Give it to them before anything else is done...it is long overdue and the right thing to do.
3
I have an idea. Since Tillerson has decimated the State Department and no one to negotiate for the U.S., why not contract out our negotiating to South Korea.
Might actually accomplish something.
1
So the hated Trump is outdoing the sainted Obama and Clinton, as well as the Bushes?
4
Trump hasn't done anything at all except to antagonize a leader who possesses nuclear weapons, and inflame tensions in Korea.
He is being played by NK, bigly.
My associates in South Korea, like many in that country, see this through quite a different perspective. First, it's hard for Americans to imagine, but Korea has a noble history of thousands of years, and a cultural identity that transcends the last five decades. Equally important, Korean families living in the North and South were only relatively recently divided, and the emotional desire to be reunited is very powerful. At the same time, the economic powerhouse of the South is deeply afraid of the consequences of a sudden lowering of the border: who would finance the abject poverty and deprivation of millions in the North?
They also understand that the North must have nuclear weapons, in order to have any bargaining position in the world, just as the South needs American military power to be taken seriously.
The North also understands with cold certainty that the US cannot be trusted, since it has a history of making and abandoning treaties with weak adversaries at will - from dealings with Native American tribes all the way down to Iran.
The greatest threat now to a negotiated rapprochement between the Koreans living on either side of the 38th parallel is further breathtakingly ignorant posturing from Mr. Trump, perpetually in search of ways to goose his ratings with his base.
3
Excellent post -- Thank you!
I am not hopeful - ham-fisted, bumbling, inept as this administration has been, how can there be hope? Look at his approach to NAFTA negotiations with long-time trading partners and 'friends' - rare is a day without Trump mucking things with an errant (inane) tweet or threat . . .
This sounds like it is right out of Trump's phony offer playbook but stranger things have happened.
Just like with our lunatic president, we will have to wait and see if Kooky Kim is serious or if it is just a distraction from his evil plans for world domination.
1
Let's hope against very tough odds that it leads to something good.
Me thinks that Trump made the inbound pass and his team caught it.
Let's hope he/they can bring the ball down court and put the ball through the hoop.
Won't be easy. But he is OTRT - On the Right Track.
BTW - note how the NYT seems not to acknowledge Trump moving the ball forward.
3
North Korea will insist on U S troops removal from South Korea. trump will never agree to that. End of story.
1
Just please keep trump away from any and all negotiations! If he wants to take the credit when peace is a done deal, fine, but if he gets his Twitter fingers going at Kim, there will be no talks! Contrary to what Richard says, any progress to be made will be due to the efforts of the South Korean president, not the dotard in the White House!
1
Editors, all America needs to do to get NK to denuclearize is to pay them huge amounts of money annually to feed and house their population, so they don't have to admit their economic system has failed. Oh, and there will be mandatory additional, separate annual payments from the US for NK to stop their cyber-attacks on US entities and to stop their export of missile and chemical weapons technologies to unstable middle east countries. America, if you think it works to pay blackmailers who are smugglers, think again! The US is being played, yet again, by folks who DO NOT follow any rules but force.
All this in a setting where NK cannot use its nuclear weapons anyway, without risking prompt vaporization. We'd do better helping our South Korean allies move their population and important industries further away from the border to minimize collateral damage.
High on the list of the Nobel Committee's considerations for the Peace prize should be South Korea's President Moon Jae-in. He broke the log jam, for the moment at least, with his flexible Olympic Games diplomacy and with his risk-taking follow-up by talking directly with his antagonistic counterpart from the DPRK. Until then, resolution was going nowhere.
Of course, today's news represents only a baby step. It remains to be seen how Kim Jong-un specifically interprets a regime security guarantee, or who would be the guarantors. China might be acceptable; Russia is not. Anything Russia touches turns lethally rotten, as most Syrians, Ukrainians, Georgians and former Soviet intelligence officers in the UK would attest.
70
Anything United States touches turns lethally rotten, as most Syrians, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenese, Libyans would attest.
3
@Larry: Yes, and also most Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Dominicans, Chileans, Argentines, Brazilians, Iranians, and Greeks.
1
"Peace prize should be South Korea's President Moon Jae-in"
In a fair world, it would be shared with that most despised man on our planet. We all know that nothing would have happened without Trump's threats.
And how do you know that this was not Trump's goal all along?
"NO it could not be because we NYT readers hate Trump! And someone whom we hate could not possibly achieve something good."
Oh well. One does not have to be blind. One only needs to keep one's eyes tightly closed.
1
Kim Jong-un will be looking for some kind of parity, denuclearization for demilitarization of South Korea. It should be interesting to see how it plays out. A pull-back of U.S. forces in Korea would benefit both China and Russia. Maybe that's their strategy. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by comprehensive draw-down of force.
I’m reluctant to see the loathsome Donald Trump score a victory, but I’m hopeful for peace.
14
As much as I favor dialog over threats that bring us too close to the brink of war...
North Korea ran several tests, proved what they wanted to do in terms of capabilities, and made their intended demonstrations upon the international stage. Of course they're willing to talk now. The situation is very tricky and requires a deft touch. I hope that the powers outside of North Korea (South Korea, US, Europe, etc.) can handle things well. Unfortunately, there has not been much evidence of such ability recently.
You know what would be interesting … and worthy? Occasional, unambiguous, non-waffling credit where credit is due.
I did it all the time here with Barack Obama for the entirety of his tenure, and even occasionally speculated about the good that might come about if a policy of his I agreed with could actually be enacted (it VERY rarely was). But we seem to have invented a rule since Noon, 20 January 2017 – nothing good that ever happens can possibly be attributable to Donald Trump.
Of COURSE it was the “charm offensive” of South Korea at the Olympics that appears to have broken the North Korean ice. It couldn’t possibly have been Trump’s brinkmanship and efforts to slowly strangle North Korean imports that did the trick. Trump made it crystal clear (hardly a “shifting message”) that he had no interest in negotiating with Kim Jong-un until the dismantling of his nuclear weapons program was on the table. Kim undoubtedly expected Trump to fold and become conciliatory, as ALL other U.S. presidents had in the past. This would allow massive infusions of aid in return for yet another lie and a nuclear program advanced a few MORE years.
It’s just as likely that the North Koreans will attempt another bait-and-switch this time, as well. But I would be astonished if Trump fell for it.
Mr. President, you’re unlikely to hear it here officially, but from the well of the New York Times commentariat (from at least ONE commenter) … well done.
12
Let's see deeds, not just more propaganda. NK has been playing US presidents since Clinton, and Trump will be no different, now that Russia and China have Trump by the -----. They are masters at this.
2
Nothing has happened yet Richard. Don't get too excited. So far South Korea has announced North Korea's willingness to negotiate. Nothing from North Korea and very premature to even guess what Trump will do. Remember Trump's negotiating skills include name calling and .... name calling.
7
But we seem to have invented a rule since Richard began commenting – no mistake can possibly be attributable to him.
10
But what will the North Korean terms be? Recognition, a peace treaty, acknowledgement that the Kim's are the legitimate rulers, lifting all sanctions, abandoning any human rights concerns?
I expect that they will be hard bargainers and that we will probably be outclassed, as usual.
10
Their terms are that we send Jared.
Credit to Mr Moon and Mr Kim and the millions of Koreans who have urged, marched and rallied for, and demanded an end to 7 decades of domestic and international (U.S.) hostility. Now, friends of peace must be vigilant to insure that U.S. officials do not undermine the possibility for a historic resolution to the world's longest war.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and meteoric rise of China, South Korea has become a critical strategic asset in U.S. efforts to contain China's regional influence. North Korea's nuclear capability has served as a convenient rationale for maintaining an enormous U.S. military footprint in the South, a key link in a U.S.-led, Asia Pacific cordon to moderate China's influence. Should negotiations with North Korea prove promising, U.S. hegemons will have every reason to undermine the talks.
It is unfortunate that this editorial is quick to blame failure of the 1994 Agreed Framework on the North. Even government insiders now acknowledge the U.S. had no intention to fulfill its commitments - light water reactors, serious steps toward normalization, expecting instead the imminent collapse of the North's government.
Hence, we must be extremely vigilant lest U.S. advocates of global hegemony seek to discredit the negotiations. Beware of blame cast on North Korea should talks falter mindful that U.S. strategic and economic interests are served by a demonized North Korea.
23
NK ruthlessly violates the 1994 deal every day. They are liars.
Partly true - but why leave out the part about the fact that the North Korean regime is a criminal enterprise that is even more institutionally compromised and thus even less trustworthy?
US global hegemony was an immutable, unpleasant fact of life that I grew up with - but IMHO better the US deep state and their 1% masters than the Chinese Communist Party that is threatening to replace them. Do you think that you are going to eke out a better lifestyle under the likes of dictator-for-life Xi and his Politburo pit bulls?
GRL's comment is not altogether realistic. Moreover, it overlooks any number of inconvenient facts. Our allies and territories in the region would suffer badly should the United States leave the Korean Peninsula. China and Russia want very much to push the United States off of the Korean Peninsula. That desire has always made China less than an effective partner vis-a-vis North Korea. We must not forget that millions of Chinese soldiers fought against the United States in the Korean War. China has already made it clear that it wants complete control of a significant piece of the Pacific. Without a United States counterbalance, North Korea will almost certainly blackmail South Korea with threats of military force or invasion. And China would almost certainly eventually come to do the same for the entire region, under their new dictator-for-life.
March 6, 2018
Would be interesting to read the South Korean editorial thinking on this event by Kim Jong-un. Let's assume both South Korea and the United States offer encouragement to this diplomatic event and with plans for moving the meetings plans forward to as well have news coverage to the world, as this import is utmost to global peace and leadership for history's triumph.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
There is no guarantee that North Korea will not use its nuclear weapons once the US has departed SK. Just like there was no guarantee that NK would not invade SK back in 1950. Back then, SK and the world assumed that NK was a rational state governed by rational actors who had no intent of military invasion. The only thing that's changed now is: NK now has weapons of mass destruction.
If Seoul is obliterated in a nuclear blast after US withdrawal of military forces, the world will do what, exactly? SK will be overrun and the Korean peninsula will once more be unified.
2
No, if the North was ever foolish enough to invade the South, they would be finished in one day. Everyone knows that. That's why it will never happen.
1
That's crazy talk. If Trump is so incompetent he blunders us into war, in one day Un won't even finish utterly destroying Seoul. One warhead for each U.S. base will probably be sufficient.
We'll be lucky if Trump doesn't turn that conflagration into a South Pacific nuclear war.
1
Let's hope Trump can find real, experienced and knowledgeable diplomats to be our negotiators. With Victor Cha and Jun sadly out of the picture now, he will have to search for those who can handle the pressure. There are still many good people out there, including those at International Institute for Strategic Studies. Some excellent former US diplomats there, with negotiating skill and a great deal of historical knowledge.
10
Would someone please shut the lights out in the U.S. State Department ?
Kamsa Hamnida.
26
The question is not what the US will do, but what South Korea will do. If they were to commence a crash program to arm themselves with state-of-the-art nuclear weapons, then they would have some chips to put on the table and a hand worth playing. Without that they will be seen as wimps and chumps. Oh, they have both the ability and the means. The question is whether they will face up to the reality of need and spend what it takes. Uncle Sucker will not be there forever to do things for them at US taxpayer expense and at great risk to our own safety. Time to grow up!
2
The US has a presence because it benefits the US. If we have no presence then who is left at the table? China and Russia. Although with Trump's ties to Russia and Trump's recent praise of Xi Jingping's lifetime tenure maybe Russia and China are already the only ones left at the table.
Yes, we need to arm every country in the world with nukes. That's "grown up" all right.
The U.S. should let South Korea take the lead on negotiations. They have the most to lose, and may deserve credit for getting to this point.
The problem is President Trump likes to move to center stage by changing directions and sowing confusion.
I'm not as optimistic that the "sustained diplomacy, toughness, patience" this editorial calls for is possible. But I'll give the Trump administration the benefit of doubt and hope South Korea can keep things on track.
37
If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.
If some Democrat forced the North's hand then it would be a brilliant move, but it's a Republican so it is for the good graces of the South we are able to go forward! How simple and bigoted an article!
4
This page declares itself as an Opinion, right at the top, which is clearly very different from propaganda since it makes no pretense of being a news report. I hope you understand that difference, and choose your news sources accordingly.
4
We bought Alaska from Russia, but I dare say Trump would hand it back to Putin if he really had to.
2